Environmental Polling Roundup - July 11, 2025

EPC Resource Library / Weekly Roundups

Environmental Polling Roundup – July 11, 2025

David Gold

July 11th, 2025

Headlines

USA Today + Ipsos – Even before the Texas floods, most Americans said that extreme weather was getting worse [Article, Release, Topline]

ecoAmerica – The majority of Americans say that extreme heat has made them “a lot” more concerned about climate change, and hearing about cuts to FEMA and NOAA increases concerns about climate impacts [Website, Report, Topline]

Yale + GMU – Americans widely agree that global warming has an impact on extreme weather events–particularly extreme heat and wildfires [Website, Report]

Data for Progress – Voters oppose cuts to FEMA and NOAA, with particularly strong resistance to the elimination of FEMA [Article, Crosstabs]

EDF Action – Voters deeply oppose energy and environmental policies in the reconciliation bill; while the bill’s impacts on health care and the national debt top their list of concerns about it, increases in electricity prices and harmful pollution are not far behind [Release, Memo]

Data for Progress – Voters oppose the reconciliation bill by a wide margin when they learn basic facts about it, and around two-thirds are concerned about its cuts to clean energy [Article, Crosstabs]

Key Takeaways

Amid widespread concerns about extreme weather, the elimination of FEMA can serve as a symbol of the administration’s dangerous approach to climate and the environment. Several recent polls conducted before the tragic flooding in Texas show that Americans recognize the connection between climate change and extreme weather. Yale and GMU, for example, find that most Americans believe that global warming is affecting a range of extreme weather events–including flooding as well as extreme heat, wildfires, droughts, and hurricanes.

Meanwhile, recent surveys by Data for Progress and ecoAmerica both find deep concerns about cuts to FEMA and NOAA. Data for Progress finds that the backlash to the proposed elimination of FEMA is especially intense. Environmental advocates have a powerful story to tell that connects these threads, as Trump and Congress are not only reversing efforts to address climate change but also abandoning their responsibility to protect people from its devastating impacts.

Voters are receptive to the argument that the reconciliation bill’s cuts to clean energy will raise electricity prices. Polls consistently show that Americans see energy prices as a supply-and-demand issue, which is why they tend to increase their support for domestic energy production at times when energy prices are higher. While the quirks of global energy markets, energy storage, and electricity delivery make the actual dynamics more complex than that, there’s now a clear opportunity for clean energy advocates to leverage these beliefs after Trump and Republicans in Congress decimated clean energy incentives.

To that end, EDF Action finds that around two-thirds of voters are “extremely” or “very” concerned by the following message about the reconciliation bill:

“According to independent energy economists, [the bill will] cause electricity prices to increase by nearly 20% by the year 2030 because many fewer wind and solar projects would be built at a time when demand for electricity is skyrocketing.”

In fact, the poll finds that concerns about the bill’s impacts on electricity prices are nearly as widespread as concerns about it kicking millions of Americans off of their health insurance coverage and causing the closures of nursing homes and rural hospitals.

Good Data Points to Highlight

[Climate Change] 69% of Americans recognize that global warming is happening, compared to just 15% who deny that it’s happening [Yale + GMU]
[Climate Change + Extreme Weather] Majorities of Americans say that global warming is having “some” or “a lot” of impact on extreme heat (65%), wildfires (62%), droughts (60%), flooding (58%), and hurricanes (57%) [Yale + GMU]
[Climate Change + Extreme Weather] 54% of Americans say that increased temperatures, heat waves, and extreme heat have made them “a lot” more concerned about climate change [ecoAmerica]
[Extreme Weather] 58% of Americans recognize that extreme weather events will become more frequent in the near future [USA Today + Ipsos]
[FEMA] Voters oppose the elimination of FEMA by a 66%-28% margin, with 47% strongly opposed to the idea [Data for Progress]
[Reconciliation Bill] 66% of voters are concerned about the reconciliation bill’s cuts to clean energy programs [Data for Progress]
[Reconciliation Bill] By a 35-point margin (27% support / 62% oppose), voters oppose the reconciliation bill’s elimination of methane pollution fees [EDF Action]
[Reconciliation Bill] By a 35-point margin (26% support / 61% oppose), voters oppose the reconciliation bill’s provision to allow oil, gas, and coal companies to avoid an environmental review of their projects if they pay a fee [EDF Action]

Full Roundup

USA Today + Ipsos – Even before the Texas floods, most Americans said that extreme weather was getting worse [Article, Release, Topline]

Most Americans say that unusual weather in their area has become more frequent in the past decade, particularly in the forms of extreme heat and poor air quality. The survey, which was fielded in mid-June, finds that majorities of Americans report that unusual weather (57%) and extreme heat (55%) have become more frequent in their areas over the past ten years. Additionally, around half (49%) say that poor air quality has become more common and around four in five report increasingly frequent severe thunderstorms (39%), droughts (38%), and wildfires (38%).

Below are the percentages who say that various weather events have become more frequent where they live:

Unusual weather for the season – 57%
Extreme heat – 55%
Poor air quality / air pollution – 49%
Severe thunderstorms – 39%
Droughts – 38%
Wildfires – 38%
Flooding – 35%
Tornadoes – 29%
Extreme cold – 27%
Hurricanes or tropical storms – 24%

As we’ve seen in other research, however, even these kinds of observations about the weather have become politically polarized. For each type of extreme weather that the survey asked about, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say that it has become more frequent where they live–including a 32-point gap over unusual weather in general (75% of Democrats vs. 43% of Republicans), a 30-point gap over poor air quality or air pollution (64% of Democrats vs. 34% of Republicans), and a 29-point gap over extreme heat (71% of Democrats vs. 42% of Republicans).

The majority of Americans expect extreme weather events to become more frequent in the near future, but Republicans are reluctant to acknowledge this. Nearly three in five Americans (58%) agree that extreme weather events will become more frequent in the near future, including more than four in five Democrats (84%) and the majority of independents (55%) but only 38% of Republicans.

Many Americans also recognize the increasing intensity of extreme weather events. The same types of weather events that Americans report are becoming more frequent where they live–including extreme heat, unusual weather for the season, and poor air quality–are also the weather events that Americans are most likely to feel are growing more intense.

Below are the percentages who say that various types of weather events have become more intense over the past ten years:

Extreme heat – 54%
Unusual weather for the season – 51%
Poor air quality / air pollution – 47%
Wildfires – 41%
Severe thunderstorms – 40%
Flooding – 38%
Droughts – 38%
Extreme cold – 28%
Hurricanes or tropical storms – 28%
Tornadoes – 27%

Again, the survey finds wide partisan gaps with Democrats much more likely than Republicans to say that extreme weather events are becoming more intense. For example, Democrats (72%) are 32 points more likely than Republicans (40%) to say that extreme heat has become more intense over the past decade.

Most Americans say that extreme heat has made them “a lot” more concerned about climate change. In this survey that was fielded last month, ecoAmerica finds that 86% of Americans say that increased temperatures, heat waves, and extreme heat have made them more concerned about climate change. This includes more than half (54%) who say that rising temperatures and extreme heat have made them “a lot” more concerned about climate change.

ecoAmerica notably finds that the connection between extreme heat and climate concerns extends across the political spectrum. While Democrats (71%) are the most likely to say that hotter temperatures have made them “a lot” more concerned about the issue, close to half of independents (45%) and Republicans (45%) also say that hot weather events have made them “a lot” more concerned about climate change.

Americans recognize extreme heat as a health issue. Nearly nine in ten (89%) agree that heat waves and extreme heat have at least “some” impact on people’s health, including overwhelming majorities of Democrats (96%), independents (85%), and Republicans (85%).

Most (58%) further say that heat waves and extreme heat affect people’s health “a lot”–including seven in ten Democrats (71%), the majority of independents (54%), and roughly half of Republicans (49%).

Cuts to FEMA and NOAA make Americans deeply concerned about the government’s ability to protect people from climate impacts. Nearly four in five Americans (79%) say that the federal government’s cuts to funding for “agencies like FEMA and NOAA that track extreme weather and help communities during disasters” make them more concerned about the government’s ability to protect people from climate impacts. These concerns also cut across partisan lines, with large majorities of Democrats (92%), independents (76%), and Republicans (69%) all saying that cuts to FEMA and NOAA make them more concerned about protection from climate impacts.

The intensity of these feelings varies by partisanship, however, Around two-thirds of Democrats (66%) say that cuts to FEMA and NOAA make them “much” more concerned about the government’s ability to protect people from climate impacts, compared to 44% of independents and 30% of Republicans.

Yale + GMU – Americans widely agree that global warming has an impact on extreme weather events–particularly extreme heat and wildfires [Website, Report]

Only around one in six Americans deny that global warming is happening, but many still aren’t convinced that it’s being caused by humans. In this survey that was fielded in May, Yale and GMU find that roughly seven in ten Americans (69%) recognize that global warming is happening. This represents a slight drop from their previous survey in December (73%).

Meanwhile, just 15% say that global warming is not happening–a figure that’s essentially unchanged since December (14%).

The question of human-caused global warming remains relatively more contentious, as 60% say that global warming is caused mostly by human activities (unchanged from December) and 28% say that global warming is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment (also unchanged from December).

Most Americans say that global warming is affecting weather in the United States, with particularly intuitive links to extreme heat and wildfires. A majority (57%) say that global warming is having at least “some” impact on weather in the United States, including about one-third (34%) who say that it’s having “a lot” of impact on the weather.

When asked about specific types of weather, meanwhile, majorities agree that global warming has at least “some” impact on a wide range of extreme weather events:

Extreme heat – 65% say that global warming is having at least “some” impact
Wildfires – 62%
Droughts – 60%
Flooding – 58%
Air pollution – 57%
Rising sea levels – 57%
Hurricanes – 57%
Water shortages – 55%
Tornadoes – 53%
Reduced snowpack – 52%
Water pollution – 47%
Agricultural pests and diseases – 45%
Electricity power outages – 45%
Diseases carried by mosquitos and ticks – 42%

Americans’ associations between global warming and hot/dry weather events are particularly strong. Around four in ten say that global warming is having a “lot” of impact on extreme heat (43%), wildfires (43%), and droughts (37%), compared to about one-third who say that it has a “lot” of impact on hurricanes (33%) and flooding (32%).

Close to half of Americans say that they have personally felt the effects of global warming. Slightly less than half of Americans (46%) say that they have personally experienced impacts from global warming. This figure has gradually been trending upward over time: in Yale and GMU’s data, it first exceeded 40% in 2017 and has remained above that threshold since. It has shown considerable fluctuation in recent years, however, rising as high as 52% in September 2021 and dropping as low as 43% in October 2023.

In general, self-reported experiences with and concern about climate change tend to be higher in the immediate aftermath of extreme weather events such as heat waves. It remains a challenge for climate communicators to make the topic more salient when Americans aren’t directly feeling or hearing about the impacts of a disrupted climate.

Americans continue to say that global warming will significantly harm future generations and developing countries, while tending to believe that they personally will avoid severe impacts. Less than half (46%) believe that they personally will be harmed at least a “moderate” amount by global warming, including just 17% who believe that they will personally be harmed “a great deal.”

And while the majority of Americans (62%) believe that people in the U.S. will be harmed at least “a moderate amount” by the problem, they are considerably more likely to say that the world’s poor (48%) or people in developing countries (45%) will be harmed a “great deal” than Americans will be (32%).

The public continues to agree that climate change will have a severe impact on future generations, with nearly seven in ten (69%) saying that future generations of people will be harmed at least a “moderate” amount and most (53%) saying that future generations will be harmed “a lot” by global warming.

Data for Progress – Voters oppose cuts to FEMA and NOAA, with particularly strong resistance to the elimination of FEMA [Article, Crosstabs]

There is no existing appetite, anywhere on the political spectrum, for cutting FEMA or NOAA. In this survey from June, survey respondents were provided with the following brief descriptions of FEMA and NOAA before being asked about their funding:

“The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for providing communities with both disaster preparedness resources and disaster relief after extreme weather events.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is responsible for producing research about the weather and climate that is relied on by services like AccuWeather or the Weather Channel, including radar maps and weather forecasts.”

Following these descriptions, only single-digit percentages say that funding should be decreased for either FEMA (43% increased / 37% kept the same / 9% decreased) or NOAA (36% increased / 43% kept the same / 6% decreased). For both agencies, voters are several times more likely to say that funding should be increased than cut.

Even among Republicans, only 13% want to cut funding for FEMA (30% increased / 45% kept the same / 13% decreased) and just 9% want to reduce funding for NOAA (23% increased / 52% kept the same / 9% decreased).

Voters strongly reject the idea of eliminating FEMA, and also widely oppose cuts to NOAA. Voters oppose the elimination of FEMA by a 38-point margin (28% support / 66% oppose) after learning that some lawmakers have proposed shutting down the agency. Nearly half of voters (47%) strongly oppose the idea, and it is also unpopular among Republican voters (39% support / 53% oppose).

Voters also oppose proposed cuts to NOAA by a greater than two-to-one margin (26% support / 62% oppose), including a 17-point margin of opposition among Republicans (34% support / 51% oppose).

Voters generally express confidence in their states’ emergency services, but clearly not enough to do away with the federal government’s support. Voters’ opposition to cutting or eliminating FEMA is not based on a lack of trust in state agencies: most voters (66%), including majorities of both Democrats (66%) and Republicans (70%), are at least “somewhat” confident that their state’s emergency management agency can ensure the safety of them and their household in the case of an extreme weather event.

However, their strong resistance to eliminating FEMA underlines how voters see disaster recovery as a responsibility of the federal government that it can’t simply abandon. AP-NORC found last month that large majorities across party lines say that the federal government should have a “major role” in tracking weather events and warning people about natural disasters, providing aid to communities in the aftermath of natural disasters, and helping to rebuild communities that are affected by natural disasters.

Many of the reconciliation bill’s major provisions are deeply unpopular, including policies that cut clean energy and give new allowances to oil and gas companies. EDF Action finds that majorities oppose most of the key components that they tested, including provisions to cut clean energy, reduce taxes and fees on oil and gas companies, and establish a “pay-to-pollute” shortcut to avoid environmental review of fossil fuel projects.

Below are the margins of support for each item included in their poll memo:

Permanently increasing the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,200: +54 (71% support / 17% oppose)
Reducing taxes on tipped wages and overtime for the next three years: +53 (72% support / 19% oppose)
Creating a new tax credit to encourage the use of coal to generate electricity and opening up public land to more coal mining: -11 (37% support / 48% oppose)
Permanently lowering the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%: -16 (36% support / 52% oppose)
Gutting tax credits that encourage the production and use of clean energy like solar and wind: -19 (35% support / 54% oppose)
Providing $3.8 trillion in tax cuts, with 60% of those cuts going to the top 10% of earners and about 13% going to middle income households: -20 (35% support / 55% oppose)
Creating a new tax carveout that will exempt many oil and gas drillers from paying corporate taxes while reducing the fee that oil and gas companies pay to drill on public lands and waters: -28 (30% support / 58% oppose)
Creating a new provision that allows oil, gas, and coal companies to avoid an environmental review of their projects if they pay a fee: -35 (26% support / 61% oppose)
Eliminating the requirement that oil and gas companies pay a fee when they emit methane pollution into the air and water for the next 10 years: -35 (27% support / 62% oppose)
Cutting funding for the food stamp program, also known as SNAP, by $300 billion: -45 (25% support / 70% oppose)
Cutting funding for Medicaid by $930 billion: -51 (22% support / 73% oppose)

Large majorities are concerned that the bill will raise electricity prices, increase harmful pollution, and reduce U.S. energy generation. Just as the bill’s gutting of Medicaid rank as its least popular component, EDF Action finds that the potential consequences for Americans’ health care rank as the most concerning to voters–with more than 70% saying that they are “extremely” or “very” concerned about people losing health insurance coverage and nursing homes and rural hospitals closing.

Concerns about the impacts of the bill on electricity prices and pollution, meanwhile, are nearly as widespread–with around two-thirds of voters expressing concerns about these consequences.

Below are the percentages who find various potential impacts “extremely” or “very” concerning:

According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, this proposal will cause nearly 17 million Americans to lose their health insurance coverage – 74% “extremely” or “very” concerning
According to the American Health Care Association, the Medicaid cuts in this proposal will cause more than one-quarter of all nursing homes in the U.S. to shut down – 72%
According to non-partisan health care economists, the Medicaid cuts in this proposal would put 380 independent rural hospitals across 26 states at “serious risk of closure” – 72%
According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, this proposal will add $3.3 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years – 69%
According to independent energy economists, this proposal would cause electricity prices to increase by nearly 20% by the year 2030 because many fewer wind and solar projects would be built at a time when demand for electricity is skyrocketing – 67%
Scientists, doctors, and nurses say that this proposal will increase pollution and harm public health because it encourages oil, gas, and coal companies to emit more methane pollution and it includes a “pay-to-pollute” provision that also allows them to avoid an environmental review of their projects – 66%
Independent energy experts say that this proposal will reduce U.S. power generation capacity by 300 gigawatts at a time when demand is skyrocketing because of A.I. data centers and heat waves, and risks increasing the frequency of power outages and blackouts – 66%
Last year, 93% of all new electricity generation in the U.S. came from clean energy sources but non-partisan energy experts call this proposal a “kill shot” that will “cripple” the American clean energy industry and allow China to dominate the global solar and wind manufacturing industry for the next 50 years or more – 63%
According to independent energy economists, this proposal would drastically reduce the expansion of wind and solar projects in the U.S., resulting in the loss of 770,000 jobs and $960 billion in economic growth – 63%
According to the non-partisan Budget Lab at Yale University, this proposal would increase the annual after-tax income of the top 1% of earners by $63,000 while decreasing after-tax income for the bottom 40% of earners – 62%

Data for Progress – Voters oppose the reconciliation bill by a wide margin when they learn basic facts about it, and around two-thirds are concerned about its cuts to clean energy [Article, Crosstabs]

The reconciliation bill continues to be unpopular with the public. Data for Progress finds that voters oppose the bill by a 19-point margin (38% support / 57% oppose) after reading the description below:

“Lawmakers in Congress are proposing a tax and spending bill. It would:

Extend tax cuts for all individuals and corporations, with most of these benefiting high-income households
Remove taxes on tips and overtime pay, and increase the Child Tax Credit by $500 per child for most families
Cut over $700 billion from Medicaid and $300 billion from Affordable Care Act subsidies
Cut over $300 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food assistance)
Increase military and border security spending by more than $200 billion in total
Add about $3 trillion dollars to the national debt.”

Other recent public polling has similarly found the bill to be underwater by double digits. Navigator, for example, found last week that voters oppose it by a 15-point margin when it’s described as “Republicans in Congress’ proposed budget plan” (33% support / 48% oppose) and oppose it by an 11-point margin when it’s described as “Congress’s proposed budget plan, also known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (32% support / 43% oppose).

Around two-thirds of voters are concerned about the bill’s cuts to clean energy programs, though their strongest objections are about the bill’s impacts on health care, CHIP, nutrition assistance, and the national debt. Similar to other surveys, Data for Progress’s poll finds that voters are concerned about cuts to clean energy and have especially deep concerns about cuts to health care.

Below are the percentages who say that they are at least “somewhat” concerned about major provisions of the bill:

Increases to the national debt – 78% concerned, including 48% who are “very” concerned
Cuts to the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) – 77% concerned, 50% “very”
Cuts to nutrition assistance – 76% concerned, 49% “very”
Cuts to Medicaid – 75% concerned, 55% “very”
Cuts to health care subsidies under the Affordable Care Act – 75% concerned, 49% “very”
Cuts to clean energy programs – 66% concerned, 38% “very”
Cuts to income taxes on wealthy Americans – 62% concerned, 44% “very”

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