Are climate change perceptions related with plastic policy support? Effects of climate change skepticism, guilt, and efficacy on the acceptance of the plastic tax

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0337327 December 29, 2025 2 / 30 Introduction Plastic waste is occupying every corner of the planet. To analyze the factors that determine support for taxes to reduce plastic use, this study used climate change- related factors (e.g., skepticism, guilt, and efficacy) as key predictors, specifically evaluating their moderating effect on tax acceptance. This study is necessary for three reasons. First, climate change and plastic waste issues are closely interconnected. Plastics are made from fossil fuels, and increased production results in increased greenhouse gases. Global plastics production reached 390.7 million metric tons in 2021, a 4% annual increase [1]. According to U.S. Beyond Plastics (October 2021), plastics will contribute more to climate change than coal-fired power plants by 2030 [2]. At least 14 million tons of plastic accumulate in oceans annually, with microplastics destroying marine ecosystems that help allevi- ate climate change effects [3]. Plastic pollution has reached unprecedented levels, with approximately 380 million tons produced annually [4], of which only 9% is recycled while 79% accumulates in landfills or natural environments. Marine ecosystems are particularly affected, with 11 million metric tons entering oceans annually [5], projected to triple by 2040 with- out intervention [6]. The plastic industry accounts for approximately 4–8% of annual global oil consumption [7], with greenhouse gas emissions potentially reaching 2.8 billion tons annually by 2050 [8].

Second, plastic tax introduction is garnering growing worldwide support. The Euro- pean Union imposed a 0.8 euros per kilogram tax on non-recyclable plastic waste from January 2021 (Decision (EU) 2019/665). Italy became the first EU country to announce plastic tax at €1 per kilogram in 2020, targeting companies and consumers [9]. Indonesia also introduced plastic tax to address environmental damage. While US implementation faces challenges due to cost concerns for companies and con- sumers, understanding support levels for plastic tax legislation remains important. Third, research on plastic tax implementation and human behavior effects is limited. Recent studies demonstrate significant behavioral impacts: Rivers et al. [10] found plastic bag taxes reduced consumption by 53–80% in Canada, while Homonoff et al. [11] documented substantial changes from small taxes on single-use bags. Taylor et al. [12] observed that plastic bag taxes were more effective than equivalent subsidies for eco-friendly alternatives. However, as plastic tax is new and previ- ously unlevied, implementation research remains scarce. Despite increasing climate change policy importance, consumer plastic tax support research is limited, with plas- tic research focusing mainly on recycling technologies and eco-friendly materials [13]. This study explores how three factors (risk perception paradigm, value, planned behavior) associate with plastic tax support. The conceptual foundation linking climate change perceptions to plastic tax sup-

port rests on three integrated theoretical frameworks. First, Values-Beliefs-Norms (VBN) theory demonstrates that environmental values associate with policy support through awareness of consequences [14], with stronger environmental values cor- relating with greater climate policy support [15]. Second, Theory of Planned Behavior and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data availability statement: The data that support the findings of this study are feely available from https://doi.org/10.6084/ m9.figshare.28735508.v2. Funding: This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2021S1A5C2A02087244). The Human Resources Development Project for HLW Management hosted by KORAD and MOTIE. Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.