ArticlePloS one2026
The impact of imaginary future generations on the preference for carbon tax schemes.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Carbon pricing instruments have been found to be an effective incentive to mitigate climate change, but that surely increases the burden on the current generation. Some previous experiments found that people will have fewer or delayed gains after imagining the future. This research employed an experimental survey with a randomized treatment to investigate whether introducing imaginary future generations (IFGs) increases respondents' probability of choosing carbon tax schemes. The survey was conducted at the end of 2021, collected 1,100 responses, with IFGs randomly introduced to half of the participants. Five carbon reduction schemes and their environmental, social, and economic consequences were presented to the respondents. These schemes include four hypothetical carbon tax schemes and a feed-in-tariff (FIT) scheme that is currently implemented in Taiwan as a comparator. Those carbon tax schemes can reduce carbon emissions by 50% from 2005 levels by 2050. This contrasts sharply with a no-tax scenario, which is projected to see emissions increase by 41%. The results showed that the carbon tax bundled with reduced VAT rates and lump-sum rebates was the most popular scheme, being the top choice for 35% of respondents. This appeal is likely attributable to its revenue recycling design, as well as its perceived superior social impacts compared to other schemes, which would increase the annual income of the lowest 20% income group by 7.5%. Moreover, the introduction of IFGs does significantly increase the probability by 11% that a respondent chooses the carbon tax scheme over the non-carbon tax scheme. The IFGs experience influences a broad demographic, including most respondents and wealthier individuals, rather than solely environmentalists, making them feel the social pressure of climate change concerns and be willing to mitigate it.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.