Press Releases

According to a representative survey for the briq policy monitor, more than two-thirds of the German population would support a halt to energy imports from Russia in order to increase pressure on the Russian government. A broad majority would also welcome additional measures to reduce energy dependence, including alternative energy sources and energy-saving. When it comes to helping the Ukrainian people, many of the respondents would support both aid and integration policies, including permanent residence and work permits for refugees. Germans are divided, however, on the question of further arms deliveries to Ukraine.

Roughly 70 percent of the 2,000 respondents said they would support an embargo on Russian gas, oil and coal. Three out of four Germans are in favor of seizing assets from people close to Putin to mitigate the economic impact of the sanctions on Germany. Around 90 percent are in favor of accelerating the expansion of renewable energies. During the transition phase, three-quarters of Germans would accept an extended operation of Germany’s last remaining nuclear power plants, and 63 percent would accept postponing the coal phase-out.

Most Germans would also support other measures to reduce fuel consumption: 61 percent of respondents would accept a temporary speed limit of 100 km/h on German freeways; 52 percent would be in favor of reintroducing “car-free” Sundays. Four out of five Germans could also imagine extending the working-from-home mandate.

Only half of respondents, however, would agree to deliver more arms to Ukraine. Around 56 percent would be in favor of more political support for Ukraine’s accession to the EU. Seven out of ten Germans would consider granting Ukrainian refugees permanent residence and work permits to facilitate their integration.

Read also: Most Germans would be willing to pay even more for gas and heating

According to a representative survey for the briq policy monitor, two-thirds of the German population would be willing to pay higher prices for gas and heating if this were to increase pressure on the Russian government. Four out of five Germans would lower their room temperature to save energy. And more than half of higher-income households would be willing to spend some of their income to help poorer households cope with higher energy prices.

Based on average fuel prices of about €2.20 per liter, two-thirds of the 2,000 respondents said they would accept higher prices to increase pressure on Russia. Around one-third would even accept a further increase of 30 cents or more. Surprisingly, the willingness to pay is largely independent of individual car use. However, there are clear differences along party lines. While 88 percent of Green Party supporters would accept higher fuel prices, this only applies to around 35 percent of AfD (right-wing party) supporters.

To reduce dependence on oil and gas imports from Russia, two-thirds of those surveyed would also accept a further increase in monthly heating costs. In numbers, around 58 percent of Germans would accept at least 10 euros in additional costs; 31 percent would be willing to pay at least an extra 20 euros per month. Germans’ willingness to pay in order to put pressure on Russia tends to increase with higher income and is more pronounced in western Germany. Household income matters less for people’s willingness to engage in energy-saving behavior. A large majority of respondents said they would be willing to lower their thermostat setting.

Moreover, half or respondents with an annual gross income of more than 50,000 euros would be prepared to contribute part of their income to support households that are more vulnerable to price increases. Almost 30 percent of high-income households would even give up more than two percent of their income to help low-earners. Commenting on the results of the survey, briq director Armin Falk notes: “Solidarity with Ukraine comes at a price – which many Germans seem willing to pay.”

Read also: Broad public support for strategies to reduce German energy dependence on Russia

Many people contribute little to climate protection because they underestimate the willingness of others to fight global warming, according to a new working paper by Peter Andre, Teodora Boneva, Felix Chopra and Armin Falk. In a survey experiment, the authors asked 8,000 adults, representative of the U.S. population, to allocate 450 dollars between themselves and a charitable organization that fights climate change.

While 6% indicated they would keep all the money for themselves, 12% were willing to donate the entire sum, which would offset the annual CO2 emissions of a typical U.S. citizen. On average, participants were willing to contribute half of the total amount.

The study also documents that patience, altruism, positive reciprocity, and moral universalism are among the fundamental human traits that are strongly correlated with individual willingness to fight climate change.

On average, women in the experiment donate $17 more to climate protection than men do. Democrats contribute $45 more than Republicans. Donations increase with household income, but decline with higher educational attainment, mainly for Republicans.

“Fighting global warming is a matter of cooperation. But people tend to cooperate conditionally: I’ll do it if you do it. That’s why it’s so important to uncover and correct misperceptions of prevalent climate norms,” says Armin Falk. The authors suggest that large-scale information campaigns could trigger a positive feedback loop where learning about the existing support for action against climate change could encourage others to follow suit.

Governments around the world increasingly acknowledge the role of happiness as a societal objective and implement policies that target national well-being levels. Knowledge about the determinants of happiness, however, is still limited. A longstanding candidate is prosocial behavior.

A new study by Armin Falk and Thomas Graeber, now published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, empirically investigates the effect of prosocial behavior on happiness in a high-stakes decision experiment. The findings reveal a more nuanced causal relationship than previously suggested.

Getting money vs. saving a human life

In the experiment, every participant either saved one human life in expectation by triggering a targeted donation of 350 euros, or received an amount of 100 euros. Using a choice paradigm between two binary lotteries with different chances of saving a life, the researchers observed subjects’ intentions at the same time as creating random variation in prosocial outcomes.

The data obtained by measuring happiness repeatedly at various delays weakly replicate the positive effect identified in previous research, but only for the very short run. One month later, the sign of the effect reversed, and prosocial behavior led to significantly lower happiness than obtaining the money. Notably, even those subjects who chose prosocially were ultimately happier if they ended up getting the money for themselves.

The new study thus documents that prosocial behavior does not unequivocally increase happiness, because prosocial spending naturally requires giving up something else, which may decrease happiness in its own right. This may provide an explanation for the apparent absence of universal prosocial behavior.