Natalie Lee (ASE, UvA) - "Determinants of public opinion on meat tax in California"*

Excessive meat consumption in developed economies such as the US generates substantial negative externalities for human health, the environment, and animal welfare. A Pigouvian meat tax could reduce consumption, but political feasibility is uncertain, largely due to concerns about regressivity and purchasing power. We study support for a meat-tax-and-dividend policy through a survey experiment with a Californian sample (N=3,299). By randomly providing information on tax incidence, effectiveness, and progressivity, we test how such information shapes beliefs and policy support. Additional treatments explore non-economic factors specific to meat and US contexts, including freedom of choice and identity. Consistent with prior work, we find minority support (30%). Aversion to government overreach is the strongest predictor and most frequently cited reason for opposition. Beliefs about tax incidence are highly pessimistic and strongly predict support, yet incidence information has little effect on beliefs and no effect on support. By contrast, progressivity information shifts beliefs and raises support by 4pp. Identity and cultural priming reduce support by 5pp, whereas freedom-preserving framing of tax increases it by 3pp. Treatments also shift non-targeted beliefs, suggesting motivated reasoning.

*Co-authored with Thomas Douenne (Univesity of Amsterdam), David Klenert (EU Commission), & Nicolas Treich (Toulouse School of Economics)

Joeri Sol (ABS, UvA) - "The value of statistical species: Exploring a new biodiversity conservation measure for cost-benefit analysis"

Biodiversity loss exceeds natural extinction rates by orders of magnitude and has crossed safe planetary boundaries beyond doubt. Unfortunately, the design of effective policy aimed at biodiversity conservation is hindered by a lack of metrics that express the extent of this loss in monetary equivalents, especially for less charismatic species. This paper proposes that the value of statistical species (VSS) can give weight to benefits from biodiversity conservation in public trade-offs similar to how the social cost of carbon and the value of statistical life inform public decision-making in the contexts of climate change and public health. The paper outlines what is (not) captured by such a VSS and discusses when (not) to apply the measure. It provides a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the VSS and illustrates how to combine VSS with estimates on habitat loss with the help of species-area relationships.