Why do some countries pass laws to reduce emissions that cause climate change while others do not? We theorize that climate change-related disasters cause politicians to view global warming as more proximate, but whether they have incentives to enact mitigation laws depends on their country’s geographic vulnerability to future damages. We use a spatial integrated assessment model to measure global warming’s local economic effects, which allows us to predict how political leaders respond to disasters based on their vulnerability. An analysis of mitigation laws from 1990–2020 in 155 countries shows that only governments in locations facing the greatest future climate damage react to disasters by passing mitigation policies. Distinct from the historical North-South divide, our findings highlight a growing geographic cleavage in national responses to climate change.
AdgerW. N.DessaiS.GouldenM.HulmeM.LorenzoniI.NelsonD. R.NaessL. O.WolfJ.WrefordA. (2009). Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change?Climatic Change, 93(3-4), 335–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9520-z
2.
AklinM.MildenbergerM. (2020). Prisoners of the wrong dilemma: Why distributive conflict, not collective action, characterizes the politics of climate change. Global Environmental Politics, 20(4), 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00578
AndonovaL.MansfieldE. D.MilnerH. V. (2007). International trade and environmental policy in the postcommunist world. Comparative Political Studies, 40(7), 782–807. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414006293215
6.
AndonovaL. B.SunY. (2019). Private governance in developing countries: Drivers of voluntary carbon offset programs. Global Environmental Politics, 19(1), 99–122. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00496
7.
AriasS.BlairC. (2024). In the eye of the storm: Hurricanes, climate migration, and climate attitudes. American Political Science Review.
8.
ArnoldR. D. (1990). The logic of congressional action. Yale University Press.
BacciniL.LeemannL. (2021). Do natural disasters help the environment? How voters respond and what that means. Political Science Research and Methods, 9(3), 468–484. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2020.25
11.
BailerS.WeilerF. (2015). A political economy of positions in climate change negotiations: Economic, structural, domestic, and strategic explanations. The Review of International Organizations, 10(1), 43–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-014-9198-0
12.
BalcazarC. F.KennardA. (2023). Climate change and political mobilization: Theory and evidence from India.
13.
BarrettS. (2003). Environment and statecraft: The strategy of environmental treaty-making. Oxford University Press.
14.
BättigM.BernauerT. (2009). National institutions and global public goods: Are democracies more cooperative in climate change policy?International Organization, 63(2), 281–308. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818309090092
15.
BechtelM.HainmuellerJ. (2011). How lasting is voter gratitude? An analysis of the short- and long-term electoral returns to beneficial policy. American Journal of Political Science, 55(4), 852–868. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00533.x
16.
BechtelM.ManninoM. (2022). Retrospection, fairness, and economic shocks: How do voters judge policy responses to natural disasters?Political Science Research and Methods, 10(2), 260–278. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2020.39
17.
BechtelM.ManninoM. (2023). Ready when the big one comes? Natural disasters and mass support for preparedness investment. Political Behavior, 45(3), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09738-2
18.
BechtelM.ScheveK. (2013). Mass support for global climate agreements depends on institutional design. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(34), 13763–13768. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1306374110
19.
BechtelM. M.ScheveK. F.van LieshoutE. (2020). Constant carbon pricing increases support for climate action compared to ramping up costs over time. Nature Climate Change, 10(11), 1004–1009. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00914-6
20.
BenegalS.AzevedoF.HolmanM. (2022). Race, ethnicity, and support for climate policy. Environmental Research Letters, 17(11), 114060. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aca0ac
21.
BinderS.NeumayerE. (2005). Environmental pressure group strength and air pollution: An empirical analysis. Ecological Economics, 55(4), 527–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.12.009
22.
BirkmannJ.BuckleP.JaegerJ.PellingM.SetiadiN.GarschagenM.FernandoN.KroppJ. (2010). Extreme events and disasters: A window of opportunity for change? Analysis of organizational, institutional and political changes, formal and informal responses after mega-disasters. Natural Hazards, 55(3), 637–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-008-9319-2
23.
BöhlerH.HanegraaffM.SchulzeK. (2022). Does climate advocacy matter? The importance of competing interest groups for national climate policies. Climate Policy, 22(8), 961–975. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2022.2036089
24.
BoudetH.GiordonoL.ZanoccoC.SateinH.WhitleyH. (2020). Event attribution and partisanship shape local discussion of climate change after extreme weather. Nature Climate Change, 10(1), 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0641-3
25.
Bueno de MesquitaB.SmithA.MorrowJ. D.SiversonR. M. (2005). The logic of political survival. MIT Press.
26.
BurkeM.DavisM.DiffenbaughN. (2018). Large potential reduction in economic damages under UN mitigation targets. Nature, 557(7706), 549–553. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0071-9
27.
BurkeM.HsiangS.MiguelE. (2015). Global non-linear effect of temperature on economic production. Nature, 527(7577), 235–239. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15725
28.
BushS.ClaytonA. (2023). Facing change: Gender and climate change attitudes worldwide. American Political Science Review, 117(2), 591–608. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055422000752
29.
CallahanC.MankinJ. (2022). Globally unequal effect of extreme heat on economic growth. Science Advances, 8(43), eadd3726. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.add3726
30.
CaoX.MilnerH. V.PrakashA.WardH. (2014). Research frontiers in comparative and international environmental politics: An introduction. Comparative Political Studies, 47(3), 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414013509567
31.
CarletonT.JinaA.DelgadoM.GreenstoneM.HouserT.HsiangS.HultgrenA.KoppR.McCuskerK.NathI.RisingJ.RodeA.SeoH. K.ViaeneA.YuanJ.ZhangA. T. (2022). Valuing the global mortality consequences of climate change accounting for adaptation costs and benefits. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 137(4), 2037–2105. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjac020
CheonA.UrpelainenJ. (2013). How do competing interest groups influence environmental policy? The case of renewable electricity in industrialized democracies, 1989–2007. Political Studies, 61(4), 874–897. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12006
34.
CinelliC.HazlettC. (2020). Making sense of sensitivity: Extending omitted variable bias. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 82(1), 39–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssb.12348
35.
ClarkR.ZuckerN. (2023). Climate cascades: IOs and the prioritization of climate action. American Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12793
36.
ColantoneI.Di LonardoL.MargalitY.PercocoM. (2024). The political consequences of green policies: Evidence from Italy. American Political Science Review, 118(1), 108–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055423000308
37.
ColganJ.GreenJ.HaleT. (2021). Asset revaluation and the existential politics of climate change. International Organization, 75(2), 586–610. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818320000296
38.
ConteB.DesmetK.NagyD. K.Rossi-HansbergE. (2021). Local sectoral specialization in a warming world. Journal of Economic Geography, 21(4), 493–530. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbab008
39.
CruzJ.-L.Rossi-HansbergE. (2024). The economic geography of global warming. The Review of Economic Studies, 91(2), 899–939. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdad042
DellM.JonesB. F.OlkenB. A. (2012). Temperature shocks and economic growth: Evidence from the last half century. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 4(3), 66–95. https://doi.org/10.1257/mac.4.3.66
ElliottR. J. R.Nguyen-TienV.StroblE. A.TveitT. (2023). Climate-related natural disasters and voting behavior: Evidence from environmental legislation in the US senate. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 10(3), 753–786. https://doi.org/10.1086/722540
47.
EskanderS.FankhauserS. (2020). Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from national climate legislation. Nature Climate Change, 10(8), 750–756. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0831-z
48.
EskanderS.FankhauserS.SetzerJ. (2021). Global lessons from climate change legislation and litigation. Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy, 2(1), 44–82. https://doi.org/10.1086/711306
49.
FankhauserS.GennaioliC.CollinsM. (2015). The political economy of passing climate change legislation: Evidence from a survey. Global Environmental Change, 35, 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.08.008
50.
FankhauserS.GennaioliC.CollinsM. (2016). Do international factors influence the passage of climate change legislation?Climate Policy, 16(3), 318–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2014.1000814
51.
FinneganJ. (2022b). Institutions, climate change, and the foundations of long-term policymaking. Comparative Political Studies, 55(7), 1198–1235. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140211047416
52.
FinneganJ. (2023). Changing prices in a changing climate: Electoral competition and fossil fuel taxation. Comparative Political Studies, 56(8), 1257–1290. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140221141853
53.
FiorinaM. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. Yale University Press.
GaikwadN.GenoveseF.TingleyD. (2022). Creating climate coalitions: Mass preferences for compensating vulnerability in the world’s two largest democracies. American Political Science Review, 116(4), 1165–1183. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055422000223
58.
GailmardS.PattyJ. (2019). Preventing prevention. American Journal of Political Science, 63(2), 342–352. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12411
59.
GarsideS.ZhaiH. (2022). If not now, when? Climate disaster and the green vote following the 2021 Germany floods. Research & Politics, 9(4), 205316802211415. https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680221141523
60.
GazmararianA. F. (2024a). Sources of partisan change: Evidence from the shale gas shock in American coal country. The Journal of Politics, Forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1086/732949
61.
GazmararianA. F. (2024b). Valuing the future: Changing time horizons and policy preferences. Political Behavior, Forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-024-09965-3
62.
GazmararianA. F.KrashinskyL. (2023). Driving labor apart: Climate policy backlash in the American auto corridor. SSRN Working Paper. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4633502
63.
GazmararianA. F.MilnerH. V. (2023a). Firm lobbying under uncertainty: Evidence from establishment exposure to global warming. Working paper.
64.
GazmararianA. F.MilnerH. V. (2023b). Personal experience and self-interest: Diverging responses to global warming. OSF pre-print. https://osf.io/preprints/osf/g4js9
65.
GazmararianA. F.MilnerH. V. (2024). Replication data for political cleavages and changing exposure to global warming. Technical report. Harvard Dataverse.
66.
GazmararianA. F.TingleyD. (2023). Uncertain futures: How to unlock the climate impasse. Cambridge University Press.
67.
GenoveseF. (2019). Sectors, pollution, and trade: How industrial interests shape domestic positions on global climate agreements. International Studies Quarterly, 63(4), 819–836. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqz062
68.
GenoveseF. (2020). Weak states at global climate negotiations. Elements. Cambridge University Press.
69.
GygliS.HaelgF.PotrafkeN.SturmJ.-E. (2019). The KOF globalisation index – revisited. The Review of International Organizations, 14(3), 543–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-019-09344-2
70.
HaiZ.PerlmanR. (2022). Extreme weather events and the politics of climate change attribution. Science Advances, 8(36), eabo2190. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abo2190
71.
HainmuellerJ.MummoloJ.XuY. (2019). How much should we trust estimates from multiplicative interaction models? Simple tools to improve empirical practice. Political Analysis, 27(2), 163–192. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2018.46
72.
HarrisonK.SundstromL. (2007). The comparative politics of climate change. Global Environmental Politics, 7(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep.2007.7.4.1
73.
HarrisonK.SundstromL. (2010). Introduction: Global commons, domestic decisions. In HarrisonK.SundstromL. (Eds.), Global commons, domestic decisions (pp. 1–22). MIT Press.
74.
HazlettC.MildenbergerM. (2020). Wildfire exposure increases pro-environment voting within democratic but not republican areas. American Political Science Review, 114(4), 1359–1365. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055420000441
HerreB. (2023). Identifying ideologues: A global dataset on political leaders, 1945–2020. British Journal of Political Science, 53(2), 740–748. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123422000217
77.
HerrnstadtE.MuehleggerE. (2014). Weather, salience of climate change and congressional voting. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 68(3), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2014.08.002
78.
HilbigH.RiazS. (2024). Natural disasters and green party support. The Journal of Politics, 86(1), 241–256, https://doi.org/10.1086/726917
79.
HoffmannR.MuttarakR.PeiskerJ.StanigP. (2022). Climate change experiences raise environmental concerns and promote Green voting. Nature Climate Change, 12(2), 148–155. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01263-8
80.
HoweP.MarlonJ.MildenbergerM.ShieldB. (2019). How will climate change shape climate opinion?Environmental Research Letters, 14(11), 113001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab466a
81.
HsiangS.KoppR.JinaA.RisingJ.DelgadoM.MohanS.RasmussenD. J.Muir-WoodR.WilsonP.OppenheimerM.LarsenK.HouserT. (2017). Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States. Science, 356(6345), 1362–1369. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal4369
82.
HughesL.UrpelainenJ. (2015). Interests, institutions, and climate policy: Explaining the choice of policy instruments for the energy sector. Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.06.014
IPCC. (2022). Summary for policymakers. Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. Cambridge University Press.
85.
IPCC. (2023). Climate change 2022 – impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: Working group II contribution to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press.
KelemenR. D.VogelD. (2010). Trading places: The role of the United States and the European union in international environmental politics. Comparative Political Studies, 43(4), 427–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414009355265
90.
KennardA. (2020). The enemy of my enemy: When firms support climate change regulation. International Organization, 74(2), 187–221. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818320000107
91.
KennardA. (2021). My Brother’s Keeper: Other-regarding preferences and concern for global climate change. Review of International Organizations, 16(2), 345–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-019-09374-w
92.
KennardA.SchnakenbergK. (2023). Global climate policy and collective action: A comment. Global Environmental Politics, 23(1), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_c_00699
93.
KeohaneR.VictorD. (2016). Cooperation and discord in global climate policy. Nature Climate Change, 6(6), 570–575. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2937
94.
KeyV. O. (1961). Public opinion and American democracy. Alfred Knopf.
95.
KimS. Y.Wolinsky-NahmiasY. (2014). Cross-national public opinion on climate change: The effects of affluence and vulnerability. Global Environmental Politics, 14(1), 79–106. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00215
KonoD. (2020). Compensating for the climate: Unemployment insurance and climate change votes. Political Studies, 68(1), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719836066
KrasnerS. (1985). Structural conflict: The third world against global liberalism. University of California Press.
100.
KvaløyB.FinseraasH.ListhaugO. (2012). The publics’ concern for global warming: A cross-national study of 47 countries. Journal of Peace Research, 49(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343311425841
101.
LiaoY.Ruiz JuncoP. (2022). Extreme weather and the politics of climate change: A study of campaign finance and elections. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 111, 102550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2021.102550
102.
LiebermanE.RossM. U. o. C. (2024). Government responses to climate change. World politics. Johns Hopkins University Press.
103.
LiuL.WangY.XuY. (2024). A practical guide to counterfactual estimators for causal inference with time-series cross-sectional data. American Journal of Political Science, 68(1), 160–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12723
104.
MaddenN. J. (2014). Green means stop: Veto players and their impact on climate-change policy outputs. Environmental Politics, 23(4), 570–589. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2014.884301
105.
MaggiG.StaigerR. (2022). International climate agreements and the scream of Greta. Technical Report 30681, NBER. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4282530
106.
MarxS.WeberE.OrloveB.LeiserowitzA.KrantzD.RoncoliC.PhillipsJ. (2007). Communication and mental processes: Experiential and analytic processing of uncertain climate information. Global Environmental Change, 17(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.10.004
107.
MecklingJ. (2011). Carbon coalitions: Business, climate politics, and the rise of emissions trading. MIT Press.
108.
MecklingJ.LipscyP. Y.FinneganJ. J.MetzF. (2022). Why nations lead or lag in energy transitions. Science, 378(6615), 31–33. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adc9973
109.
MecklingJ.NahmJ. (2022). Strategic state capacity: How states counter opposition to climate policy. Comparative Political Studies, 55(3), 493–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140211024308
MildenbergerM. (2020). Carbon captured: How business and labor control climate politics. MIT Press.
112.
NachmanyM.FankhauserS.SetzerJ.AverchenkovaA. (2017). Global trends in climate change legislation and litigation. Grantham Research Institute. Technical report.
113.
OliverJ. (2019). Here’s a truth few dare to utter: Canada will benefit from climate change. Financial post.
114.
OstromE. (2009). A polycentric approach for coping with climate change. The World Bank.
115.
PatersonM.GrubbM. (1992). The international politics of climate change. International Affairs, 68(2), 293–310. https://doi.org/10.2307/2623216
116.
Quiroz FloresA.SmithA. (2013). Leader survival and natural disasters. British Journal of Political Science, 43(4), 821–843. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123412000609
117.
RobertsJ. T.ParksB. (2007). A climate of injustice: Global inequality, North-South politics, and climate policy. MIT Press.
118.
Robiou du PontY.MeinshausenM. (2018). Warming assessment of the bottom-up Paris Agreement emissions pledges. Nature Communications, 9(1), 4810. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07223-9
119.
RodeA.CarletonT.DelgadoM.GreenstoneM.HouserT.HsiangS.HultgrenA.JinaA.KoppR. E.McCuskerK. E.NathI.RisingJ.YuanJ. (2021). Estimating a social cost of carbon for global energy consumption. Nature, 598(7880), 308–314. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03883-8
120.
RowanS. (2021). Does institutional proliferation undermine cooperation? Theory and evidence from climate change. International Studies Quarterly, 65(2), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaa092
SchafferL. M.OehlB.BernauerT. (2022). Are policymakers responsive to public demand in climate politics?Journal of Public Policy, 42(1), 136–164. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0143814x21000088
123.
SchulzeK. (2021). Policy characteristics, electoral cycles, and the partisan politics of climate change. Global Environmental Politics, 21(2), 44–72. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00593
124.
SfornaG. (2019). Climate change and developing countries: From background actors to protagonists of climate negotiations. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 19(3), 273–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-019-09435-w
125.
ShaoE. (2022). A core question at COP27: Who will pay for climate change?New York Times.
126.
SpenceA.PoortingaW.ButlerC.PidgeonN. F. (2011). Perceptions of climate change and willingness to save energy related to flood experience. Nature Climate Change, 1(1), 46–49. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1059
127.
SprinzD.VaahtorantaT. (1994). The interest-based explanation of international environmental policy. International Organization, 48(1), 77–105. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818300000825
128.
SteinebachY.Fernández-i MarínX.AschenbrennerC. (2021). Who puts a price on carbon, why and how? A global empirical analysis of carbon pricing policies. Climate Policy, 21(3), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1824890
129.
StokesL. (2016). Electoral backlash against climate policy: A natural experiment on retrospective voting and local resistance to public policy. American Journal of Political Science, 60(4), 958–974. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12220
130.
StokesL. (2020). Short circuiting policy: Interest groups and the battle over clean energy and climate policy in the American states. Oxford University Press.
131.
StokesL.WarshawC. (2017). Renewable energy policy design and framing influence public support in the United States. Nature Energy, 2(8), 17107. https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2017.107
TørstadV.SælenH.BøyumL. S. (2020). The domestic politics of international climate commitments: Which factors explain cross-country variation in NDC ambition?Environmental Research Letters, 15(2), 024021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab63e0
134.
TownshendT.FankhauserS.AybarR.CollinsM.LandesmanT.NachmanyM.PaveseC. (2013). How national legislation can help to solve climate change. Nature Climate Change, 3(5), 430–432. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1894
135.
TubiA.FischhendlerI.FeitelsonE. (2012). The effect of vulnerability on climate change mitigation policies. Global Environmental Change, 22(2), 472–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.02.004
136.
VictorD. (2011). Global warming gridlock. Cambridge University Press.
137.
VihmaA. (2011). India and the global climate governance: Between principles and pragmatism. The Journal of Environment & Development, 20(1), 69–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496510394325
138.
WardH.CaoX. (2012). Domestic and international influences on green taxation. Comparative Political Studies, 45(9), 1075–1103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414011434007
139.
WeberE. (2006). Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: Why global warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic Change, 77(1-2), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9060-3
140.
ZimmerA.JakobM.SteckelJ. C. (2015). What motivates Vietnam to strive for a low-carbon economy?Energy for Sustainable Development, 24, 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2014.10.003
141.
ZuckerN. (2024). Identity, industry, and perceptions of climate futures. Journal of Politics, Forthcoming.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
