After the end of World War II, it took Britain almost a decade to finally abolish rationing for everyday goods.
While the war may be almost 80 years in the past, nearly 40 per cent of the public would now welcome back the ration book to help fight climate change.
Researchers from Uppsala University, Sweden, surveyed almost 9,000 participants from India, Brazil, Germany, and the US.
Their responses revealed that rationing for fuel and ’emissions-intensive’ products such as meat is nearly as widely accepted as raising taxes.
Lead author Oskar Lindgren, a PhD student at Uppsala University, says: ‘Rationing may seem dramatic, but so is climate change. This may explain why support is rather high.’
Almost 40 per cent of people would accept a return to WWII-style rationing for fuel and meat in order to combat climate change, according to a new study. Pictured: a Ministry of Food ration book from the final years of rationing
A survey of nearly 9,000 people from five continents found that support for rationing was broadly similar to support for higher taxes on fuel and meat
If the world is to hit the climate change targets laid out in the Paris Agreement, governments worldwide will need to take measures to reduce the consumption of carbon-intensive products like fossil fuels.
Currently, most governments and researchers focus on ‘economic instruments’ like taxing polluting products and subsidising greener alternatives.
However, scientists believe that a fairer alternative might be to limit how much of these goods can be bought.
Mr Lindgren says: ‘One advantage of rationing is that it can be perceived as fair, if made independent of income.’
Just like in WWII, rationing ensures that everyone gets an equal share of limited resources – regardless of how well-off they are.
As this graph shows, the researchers found that gender and income only had a small effect on whether people supported the policy. The biggest factors included how concerned people were for the environment and whether they drove a car daily
In total, 8,654 individuals from five continents were interviewed to compare the acceptability of rationing against the acceptability of taxation.
Each participant was asked to rate policies on a scale from one to five with one being strongly against and five being strongly in favour.
Overall, 38 per cent of respondents said they would accept monthly limits on fuel purchasing compared with 39 per cent who said they would accept greater fuel taxes.
Likewise, 33 per cent of people said they would support monthly limits on meat purchases compared with 44 per cent who said they would back a greater tax on high climate-impact foods.
Around the world, some forms of rationing are widely used to mitigate or limit the impacts of climate change.
Support for meat rationing was lower in the US and Germany than in South Africa and India where the measure received broad support (stock image)
The researchers point out that in some Chinese cities, driving is rationed by allowing drivers to use the roads only on given days as part of a scheme to reduce pollution.
Likewise, fishing quotas ration the amount of fish which can be caught by fleets in protected areas of the ocean.
Even in the UK, hosepipe bans during droughts are a commonly used form of water rationing which helps mitigate the impacts of increasingly frequent and severe heatwaves.
However, the researchers had not anticipated that wider rationing for food and fuel would receive comparable support to increased taxes.
Co-author Dr Mikael Karlsson, also of Uppsala University, says: ‘Most surprisingly, there is hardly any difference in acceptability between rationing and taxation of fossil fuels.’
The researchers point out that in some Chinese cities such as Beijing (pictured) fuel use already is indirectly rationed by preventing people from driving on specific days. This is intended to help reduce air pollution within the city.
In the US, women were significantly more likely to support rationing for fuel while people who expressed concern for the environment were the most likely of all to support any form of rationing
The proportion of people who supported or opposed taxation and rationing varied between countries, with lower and middle-income countries generally being more supportive of rationing.
Of the South African participants, 49 per cent were accepting of some form of rationing while 46 per cent of Indian participants would.
Meanwhile, support for rationing was only at 29 per cent in both the US and Germany.
Likewise, people were more likely to support rationing if they were more concerned about environmental issues.
However, the researchers also found that taxation for fuel and food could be an even more unpopular alternative.
Dr Karlsson says: ‘In Germany, the proportion of people who strongly oppose fossil fuel taxes is actually higher than the proportion who strongly oppose fossil fuel rationing.’
In the US, 28 per cent of people also said they were strongly opposed to either meat or fuel rationing as a means of combatting climate change.
Despite some opposition, the researchers insist that rationing could be a viable alternative to increasing taxes.
Mr Lindgren added: ‘More research is now needed on attitudes towards rationing and the design of such policy instruments.
‘Many people seem willing to limit their consumption for climate mitigation purposes, as long as others do the same. These are encouraging findings.’
