Environmental Polling Roundup - February 20, 2026

EPC Resource Library / Weekly Roundups

Environmental Polling Roundup – February 20, 2026

David Gold

February 20th, 2026

Headlines

The Economist + YouGov – Americans are much more likely to say that greenhouse gas regulations should be strengthened than weakened; solar and wind remain Americans’ favored energy sources [Article, Topline, Crosstabs]

[Western States] Colorado College Conservation in the West Poll – Western voters prioritize public lands protection over energy development more than ever; water availability and wildfires are Westerners’ most pressing environmental concerns [Website, Deck, State by State Topline, Voters of Color Topline, Trended Topline]

[AZ, FL, IA, OH, TX] American Energy First – Voters in Trump-carried states, including Trump’s own voters, widely support solar energy; in addition to its benefits for affordability, voters respond particularly positively to pro-solar arguments that focus on security and economic benefits [Memo]

Key Takeaways

Republicans aren’t falling in line with Trump’s attacks on solar power. Last week, Trump’s own campaign pollster released a memo showing support for solar energy among conservative-leaning voters nationwide. And this week, long-time Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway’s polling firm–working on behalf of American Energy First–released a poll showing that voters in five Trump-carried states (AZ, FL, IA, OH, and TX) have overwhelmingly positive attitudes about solar power.

Clearly, the solar industry is trying to bend Trump’s ear. And other polls similarly show that Republican voters want the country to use more solar power. In a new poll this week from The Economist and YouGov, more Republicans said that the country should expand its use of solar power than any other energy source–including gas, nuclear, and coal.

Polling on the topic very consistently shows that Republicans prefer an “all of the above” approach that includes both renewables and fossil fuels over an approach that restricts clean energy in favor of fossil fuels. The American Energy First poll, for example, finds that majorities of Trump voters across the five states that they polled have favorable attitudes about both gas energy and solar energy. Further, when voters in the five states were presented with three options for U.S. energy policy–an “all of the above” approach, one that prioritizes clean energy, and one that prioritizes fossil fuels–the “all of the above” approach was the clear top choice in these Trump-carried states and the fossil fuel-first approach was the least popular.

Western voters are prioritizing public lands protections as much as ever. The latest edition of Colorado College’s long-running “Conservation in the West” poll once again finds intense, cross-partisan support for public lands protections in Western States.

Even as Western voters face the same affordability crisis as the rest of the country (with 81% of Westerners saying that the rising cost of living is an “extremely” or “serious” problem in their state), these voters widely resist the idea of sacrificing public lands for energy development. By a 48-point margin, voters say that they would prefer that their member of Congress prioritize public land conservation (72%) over increasing energy production on public lands (24%).

Across the seven years that Colorado College has asked this question going back to 2019, this is the largest margin they’ve found in favor of prioritizing public lands protections over energy production.

Good Data Points to Highlight

[Energy Sources] Majorities of Americans say that the country should be using more solar (64%) and wind power (57%), while just 19% say that the country should be using more gas and only 17% say that the U.S. should be using more coal [The Economist + YouGov]

[Climate Action] 57% of Americans say that the U.S. should do more to address climate change, while just 16% say that the government should do less to address it [The Economist + YouGov]

[Endangerment / Greenhouse Gases] Americans are 16 points more likely to say that government regulations on greenhouse gas emissions should be increased (42%) than decreased (26%) [The Economist + YouGov]

[Environment + Economy] Americans are 18 points more likely to say that stricter environmental standards would help (40%) than hurt (22%) the U.S. economy [The Economist + YouGov]

[Western States] 89% of voters in Western States say that national monument designations that have been placed on public lands in the past decade should be kept in place [Colorado College]

[Western States] 75% of voters in Western States oppose reducing funding to the U.S. Forest Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other agencies that oversee public lands [Colorado College]

[Western States] 72% of voters in Western States oppose removing protections on existing national public lands, particularly national monuments, to allow more drilling, mining, and other development [Colorado College]

[Western States] By a 72%-24% margin, voters in Western States would prefer that their member of Congress prioritize the protection of public lands (72%) over producing more energy on them (24%) [Colorado College]

Full Roundup

Americans would rather see greenhouse gas regulations strengthened than weakened. Following the Trump administration’s announcement last week that it is repealing the endangerment finding and subsequently plans to gut regulations on greenhouse gases, The Economist and YouGov finds that Americans are actually sixteen points more likely to say that government regulations on greenhouse gases should be increased (42%) than decreased (26%).

While the topic is very politically polarized, independents side more with Democrats in favoring stronger rather than weaker regulations on greenhouse gases:

Overall – 42% should be increased / 17% kept the same / 26% decreased
Democrats – 67% increased / 5% kept the same / 18% decreased
Independents – 40% increased / 16% kept the same / 24% decreased
Republicans – 23% increased / 28% kept the same / 35% decreased

Notably, only around one-third of Republicans (35%) have a stated preference for weakening greenhouse gas regulations–making this yet another example where Trump’s environmental rollbacks extend well beyond his own base’s wishes.

Americans don’t buy the idea that strict environmental standards are bad for the economy. While the administration is touting the overturning of the endangerment finding as a boon for the economy, The Economist and YouGov find that Americans are skeptical that strong environmental regulations hinder economic growth. In fact, Americans are nearly twice as likely to say that stricter environmental standards would help the economy (40%) as to say that stricter environmental standards would hurt the economy (22%).

Even among Republicans, less than half (42%) say that stronger environmental regulations would be bad for the economy:

Overall – 40% help the economy / 21% make no difference / 22% hurt the economy
Democrats – 68% help the economy / 13% make no difference / 4% hurt the economy
Independents – 33% help the economy / 23% make no difference / 18% hurt the economy
Republicans – 20% help the economy / 25% make no difference / 42% hurt the economy

Majorities say that humans are causing climate change and that the U.S. should do more to address it. Roughly three in five Americans (59%) recognize that the world’s climate is changing as a result of human activity, including nearly nine in ten Democrats (88%), the majority of independents (58%), and around one-third of Republicans (32%).

Meanwhile, 22% of Americans believe that the world’s climate is changing for reasons other than human activity and just 6% deny that the world’s climate is changing at all.

Americans’ support for climate action largely mirrors their beliefs about human-caused climate change. Slightly under three in five Americans (57%) say that the U.S. should do more to address climate change than it is currently doing, including 90% of Democrats, 58% of independents, and 25% of Republicans.

Only around one in six Americans (16%) say that the U.S. should do less about climate change than it is currently doing, while an additional 16% say that the U.S. should continue to do the same amount about the issue.

Nearly half of Americans expect there to be“catastrophic” climate impacts in their lifetimes. A little under half of Americans (45%) say that they expect to see “catastrophic impacts” from climate change in their lifetimes, including around two-thirds of Democrats (66%), more than two in five independents (44%), and around one-quarter of Republicans (26%).

Younger Americans are also relatively more likely to expect major impacts in their lifetimes, with more than half of Americans aged 18-29 (52%) anticipating that they will see “catastrophic” climate impacts.

Solar and wind remain Americans’ favored energy sources. Majorities of Americans say that the country should use more solar and wind power, while more say that the country should reduce than increase its use of gas and coal:

Solar – 64% more / 17% the same amount / 9% less
Wind – 57% more / 16% the same amount / 17% less
Nuclear – 30% more / 23% the same amount / 29% less
Gas – 19% more / 35% the same amount / 33% less
Coal – 17% more / 24% the same amount / 46% less

Democrats and independents both favor solar and wind over fossil fuels by wide margins. Among independents, majorities say that the country should use more solar (67%) and wind (59%) while less than one in six say that the country should use more gas (14%) or coal (12%).

And while Republicans are far more supportive of fossil fuels than Democrats or independents are, more Republicans say that the country should increase its use of solar (44%) than any other other energy source–including nuclear (37%), gas (36%), or coal (32%). Republicans are less enthusiastic about wind power, however, as Republicans are just about as likely to say that wind energy production should be decreased as to say that it should be increased (33% more / 22% the same / 36% less).

Wildfires and water availability are the most pressing environmental concerns to Western voters. This latest edition of Colorado College’s long-running “Conservation in the West” poll–which surveyed voters in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming–finds that water issues and wildfires continue to resonate strongly in the West.

Below are the percentages of voters across the eight states who rate each of the following environmental issues as “extremely” or “very” serious problems in their states:

Low level of water in rivers – 68% “extremely” or “very” serious problem
Inadequate water supplies – 66%
Uncontrollable wildfires that threaten homes and property – 60%
Pollution of rivers, lakes, and streams – 58%
Climate change – 55%
Loss of habitat for fish and wildlife – 55%
Loss of natural areas – 54%
Air pollution and smog – 53%
Population declines of fish and wildlife – 52%

As with the rest of the country, Western voters are also very concerned about affordability: roughly four in five (81%) say that the rising cost of living is an “extremely” or “very” serious problem in their state.

Western voters have positive attitudes about federal agencies that deal with public lands and the environment, and are overwhelmingly opposed to reducing their funding. Voters in Western states approve of the jobs that each of the following agencies are doing by wide margins:

National Park Service – 86% approve / 7% disapprove
U.S. Forest Service – 79% approve / 10% disapprove
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – 75% approve / 9% disapprove
Bureau of Land Management – 63% approve / 17% disapprove
The Environmental Protection Agency – 61% approve / 24% disapprove

Accordingly, when presented with a proposal to reduce funding to the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other agencies that oversee public lands, Western voters reject the idea by an overwhelming margin (24% support / 75% oppose). Western voters also feel strongly about this point, with most (54%) “strongly” opposing the idea of cutting funding to the agencies that oversee public lands.

Opposition to these budget cuts also spans partisan lines, with majorities of Democrats (20% support / 80% oppose), independents (22% support / 77% oppose), and Republicans (30% support / 69% oppose) all opposed to cutting these agencies’ budgets.

Westerners prioritize public land conservation over energy production more than ever. In another sign of how much Western voters value public lands, voters in these states are 48 points more likely to say that their member of Congress should prioritize “ensuring we protect sources of clean water, our air quality, and wildlife habitat while providing opportunities to visit and recreate on our national public lands” (72%) than to say that their member of Congress should prioritize “ensuring we produce more domestic energy by maximizing the amount of public lands available for responsible oil and gas drilling and mining” (24%).

Western voters want to protect existing national monument designations and keep public lands under the control of the federal government rather than states. Nearly nine in ten Western voters (89%) say that national monument designations that have been placed on public lands over the past decade should be kept in place rather than removed, including overwhelming majorities of Democrats (97%), independents (87%), and Republicans (83%).

Western voters are also wary of transferring control of federal public lands to state governments. Colorado College provided poll respondents with the following explanation of the topic: “Some people have proposed giving state government control over national public lands, such as national forests, national monuments, and national wildlife refuges in its borders. The state government would decide the future management of the lands, but state taxpayers would pay all costs, including the cost of maintenance and preventing and fighting wildfires.”

In response, Western voters oppose transferring control of public lands to the states by a nearly two-to-one margin (34% support / 65% oppose). Opposition to state government control over public lands is also notably higher now than it was the last time Colorado College asked this question in 2017 (37% support / 56% oppose).

Westerners widely support measures to hold fossil fuel companies accountable when they extract resources on public lands. Large majorities of Western voters support each of the following regulations for oil and gas extraction on public lands:

Keeping the requirement that oil and gas companies, rather than taxpayers, pay for all the clean-up and land restoration costs after drilling is finished – 92% support / 7% oppose
Continuing to require oil and gas producers who operate on national public lands to use updated equipment and technology to prevent leaks of methane gas during the extraction process and reduce the need to burn off excess natural gas into the air – 88% support / 12% oppose
Only allowing oil and gas companies the right to drill in areas of public land where there is high likelihood to actually produce oil and gas – 71% support / 27% oppose

Additionally, Western voters are much more likely to say that the royalty fees that companies pay for producing oil and gas on national public lands should be increased (49%) than decreased (12%). Last year’s reconciliation bill cut these royalty fees.

Voters in Western states oppose deregulatory measures such as opening up more public lands for drilling and weakening the Endangered Species Act. Consistent with their strong support for public land conservation, Colorado College finds that voters in Western states widely oppose deregulatory actions that the Trump administration has pursued on protected lands. These include:

Removing protections on some areas of existing national public lands, particularly national monuments, to allow more drilling, mining and other development – 27% support / 72% oppose
Reducing protections for some of the rare plants and animals protected under the Endangered Species Act – 36% support / 63% oppose
Expanding the amount of national forest and other public lands available to private companies for commercial logging – 39% support / 60% oppose

[AZ, FL, IA, OH, TX] American Energy First – Voters in Trump-carried states, including Trump’s own voters, widely support solar energy; in addition to its benefits for affordability, voters respond particularly positively to pro-solar arguments that focus on security and economic benefits [Memo]

Voters in these red-leaning states like natural gas but show stronger support for solar. This survey of voters in five states carried by Trump in 2024 (Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, and Texas) finds that voters across the five states have overwhelmingly positive opinions about gas, renewables, and solar specifically. Additionally, voters in these states are more likely to have “strongly” favorable attitudes about renewables and solar than about gas:

Renewable energy – 77% favorable / 12% unfavorable (45% “strongly” favorable)
Solar energy – 73% favorable / 18% unfavorable (42% “strongly” favorable)
Natural gas energy – 73% favorable / 12% unfavorable (33% “strongly” favorable)

Majorities of Trump voters in these states feel positively about both natural gas (83% favorable) and solar energy (62% favorable).

Support for solar cuts across partisan lines in these states, with clear support from Trump voters. More than four in five voters (83%) across the five states agree that solar energy should be used in the U.S. to strengthen and increase our energy supply, including a majority (56%) who “strongly” agree that solar should be in the mix.

Among Trump voters specifically, three-quarters (75%) agree that the country should use solar energy.

Voters in these states show a clear preference for an “all of the above” energy approach that includes both renewables and fossil fuels. When asked to choose between an “all of the above” energy approach, one that prioritizes renewables, and one that prioritizes fossil fuels, voters across the five states are most likely to prefer an “all of the above” approach and least likely to prefer one that prioritizes fossil fuels:

Pursue an “all of the above” strategy using every available energy source – 51% choose this as the best approach
Focus primarily on renewable sources like solar – 29%
Focus primarily on traditional sources like natural gas and coal – 16%

Reliability and cost concerns both break through as strong rationales to address U.S. energy security and production. The survey presented voters with several proof points designed to increase urgency around energy policy. And while a proof point about cost increases was predictably effective, voters responded even more strongly to a proof point about power blackouts:

“Some regional energy grids are already experiencing blackouts due to aging equipment or an increased demand for power, and experts warn that power shortages worldwide may be seen. Power blackouts may affect businesses and threaten economic and national security.” – 51% say that this makes them “much more concerned” about U.S. energy security and production
“Residential energy costs have increased by 6.5% from last year.” – 47%
“A recent study from ICF, a leading non-partisan consulting firm, notes that electricity demand growth over the next decade is expected to exceed the last three decades combined.” – 46%
“Some people worry that Chinese-made parts in the United States for energy infrastructure could pose a national and cyber security risk if they were found to have rogue communications devices in them.” – 45%
“To maintain American dominance on a global stage, the U.S. needs to build a lot more power. Some experts say we must add enough new electricity to power the equivalent of 75 cities the size of Miami or 11 states the size of Florida.” – 42%
“Natural gas turbines are backordered for the next 6 years, and coal fleets have been aging and increasingly difficult to maintain. And not nearly enough gas and nuclear have been built in the last 5 years to meet our needs.” – 40%
“In 2024, China produced far more electricity—about 150% more—than the U.S. Without adequate energy generation, the US risks losing the AI race to China, and therefore putting our national security at risk and losing millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in investment in the process.” – 39%
“America’s power needs are growing fast—projected to rise 35–50% by 2040—as data centers expand, domestic manufacturing rebounds, and transportation and buildings use more electricity.” – 38%

Voters in these states respond strongly to pro-solar arguments that focus on security and jobs as well as affordability. Again, affordability is one of several energy priorities that breaks through to voters as arguments that focus on solar’s benefits for the economy and U.S. energy security also resonate.

Below are the percentages who say that they feel “much more supportive” of solar energy expansion in responses to various arguments:

“Clean energy, like solar, is projected to contribute $86 billion to the economy annually and support over 575,000 jobs by 2030.” – 55% “much more supportive” of solar energy expansion
“Many of the jobs that solar creates do not require a college education, providing stable employment to more hard-working Americans.” – 54%
“The solar energy industry is working to ensure that all parts used in their infrastructure are American made to avoid any security risks from countries like China.” – 54%
“Clean power manufacturing, like solar energy, contributes $18 billion to the economy annually and supports 122,000 American jobs.” – 53%
“The solar energy industry is responsible for more than 75,000 American jobs across 25 states with salaries up to $134,000 per year.” – 50%
“Solar is the fastest, most cost-effective option to meet immediate power needs in our country. Solar plants, when paired with energy storage, can effectively meet demand day and night while supporting grid stability.” – 49%
“Due to high costs and long timelines of building new natural gas and nuclear plants, those two sources of energy would not be able to meet the growth in demand until 2032. Solar energy can serve as a bridge immediately, due to it being the fastest and most cost-effective option to meet our current power needs.” – 47%
“Gas turbines are on backorder for six years, and nuclear energy needs at least 10 more years to be developed. In the meantime, solar energy can be built quickly to meet the country’s energy needs while gas and nuclear are being built.“ – 47%
“Texas, which serves as one of the best examples of an all-of-the-above energy state, has seen improved reliability of its grid, and electricity prices are below the national average. Half of Texas’s electricity was powered by renewable energy.” – 47%
“Many of the investments in clean energy, like solar, are concentrated in rural communities.” – 38%
“The U.S. Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, recently stated, ‘Our opposition to solar is the subsidies.’ Solar is an ‘industry source with a future,’ Wright said. ‘I think you’ll see continued work on solar at the Department of Energy.’” – 37%
“Florida, Georgia, and Arkansas stand out as having the greatest growth in solar recently. In fact, in 2024, 14 of the 20 states that added the most solar capacity supported President Trump in the 2024 presidential election.” – 31%

Related Resources

David Gold Aug 2021

Environmental Polling Roundup – August 6th, 2021

This post includes a roundup of climate + environment headlines from this week’s public polls, good data points to highlight, and a full roundup including key takeaways from each poll.

View Resource

David Gold Aug 2021

Environmental Polling Roundup – August 23rd, 2021

This post includes a roundup of climate + environment headlines from this week’s public polls, good data points to highlight, and a full roundup including key takeaways from each poll.

View Resource

David Gold Aug 2021

Environmental Polling Roundup – August 27th, 2021

This post includes a roundup of climate + environment headlines from this week’s public polls, good data points to highlight, and a full roundup including key takeaways from each poll.

View Resource