OECD countries must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 70 % by 2050 below 2010 levels and reach near zero emissions by the end of the century in order to prevent global temperatures from rising 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Achieving these mitigation targets will be costly, which raises the question: who should pay for mitigation? The objective of this dissertation is to better understand Americans’ preferences on domestically sharing the costs of climate change mitigation within the United States and on internationally sharing mitigation costs between countries. The first two chapters of this dissertation investigate American preferences on (1) financing mitigation domestically and (2) providing social assistance to individuals who are adversely affected by mitigation. The latter two chapters examine American preferences on (3) how to distribute the costs of climate change mitigation internationally (e.g., by historical responsibility, capacity) and (4) how to design a global climate governance framework for distributing costs (in terms of increasing or decreasing its authority). The first key finding is that Americans are willing to pay for climate mitigation domestically as well as internationally and importantly, their willingness to pay is motivated by factors other than cost. However, the framing of these costs and associated mitigation policies shapes individuals’ willingness to pay for mitigation. Overall, the results suggest that the United States could undertake ambitious mitigation commitments without risk of a strong public backlash if mitigation policies are framed tactfully
