.png)
Climate change brings huge costs to the world, both social and economic. But people do not give this problem the attention it deserves, especially in oil-rich countries like Russia. NES Professor Gerhard Toews and NES Rector Anton Suvorov decided to find out who should speak to the population about climate policy, and whom they would be more likely to trust.
The vast majority of scientists agree that climate change is real, caused by human activity, and carries a huge economic cost. The UN estimates the damage caused by natural disasters at $2.3 trillion per year. A 1°C rise in global temperature reduces global GDP by 20% in the long run.
Nevertheless, public support for climate policy remains weak, especially in economies that depend on fossil fuel. In such countries, climate-related activity is often seen as a threat to employment, income, and wellbeing.
The situation is made worse by a general decline in trust in scientists and researchers (see 1 and 2), particularly noticeable on issues related to climate (see 1, 2 and 3). In Russia, along with many post-Soviet countries, this trust is among the lowest globally.
This raises a major, but still under-researched, question: how should climate policy be communicated to people in oil and gas-producing countries, and who should be the main speaker which people would more likely listen to and believe?
We tried to answer this question in our research using a large-scale, preregistered survey experiment conducted in Russia, one of the world's largest fossil fuel producers. The survey was held online in January 2025 and covers 1,664 respondents, generally fairly representative (though not entirely) in terms of key socio-demographic characteristics. We did not have the goal of evaluating specific climate actions; rather our task was to understand which messages and which sources of information increase people’s knowledge, trust, and willingness to act on climate protection.
We adapted an international survey experiment to the Russian context, and our research has three key features.
Regional differences. To examine whether climate beliefs relate to proximity to extractive industries, we identified respondents from oil and gas regions.
Trust in experts. Respondents were asked how much they trusted information about the economic effects of climate change coming from researchers in various fields of knowledge: climatologists, geophysicists, and economists.
Randomised messages. Survey participants were randomly assigned to one of five groups (or to a control group) and watched one of several short videos. One provided a physical explanation of the causes of climate change and its consequences; another gave an economic explanation of climate policy tools: carbon taxes, regulation, and green investments. Three other videos featured presidential messages based on Russia’s Climate Doctrine, approved in 2023.
The first message was that climate change is one of the most serious challenges of our century. The doctrine states: "Modern science provides more and more solid arguments in support of the fact that human economic activity, related, first of all, to greenhouse gas emissions as a result of fossil fuel combustion has a considerable impact on the climate against the backdrop of its natural change." The second message was that Russia has specific emissions reduction targets, set out in a presidential decree. And the third one stated the need for cooperation between all countries on climate policy (this was mentioned many times in the document).
Russians in general turned out to be similar to residents of other countries, with one important exception. The global survey showed that the vast majority of respondents in both developing and developed countries consider climate change to be real and anthropogenic, and expect their countries to take action.
On average, respondents in Russia are about as well informed about climate change as people in Europe, the USA, or China. Most consider climate change to be real and caused by human activity, and also support certain climate policy measures.
At the same time, in terms of the key question of whether climate change is real and caused by human activity, Russia is at the bottom of the global distribution: just over half of respondents (54%) give a positive answer to it.
Moreover, regional differences have been confirmed: in the regions with their economies dependent on raw material extraction, people are much more sceptical that the climate is changing because of human activity. Only 41% of respondents in Siberia and the Far East, and 37% in the regions with rich oil and gas reserves, agree that climate change is real and caused by humans. Furthermore, this scepticism is only weakly related to other factors such as age, gender, education, or income – suggesting the key role of economic geography rather than socio-demographic factors.
The good news is that more than 90% of respondents are ready to reconsider their views if they receive reliable research evidence that global warming is caused by human activity.
However, the level of trust in scientists depends heavily on the expert’s field of work. About 80% of respondents trust climatologists and geophysicists when they talk about the economic consequences of climate change. But when economists talk about it, trust drops below 60%.
It is not surprising that even Kate Marvel, one of the leading climate scientists, has questioned the need to rely solely on economic tools to reduce emissions: "Climate scientists are so suspicious of a carbon tax <...> That’s not how people work." What works brilliantly in theory often leads to unexpected results due to the complexity of the real world and people’s unpredictable reactions.
This gap in trust is large, stable, and very weakly related to individual characteristics of respondents. It probably reflects a historical distrust of economists which is widespread around the world, perhaps because of their greater involvement in politics. In addition, there is much less consensus among economists themselves about which methods are best for tackling global warming (see 1 and 2). Finally, economic policy discussions inevitably focus on costs, trade-offs, and losers, and these are especially sensitive topics in resource-dependent countries.
It confirmed that raising awareness works, but only when done by the right people. Our randomised experiment yields three clear conclusions.
Physical explanations enhance understanding. A video explaining the physical mechanisms of climate change significantly increases people’s knowledge of the climate. While other videos have no effect on this at all.
Economic explanations have the opposite effect. Videos about emissions taxes, regulation, and green investments do not improve understanding of how these tools work. Instead, they increase the perception of costs and reduce willingness to take individual climate action. The emphasis on economic trade-offs seems to undermine support rather than strengthen it.
Messages from the authorities work. Videos with quotes from the Climate Doctrine, especially regarding emission targets, increase the stated willingness to combat climate change. But videos stating that climate change is real and caused by humans do not improve scientific understanding of the problem among the population. Messages from an authoritative source turn out to be effective for mobilisation, but not for understanding.
But a negative (for economists) result is still a result. The failure of economists to draw Russians’ attention to climate issues does not mean that economics is unimportant. It simply means that economic arguments must be combined with the credibility of the natural sciences and political authority. Perhaps then it will be possible to build stable public support for the climate agenda among the population.
* The author’s opinion may not coincide with that of the editorial board.
