Opportunity or constraint for viable climate policy? Support for green protectionism amid trade-offs between energy sovereignty and climate ambition

Amid concerns over waning public support for climate policy, future resource security, and rising geopolitical tensions, high-income democracies are increasingly adopting protectionist green industrial policies (GIPs) – green subsidies combined with import restrictions – to produce more energy transition minerals and low-carbon technologies (LCTs) domestically, linking decarbonization efforts with the prospect of reducing foreign dependence for critical goods. Yet while re-designing and framing climate policy as a means to advance energy sovereignty may well convince politically right-leaning and transition-skeptic individuals to support climate-related spending, delays for climate action due to restricting access to low-cost and readily available LCTs from foreign manufacturers could alienate more left-leaning, pro-climate individuals who prioritize a rapid energy transition. Using data from a survey experiment in Germany, we aim to assess how the public navigates tensions between energy sovereignty and climate ambition when forming attitudes towards protectionist GIPs, and how this trade-off differs by political orientation. Practically, our findings carry implications for whether green protectionism is a politically viable approach to maintaining public support for costly climate policy. Theoretically, they contribute to understanding how individuals weigh energy sovereignty and climate ambition in an era of intensifying geopolitical competition.