Despite scientific consensus on climate change, climate denial is still widespread. While much research has characterised climate denial, comparatively fewer studies have systematically examined how to counteract it. This review fills this gap by exploring the research about counteracting climate denial, the effectiveness and the intentions behind intervention. Through a systematic selection and analysis of 65 scientific articles, this review finds multiple intervention forms, including education, message framing and inoculation. The intentions of intervening range from changing understanding of climate science, science advocacy, influencing mitigation attitudes and counteracting vested industry. A number of divergent findings emerge: whether to separate science from policy; the disputed effects of emotions and the longitudinal impacts of interventions. The review offers guiding questions for those interested in counteracting denialism, the answers to which indicate particular strategies: identify the form of climate denial; consider the purpose of intervention and recognise one’s relationship to their audiences.

Carbon taxes are considered to be an efficient method to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; however, such taxes are generally unpopular, partly because they are seen as unfair. To explore if public acceptance of a stricter carbon tax in Sweden can be enhanced, this study investigates the effectiveness of three different policy designs, addressing collective and personal distributional consequences and promoting procedural aspects (democratic influence). A large-scale (n = 5200) survey is applied, combining a traditional multi-category answer format with a binary choice format. The results show that support for higher carbon taxation can be enhanced if tax revenues are redistributed to affected groups. Policies with collective justice framings can change the attitudes of individuals who express antagonistic attitudes to increased carbon taxation and influence groups comparably more affected by carbon taxes, such as rural residents, low-income groups, and people who are driving long distances. Policy designs addressing collective distributional consequences are, however, less effective on individuals expressing right-leaning ideological views and low environmental concern. Policies addressing personal distributional outcomes, or perceptions of procedural injustice, had no significant effect on policy acceptance.