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 4 / 30 Thus, more stringent policy measures are needed to regulate plastics. Accordingly, an international convention to reg- ulate plastics is expected to be introduced in 2024, leading to stricter steps taken by major countries to regulate plastics. Many countries have increasingly regulated plastics, including the EU that imposed a plastic tax and phased out single-use plastics starting in 2021. It has implemented the Ecodesign Directive for almost all products, and is working on a legislation in which 0.8 euros per kilogram of plastic waste from domestic packaging will be paid to the EU, with 25% recycled content being required in plastic bottles by 2025 and 30% or more by 2030. The United States has banned single-use products such as plastic bags at the state level, China has banned the nationwide production and sale of single-use plastic products since 2021, and Japan is promoting the use of bioplastics with a goal of achieving 100% recy- cling by 2035. The United Kingdom has imposed a recycled plastic tax of about 300 won per kilogram, depending on the percentage of recycled content in the plastic. A plastic tax is levied on non-recyclable plastic waste, and is being promoted to curb plastic use and promote the devel- opment of recyclable plastics. Because plastic taxes are emerging as the second trade barrier after carbon border taxes, it is necessary to discuss plastic taxes imposed worldwide. Imposing a plastic tax would contribute to solving the plastic

waste problem, but it would be a financial burden on businesses and individuals, which makes acceptability a key issue. In terms of economic logic, plastic taxes can have regressive effects, disproportionately impacting lower-income households. Rivers et al. [34] found that environmental taxes create a higher relative burden on lower-income households who spend a larger proportion of their income on consumption goods. The financial impact varies with price elasticity. Homonoff et al. [11] demonstrated that plastic bag taxes reduced consumption by 40%, but elasticities differ across plastic product catego- ries and household income levels. Economic modeling by Alpizar et al. [35] indicates that plastic taxes averaging 15–20% of product price can reduce household plastic consumption by 35%, but may increase household expenses by 1–3% annually, with lower-income households experiencing the higher percentage increase. While plastic taxes create economic incentives for reduced consumption [10], direct interventions may yield more immediate impacts. Poortinga et al. [36] demonstrated that a plastic bag charge combined with environmental messaging produced significant behavioral changes, reducing bag usage by over 90%. Similarly, Nielsen et al. [22] found that social norm interventions combined with behavioral nudges effectively reduced single-use plastic consumption independently of price mechanisms. However, it acknowledges that implementing a plastic tax would increase prices for plastic products, potentially creating

inequality issues and affecting critical sectors like healthcare. As Lee et al. [37] noted, medical instruments rely on plastics for material integrity and hygiene reasons [37]. During crisis periods like the COVID-19 pandemic, a plastic tax without exemptions could impede medical supply access, disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations. In the other hand, it considers the theoretical distinction between supporting regulatory policy versus engaging in per- sonal plastic reduction behaviors. As Stern [14] distinguishes, environmental citizenship behaviors (like supporting taxes) differ from private-sphere behaviors (like reducing personal plastic use). Future research should investigate whether climate change awareness predicts both policy support and direct plastic reduction behaviors. Three competing paradigms for explaining the attitude toward climate change Recent studies have expanded understanding of psychological mechanisms in environmental behaviors. Zhang et al. [38] demonstrated how cultural values influence low-carbon behaviors through perceived value mediation, providing prec- edent for examining value-behavior relationships in environmental policy contexts. Liu et al. [39] established manage- ment practices as mediators in green organizational behavior, paralleling our planned behavior factors as mediators between values and policy support. Zhang et al. [40] showed nature connectedness mediating outdoor activities and well-being, contrasting our climate perception focus while reinforcing environmental connection importance. Dai et al.

[41] explored identity as mediator in tourism contexts, supporting our multi-pathway approach to environmental policy acceptance.