Towards climate justice: How do the most vulnerable weigh environment–economy trade-offs? Katrina Running Idaho State University, Department of Sociology, Social Work and Criminal Justice, 921 South 8th Avenue, Stop 8114, Pocatello, ID 83209, United States article info Article history: Received 13 September 2013 Revised 21 November 2014 Accepted 25 November 2014 Available online 4 December 2014 Keywords: Climate justice Vulnerability Environmental attitudes Environmental inequality International climate policy abstract The world’s poor are especially vulnerable to environmental disasters, including the adverse consequences of climate change. This creates a challenge for climate justice advo- cates who seek to ensure that those least responsible for causing climate change do not bear unwanted burdens of mitigation. One way to promote climate justice could be to pay particular attention to the environmental policy preferences of citizens from poorer, lower-emitting countries. This paper examines opinions on environment–economy trade-offs and willingness to make personal financial contributions to protect the environ- ment among residents of 42 developed and developing countries using data from the 2005–2008 World Values Survey, the 2010 Climate Risk Index, and World Bank develop- ment indicators. Results reveal that individuals in developing countries are less likely to support policies to prioritize environmental protection over economic growth but are more willing to donate personal income for pro-environmental efforts compared to citizens of more developed nations. Published by Elsevier Inc. 1. Introduction International surveys show that the vast majority of the world’s citizens are worried about climate change (World Values Survey, 2009, World Development Report 2010). Climate scientists are especially worried. About 97% of climate researchers agree that if climate change is allowed to proceed unchecked it will cause serious and harmful disruptions to human life (Anderegg et al., 2010). The recently released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mitigation report (IPCC, 2014) out- lined a number of scenarios under which warming of more than two degrees Celsius could be prevented but cautioned that doing so would require substantial investments in energy, transportation, and agricultural sectors as well as immediate international cooperation. Despite these increasingly urgent recommendations, however, international negotiations for the purpose of stabilizing the global climate have failed to produce a cooperative action plan. Probably the thorniest issue of international climate policy proposals is that many strategies to address global warming require restrictions on certain economic activities. This is a particular concern for less industrialized countries where many residents still struggle to achieve basic material security. Less industrialized countries are historically responsible for a much smaller share of the cumulative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions causing global warming. At the same time, these countries bear a larger proportion of climate change’s most immediately harmful consequences (IPCC, 2007; Norgaard, 2012; Parks and Timmons Roberts, 2006; Roberts and Parks, 2007). On an international level, these inequalities are one of the primary reasons consensus about proposed changes in economic activity to mitigate climate change is elusive even though concern is widespread; disparate economic conditions lead nations to differently prioritize the trade-offs between promoting economic http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.11.018 0049-089X/Published by Elsevier Inc. E-mail address: runnkatr@isu.edu Social Science Research 50 (2015) 217–228 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Social Science Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssresearch