A recent study reveals growing public support in the United States for policies tackling the intertwined challenges of ecological degradation and social inequality. Conducted by researchers at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and the London School of Economics, the study assessed opinions on four innovative proposals: cutting working hours to as few as 28 per week, scaling back fossil fuel production, providing universal basic services, and curbing advertising for high-emission products.
The research also examined the relationship between individual behaviors that reduce consumption—like plant-based diets, avoiding air travel, and using sustainable transport—and support for these policies. It further explored whether framing these proposals within broader societal transformation narratives, such as degrowth, influenced public attitudes.
Clear support
The findings were striking. On average, participants favored eco-social policies over current approaches. Measures like capping fossil fuel extraction and introducing universal health care received particularly strong support. Notably, people actively engaged in sustainable behaviors were more inclined to back ecological policies like fossil fuel restrictions, while support for socially oriented measures, such as shorter working hours, was less consistent.
Support for these policies varied by demographic. Those with higher education, full-time employment, and higher incomes tended to show stronger endorsement, particularly when the proposals were framed within eco-socialist or post-growth perspectives. Surprisingly, such framing often increased support, as seen with universal health care.
Despite mounting calls from scientists and civil society to phase out fossil fuels, policymakers have largely ignored these appeals, favoring “green growth” strategies instead. The study suggests, however, that voters are open to policies that reduce fossil fuel dependence while enhancing quality of life, such as universal health care and reduced working hours. These measures align with eco-social goals, emphasizing well-being over economic growth.
Making the transition
The authors argue that transition plans for polluting industries could attract widespread approval. “Eco-social policies can safeguard workers and support them in transitioning to jobs that benefit both society and the planet,” they note. However, they caution against overemphasizing individual consumption reduction, particularly for those with fewer resources, as this could undermine support for broader social measures.
While the study highlights opportunities for an inclusive socio-economic transition, its findings may seem at odds with the 2024 election outcome, which saw Donald Trump return to power. The authors suggest that timing and political context played a role. Conducted in September 2022, the polls took place during a less politically charged period, allowing respondents to evaluate policies more objectively.
Neither major party’s campaign prioritized specific policy proposals. Trump leaned on ideological themes like immigration, while Kamala Harris focused on opposing Trump, offering few concrete alternatives. As a result, voters likely made choices based on candidates’ personalities rather than their policy agendas.
A growing disconnect
This disconnect was especially evident among young voters. Trump garnered nearly 50% of the 18–29 age group—up from 30% in 2020—despite their concerns about climate change, health care, and student debt aligning more closely with eco-social policies than with his platform.
The researchers conclude that public opinion favors policies improving well-being and reducing inequality, even if electoral outcomes do not reflect these preferences. Their findings point to a need for better communication and mobilization strategies to build support for an eco-social agenda that benefits all.
