Abstract
New Zealand's primary strategy for tackling greenhouse gas emissions is the emissions trading scheme, which puts a price on emissions from all major industries - except animal agriculture. In the decade since the scheme was introduced, conversations about including emissions from animal agriculture have been shrouded in controversy, with a levy on such emissions dubbed a 'fart tax'. Across two independent samples of New Zealanders, we examined whether support for a charge on farm emissions differed depending on how the charge was framed. We showed that participants were more supportive of including farm emissions in the existing scheme than supporting a 'fart tax', and also that the description of the policy that most closely aligned with the Labour Party's original proposal for the charge (a levy on the agricultural sector to fund research into low carbon farming practices) garnered the most support. Across both samples, support also varied by political affiliation, with support highest among Green voters, followed by Labour voters, and National voters generally opposing the charge, regardless of framing. Frames did not interact with political affiliation in the expected way, suggesting that 'fart tax' referencing reaches across the political divide in undermining support for this policy.