Environmental Polling Roundup – July 3, 2026
Headlines
Data for Progress – Amid proposed changes to the OMB’s grant rules, voters overwhelmingly say that decisions about research funding should be made by scientists and experts rather than political officials [Website, Crosstabs]
Yale + GMU – Americans’ awareness of the health risks of climate change has increased in the past decade, but views are deeply polarized; voters underestimate the negative health impacts of gas as an energy source [Website, Open Access Article]
[Michigan] Climate Power – Michigan voters say that Trump has made energy prices more expensive and a plurality are less likely to vote for a candidate who supports his energy policies [Memo, Topline]
Key Takeaways
Americans continue to underestimate the negative health impacts of “natural” gas. A new article published by researchers affiliated with Yale and GMU finds that only around two in five Americans view gas as harmful to human health. Other research shows that Americans widely misperceive gas as a “clean” energy source, and Yale and GMU’s data shows that both Democrats and Republicans underestimate its negative health impacts.
Part of the problem is the branding of gas as “natural.” Researchers at Yale previously found that Democrats and Republicans both perceive gas more negatively when it’s referred to as “methane” gas rather than “natural” gas.
However, the low awareness of gas’s negative health impacts can not be addressed just by changing our terminology; even if environmental advocacy groups start adopting terms other than “natural gas,” as many have, “natural gas” will still remain the dominant term in the media. Rather, findings like Yale and GMU’s show that it will require a concerted public awareness campaign to educate Americans about the public health harms of burning gas for energy.
Voters are primed to resist the Trump administration’s political takeover of federal grants. In the first polling that we’ve seen on proposed changes to the federal government’s grant rules, Data for Progress finds that voters oppose the proposed changes by a wide margin. Voters across the political spectrum believe that decisions about funding scientific research are better left to scientific experts, rather than political officials, and widely agree that the scientific community should have a say about possible rule changes that would impact research funding.
We’d encourage others to build on this research and explore if there are ways to tangibly connect the rule change to people’s lives, perhaps by linking the proposed rule to direct and specific impacts to public health and safety.
Good Data Points to Highlight
[Proposed OMB Grant Rules] Voters oppose the White House’s proposed change to federal grant rules for scientific research by a 26-point margin (34% support / 60% oppose) after reading a balanced description of the proposed change [Data for Progress]
[Proposed OMB Grant Rules] 77% of voters, including 62% of Republicans, say that the scientific community–including research labs and universities–should have a say over whether the proposed change to federal grant rules goes into effect [Data for Progress]
[Proposed OMB Grant Rules] 70% of voters, including 52% of Republicans, say that decisions about federal scientific research funding should be made by scientists and experts rather than the president’s team [Data for Progress]
Full Roundup
Data for Progress – Amid proposed changes to the OMB’s grant rules, voters overwhelmingly say that decisions about research funding should be made by scientists and experts rather than political officials [Website, Crosstabs]
Voters across the political spectrum say that decisions about federal scientific research funding should be made by experts rather than the president’s team. When presented with the following two choices related to the Trump OMB’s proposed new grant rules, voters side in favor of an argument for experts making decisions about scientific research funding over an argument for the president and the president’s appointees making these decisions by a 48-point margin (70%-22%):
- Decisions should be made by panels of scientists and experts based on scientific merit–research funding is too important to leave to political considerations (70% agree more with this statement)
- Decisions should be made by the president’s team–elected leaders should direct how taxpayer money is spent on research (22% agree more with this statement)
Voters of every partisan affiliation side more with the argument for scientists and experts making decisions about scientific funding, including by a 72-point margin among Democrats, a 66-point margin among independents, and a 13-point margin among Republicans.
Voters oppose the proposed OMB rule change by a wide margin after learning about it. Data for Progress showed respondents the following explanation and balanced arguments about the proposed rule:
“Under current rules, grants for scientific research are decided by scientists and experts in the field.
The White House has proposed new rules that would require all research paid for by the federal government to match the White House’s priorities. Under this proposal, White House officials would have final approval over all grant funding, and scientists’ recommendations could be overruled.
Supporters say taxpayer-funded research should reflect the priorities of elected leaders, not just the judgment of scientists.
Opponents say letting political officials overrule scientists would hurt the quality of American scientific research.”
After learning his information, voters oppose the rule change by a 26-point margin (34% support / 60% oppose). There is a deep partisan split in voters’ reactions, however. While large majorities of Democrats (15% support / 80% oppose) and independents (26% support / 67% oppose) oppose the proposal, the majority of Republicans are in favor of it (56% support / 36% oppose).
Voters overwhelmingly agree that the scientific community should have a say over whether new rules are implemented. Three-quarters of voters (77%) agree that “the scientific community–including research labs and universities–should have a say over whether this rule goes into effect.”
Even with Republicans saying that they support the proposed rule change, majorities of every party support giving the scientific community a say. This includes 87% of Democrats, 83% of independents, and 62% of Republicans.
Yale + GMU – Americans’ awareness of the health risks of climate change has increased in the past decade, but views are deeply polarized; voters underestimate the negative health impacts of gas as an energy source [Website, Open Access Article]
Americans’ awareness of the health risks of climate change has increased in the past decade. Comparing survey responses from 2014 and 2024, researchers affiliated with Yale and George Mason find that Americans are increasingly aware of specific health risks from unchecked climate change.
Below are the health risks that Americans are most likely to believe will become more common in their community in the next 10 years as a result of global warming if nothing is done to address it, along with the change since 2014:
- Heat stroke caused by extreme heat waves – 45% believe that this will become more common (+31 since 2014)
- Air pollution, including smog – 44% (+26 since 2014)
- Asthma and/or other lung diseases – 43% (+26 since 2014)
- Pollen-related allergies – 41% (+23 since 2014)
- Bodily harm from wildfires, including from smoke inhalation – 40% (+30 since 2014)
Democrats and Republicans have sharply diverging views about the health impacts of climate change. Yale and GMU find that “increases [from 2014 to 2024] in Americans’ awareness of climate and health are driven largely by Democrats, with Republicans’ awareness generally remaining constant or decreasing.”
An average of 57% of Democrats said that the 13 health harms that the surveys asked about would become more common if global warming wasn’t addressed, including around two-thirds of Democrats who recognized that heat stroke (66%) and air pollution like smog (66%) would become more common as a result of climate change.
Meanwhile, an average of just 19% of Republicans said that the 13 health harms would become more common–including only around one in five Republicans who recognize that global warming will lead to more instances of heat stroke (21%) and more air pollution (21%).
Americans underestimate the health harms of gas as an energy source. While most Americans (65%) recognize that coal is harmful to people’s health, only around two in five (38%) recognize that gas is. Below are the percentages who believe that various energy sources are at least “moderately” harmful to people’s health:
- Coal – 65%
- Nuclear – 53%
- Gas – 38%
- Wind – 15%
- Solar – 12%
These findings are consistent with other research that shows that natural gas is commonly misunderstood as a “clean” energy source. Republicans are particularly likely to underestimate the health harms of gas, with only 22% believing that it is harmful to human health. Republicans are far less likely to see natural gas as harmful than coal (49%) or nuclear power (45%).
Even among Democrats, however, only around half (51%) believe that gas is at least “moderately” harmful to people’s health–indicating a clear need to educate Americans of all political leanings about the health harms of gas.
Americans are most likely to trust medical professionals, including first responders and doctors, about the health harms of climate change. Majorities of Americans say that they trust first responders such as firefighters and emergency medical responders (60%) and their primary care doctors (60%) for information about health problems related to global warming.
Republicans are especially likely to trust first responders (57%) and their primary care doctors (52%) for information about the health impacts of global warming over alternative messengers such as the American Medical Association (29%), climate scientists (23%), the EPA (21%), or environmental organizations (16%). Large majorities of Democrats say that they trust all of these sources of information about the health harms of global warming.
On the other end of the spectrum, only 21% of Americans–including just 8% of Republicans and 38% of Democrats–say that they trust journalists as sources of information about health problems related to global warming.
[Michigan] Climate Power – Michigan voters say that Trump has made energy prices more expensive and a plurality are less likely to vote for a candidate who supports his energy policies [Memo, Topline]
Most Michigan voters say that Trump has made energy prices more expensive. Nearly three in five Michigan voters (58%) say that Trump has made energy prices more expensive, including nearly two in five (38%) who say that he has made energy “much” more expensive.
Additionally, more than three in five (63%) disagree with Trump’s statement that high gas prices are a “small price to pay” for the war in Iran if the war accomplishes the goals that he has stated for it.
Nearly half of Michigan voters say that the war in Iran has made them more supportive of diversifying America’s energy sources. A plurality (45%) say that, since the war in Iran began, they have become more supportive of diversifying America’s energy sources beyond oil and gas to sources such as solar and wind.
Around one-third (33%) say that the war hasn’t changed their views about different sources of energy, while only one in five (20%) say that the war has made them less supportive of diversifying the country’s energy sources beyond oil and gas.
By a two-to-one margin, Michigan voters say that alignment with Trump’s energy policies is more of a reason to vote against a candidate than a reason to support them. Only around one in five Michigan voters (21%) say that they would be more likely to vote for a candidate for Congress who supported Trump’s energy policies, compared to two in five (42%) who say that they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supported Trump’s energy policies.
Related Resources
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.
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.
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.