Scholarlink

<p>The 1.5&#xa0;°C global temperature increase target necessitates the transition to net zero emission in various sectors to mitigate the potential threat of global climate change. Net zero may be achieved through diverse means, but stakeholders tend to favor direct emission cuts over offsetting through carbon credit purchases. However, it is unclear what motivates such preferences. Three experiments (<i>N</i> = 2,215), including one pre-registered, were conducted to unpack public moral evaluations of carbon emission reduction and offsetting. While offsetting gives companies moral credit and credentials, it is seen as hypocritical even when net zero or negative emission was achieved. However, mixing offsetting with reduction alleviates the hypocrisy perception. Such moral evaluations subsequently lead to different attitudinal and behavioral responses among key stakeholders. Our findings highlight that emission offsetting cannot substitute reduction and call for more transparent climate communication.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Carbon credit does not buy moral credit: moral licensing and perceived hypocrisy of carbon emission offsetting and reduction

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年3月6日

查看全文
  • Haoran Chu,
  • Shupei Yuan

摘要

The 1.5 °C global temperature increase target necessitates the transition to net zero emission in various sectors to mitigate the potential threat of global climate change. Net zero may be achieved through diverse means, but stakeholders tend to favor direct emission cuts over offsetting through carbon credit purchases. However, it is unclear what motivates such preferences. Three experiments (N = 2,215), including one pre-registered, were conducted to unpack public moral evaluations of carbon emission reduction and offsetting. While offsetting gives companies moral credit and credentials, it is seen as hypocritical even when net zero or negative emission was achieved. However, mixing offsetting with reduction alleviates the hypocrisy perception. Such moral evaluations subsequently lead to different attitudinal and behavioral responses among key stakeholders. Our findings highlight that emission offsetting cannot substitute reduction and call for more transparent climate communication.