Regional Power Makes Fossil-Fuel Areas More Supportive of Global Climate Deals

Why This Question Matters

Patrick Bayer asks when and why local political conditions shape public views of international climate governance. Existing work finds that regions facing costly policy adjustments—like areas dependent on fossil fuels—tend to oppose international climate cooperation. Bayer tests whether features of regional politics alter that backlash, and whether those same regions might instead see international institutions as attractive alternatives to the national center.

How Bayer Tests It

The paper analyzes geographically targeted survey data from the United Kingdom to compare attitudes toward international climate cooperation across subnational areas. The design exploits variation among fossil fuel–intensive regions that are structurally similar in exposure to climate policy costs but differ in the strength and institutionalization of regional political actors and institutions.

What the Evidence Shows

• Regions with high fossil-fuel exposure and strong, institutionalized regional politics express more positive assessments of international climate cooperation than comparable fossil-dependent regions with weaker regional institutions.
• These patterns coexist with the familiar effect that anticipated local costs of policy adjustment correlate with negative views of international cooperation; regional institutional features condition that relationship.

Why It Matters for Policy and Research

The findings highlight that subnational institutional context—not just economic exposure—shapes public attitudes toward international agreements. For scholars, this implies that models of climate-policy backlash must account for regional political structures; for policymakers, it suggests that efforts to build support for international cooperation may succeed or fail depending on how regional governance channels and frames policy adjustments.