The Five Canadas of Climate Change: Using audience segmentation to inform communication on climate policy

32. Su¨ tterlin B, Brunner TA, Siegrist M. Who puts the most energy into energy conservation? A segmenta- tion of energy consumers based on energy-related behavioural characteristics. Energy Policy 2011; 39:8137–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.10.008. 33. Vicente P, Reis E. Segmenting households according to recycling attitudes in a Portuguese urban area. Resour Conserv Recycl 2007; 52:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2007.01.005. 34. Boivin M, Gagne´ E, Champagne Saint-Arnaud V. Using Segmentation and Theory to Design Better Pro- motion and Prevention Campaigns: A RECYC-QUE´ BEC Case Study. In: Dietrich T, Rundle-Thiele S, Kubacki K, editors. Segmentation Soc. Mark., Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2017, p. 179–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1835-0_12. 35. Chong D, Druckman JN. A Theory of Framing and Opinion Formation in Competitive Elite Environ- ments. J Commun 2007; 57:99–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00331.x. 36. Druckman JN. The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence. Pol Behav 2001; 23: 2001;225–256. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015006907312. 37. Entman RM. Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. J Commun 1993; 43:51–8. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x. 38. Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Iyengar S. The End of Framing as we Know it . . . and the Future of Media Effects. Mass Commun Soc 2016; 19:7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1068811. 39. Myers TA, Nisbet MC, Maibach EW, Leiserowitz AA. A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions

about climate change: A Letter. Clim Change 2012; 113:1105–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012- 0513-6. 40. Scheufele DA. Communicating science in social settings. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2013; 110:14040–7. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213275110 PMID: 23940341 41. Scheufele DA. Science communication as political communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2014; 111:13585–92. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317516111 PMID: 25225389 42. Metag J, Scha¨fer MS. Audience Segments in Environmental and Science Communication: Recent Findings and Future Perspectives. Environ Commun 2018; 12:995–1004. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17524032.2018.1521542. 43. Bank World. State and Trends of Carbon pricing 2021. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2021. 44. Harrison K. The Comparative Politics of Carbon Taxation. Ann Rev of Law and Soc Sci. 2010; 6:507– 509. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.09008.131545. 45. Rabe BG. Carbon Captured: Can we price Carbon? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2018. 46. Mildenberger M. Carbon Captured: How Business and Labor Control Climate Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2019. 47. Lachapelle E. Communicating about Carbon Taxes and Emissions Trading Programs. Oxf Res Encycl Clim Sci 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.431. 48. Carattini S, Carvalho M, Fankhauser S. Overcoming public resistance to carbon taxes. WIREs Clim Change 2018;9. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.531 PMID: 31031823 49. Jagers SC, Hammar H. Environmental taxation for good and for bad: the efficiency and legitimacy of

Sweden’s carbon tax. Environ Polit 2009; 18:218–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010802682601. 50. Beiser-McGrath LF, Bernauer T. Could revenue recycling make effective carbon taxation politically fea- sible? Sci Adv 2019; 5: eaax3323. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax3323 PMID: 31555740 51. Jagers SC, Martinsson J, Matti S. The impact of compensatory measures on public support for carbon taxation: an experimental study in Sweden. Clim Policy 2019; 19:147–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14693062.2018.1470963. 52. Jagers SC, Lachapelle E, Martinsson J, Matti S. Bridging the Ideological Gap? How Fairness Percep- tions Mediate the Effect of Revenue Recycling on Public Support for Carbon Taxes in the United States, Canada and Germany. Rev of Policy Res. 2021; 38: 529–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12439. 53. World Bank. State and Trends of Carbon pricing 2020. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2020. 54. Dolsˇak N, Adolph C, Prakash A. Policy design and public support for carbon tax: Evidence from a 2018 US national online survey experiment. Public Adm 2020; 98:905–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm. 12657. 55. Raymond L. Policy perspective: Building political support for carbon pricing—Lessons from cap-and- trade policies. Energy Policy 2019; 134:110986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.110986. 56. Nowlin MC, Gupta K, Ripberger JT. Revenue use and public support for a carbon tax. Environ Res Lett 2020; 15:084032. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab92c3. 57. Klenert D, Mattauch L, Combet E, Edenhofer O, Hepburn C, Rafaty R, et al. Making carbon pricing work

for citizens. Nat Clim Change 2018; 8:669–77. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0201-2. PLOS ONE The Five Canadas of Climate Change PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273977 November 23, 2022 20 / 21