Conference Agenda

There is increasing attention on the role of environmental information in driving changes in behaviour. Less attention has been given to how this information alters the perceived performance of a product. Research has shown that marketing tools (e.g., brand logos, advertising) influence the perceived sensory performance of food products, and environmental information in the media may have similar effects: visual information (e.g., videos) can generate an emotional response that alters how the consumer translates a sensory stimulus into a sensory perception. This research uses a remote (at home) sensory approach and a choice experiment to explore whether watching a 3-minute video on the environmental impact of aquaculture alters the sensory assessment and choice of salmon from aquaculture. In the experiment, a video presented aquaculture as environmentally sustainable (positive video), or environmentally damaging (negative video). Emotions were captured via facial expression, and by self-reporting. Results indicate that while negative (but not positive) information influences the perceived flavour and overall liking of salmon, positive (but not negative) information influences expected utility at choice. The change in perception is mediated by a reduction in positive emotions, and not by an increase in negative emotions. This effect is not driven by a change in the underlying values of the consumer, but by the perceived quality of the good.

This study explores the influence of messengers on farmers’ decisions to adopt an edge-of-field (EOF) practice. We conducted an information treatment experiment across two information sources: an Extension professional and a farmer early adopter, versus a control group. Using an online survey of 373 Iowa farmer respondents in 2022, we build an empirical model to detect the treatment effect on the adoption of EOF practices. Our regression results reveal that farmers with less experience in conservation practices responded more positively to the treatments. Notably, farmer messengers proved to be more effective than Extension professionals in encouraging the adoption. For the respondents who are not currently enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the farmer messenger can increase their adoption by 20.4 percentage points, while the professional messenger can achieve a 7.7-percentage-point increase in adoption. These findings highlight the value of leveraging peer experiences and narratives in conservation outreach. Farmer-to-farmer communication appears to resonate more effectively in these communities.

The negative effects of climate change on output and productivity have been well documented in recent years. However, its impact on public finances has received little attention. This paper attempts to fill this gap by analysing the impact of climate anomalies on fiscal variables in a macroeconometric framework that also takes into account economic activity. We exploit natural weather variations to construct temperature and precipitation shocks in a panel of 14 European countries and the United States. Impulse response functions from a structural Bayesian Panel VAR show that adverse climate shocks are contractionary and significantly increase public debt and deficits over a business cycle horizon. However, the inflationary impact and the persistence of temperature and precipitation shocks are quite different. The negative fiscal and economic consequences of temperature anomalies are remarkably stronger for warmer, climate-vulnerable and highly indebted countries. Further analysis suggests that the main transmission mechanisms of the reported fiscal impacts are significantly lower tax revenues combined with an increase in government spending on public subsidies.

This paper argues that military buildups lead to a significant rise in greenhouse gas emissions and can disrupt the green transition. Identifying military spending shocks, I use local projections to show that a percentage point rise in the military spending share leads to a 0.9-2% rise in total emissions, as well as a 1% rise in emission intensity, depending on the economy's overall emission intensity. Using a dynamic production network model calibrated for the US, I find that a permanent shock of the same size would increase total emissions by between 0.36% and 1.81%, and emission intensity by between 0.22% and 1.5%. The empirical analysis indicates that green patenting is reduced by 10-25% following such a shock, and the model suggests that investment in renewables could be crowded out by defence spending under certain circumstances, hindering the energy transition. These effects can significantly raise climate damages and temperatures. Depending on the social cost of carbon and the composition of a military spending shock, I estimate that doubling the military spending share in the US in 2017 (equal to 3.3% of GDP) would have led to climate damages equivalent to between 0.07-2.6% of GDP per year.