Environmental Polling Roundup - July 31, 2026

EPC Resource Library / Weekly Roundups

Environmental Polling Roundup – July 31, 2026

David Gold

July 31st, 2026

Headlines

UC-Santa Barbara – More polling refutes the idea of “climate hushing”; Americans are more likely to support candidates who make climate change a priority, even though they don’t rank it as one of their own top issues [Grist Article, Website]

Fox News – Voters across party lines, including MAGA Republicans, say that they would oppose a local AI data center [Website, Topline, Crosstabs]

Climate Power – Voters are receptive to messaging about the reliability of clean energy, even in the face of opposition messaging; bipartisan majorities support policies to expand clean energy, upgrade the grid, and strengthen accountability on data centers and utilities [Website, Deck]

Climate Power – Qualitative research on the Iran War shows that voters directly blame Trump for it and the resulting energy price spikes; voters suspect that oil companies were a factor in the decision to intervene [Website, Deck]

[Battleground Districts] Navigator – Voters in battleground U.S. House districts have overwhelmingly negative attitudes about data centers and AI companies [Website, Deck, Topline]

[Swing Voters] Third Way – Focus group research shows that swing voters are familiar with the downsides of data center development and don’t trust claims about the local benefits [Website]

[Latino Voters] Climate Power – Latino voters are being exposed to a lot of misinformation about climate change and energy; despite uncertainty about the costs of different energy sources, Latino voters say that clean energy is more important than fossil fuels for keeping electricity costs down [Deck, Memo]

Key Takeaways

Research continues to refute the idea of “climate hushing.” New research by the 2035 Initiative at UC-Santa Barbara analyzes the merits of “climate hushing” (the de-prioritization of climate change by Democratic office-holders and candidates based on the belief that talking about climate change is politically detrimental).

The argument for “climate hushing” boils down to the supposition that, because climate change is not a top priority for voters, Democrats signal that they are out of touch with voters’ priorities when they talk about it and therefore face an electoral penalty.

The 2035 Initiative research supports the opening premise of that argument: it is true that climate change does not rank as a top priority for voters. Their survey expectedly finds that Americans are much less likely to rank climate change as a personal priority than the cost of living or the economy (though Americans rank climate on par with other high-profile issues like immigration and trade).

However, the 2035 Initiative’s research–like past in-depth analysis–finds that “climate hushers” are starting with a correct observation but ending up at the wrong conclusion. This new research finds that, all other candidate characteristics held equal, hypothetical candidates gain 2.7 points of support when respondents are told that climate change is “a priority” for the candidate and gain 4.5 points of support when respondents are told that climate change is “a top priority” for the candidate.

The electoral benefits of supporting climate action come down to simple math: there are far more supporters of government action on climate who are motivated to vote on the issue than opponents of climate action who are motivated to vote on the issue. Of the Americans who say that a candidate’s position on climate action is important to their voting decision, the 2035 Initiative finds, supporters of climate action outnumber opponents of climate action five-to-one.

Opposition to data centers is uniting voters across the political spectrum. One of the striking aspects of polling on data centers is the way that politically disparate groups of voters have come to agree on the topic. Popular backlash to data center expansion has been growing over the course of the year, and while Trump supporters have tended to be the last holdouts in favor of data centers, new polling commissioned by Fox News finds that support for local data center construction is underwater throughout the electorate.

This includes majorities of every political group, with Democrats who affiliate with the Democratic Socialists of America (76% oppose an AI data center in their area) and self-described MAGA Republicans (53% oppose an AI data center in their area) even on the same side of the issue now.

Good Data Points to Highlight

[Data Centers] 76% of voters, including 76% of Democrats and 60% of Republicans, say that they would oppose the building of a data center in their area to support AI technology [Fox News]

[Clean Energy] 74% of voters have favorable attitudes about clean energy companies, compared to just 13% who are unfavorable [Climate Power]

[Transmission] 83% of voters support upgrading and modernizing the electric grid to handle higher demand and prevent outages [Climate Power]

[Transmission + Clean Energy] 66% of voters support creating a tax credit for the companies that build new transmission lines to help bring more clean energy online [Climate Power]

Full Roundup

UC-Santa Barbara – More polling refutes the idea of “climate hushing”; Americans are more likely to support candidates who make climate change a priority, even though they don’t rank it as one of their own top issues [Grist Article, Website]

Americans are more inclined to support candidates who name climate change as a priority. This new research by the 2035 Initiative, a policy and research center housed at UC-Santa Barbara, addresses the phenomenon of “climate hushing”–essentially, the deliberate choice by many Democratic office-holders and candidates to stay silent on climate change in the belief that the issue is politically detrimental.

Previous research has indicated that “climate hushing” is a misguided strategy: an in-depth analysis released by academic researchers in 2024, for example, concluded that voters’ climate change attitudes had a positive effect on Democrats’ electoral chances–and may even have had a decisive impact in Biden’s 2020 victory.

The 2035 Initiative research points to a similar conclusion. The researchers ran a vote choice experiment where respondents saw descriptions of hypothetical pairs of candidates and randomized the levels of priority that the candidates placed on different issues–either making the issue a “top priority, “a priority,” or “not a priority.”

Compared to a condition where climate change was not a priority for a candidate, naming climate change as a priority increased a candidate’s chances of being selected by 2.7 points (holding all other candidate characteristics equal). Naming climate change as a “top priority” for the candidate increased their chances of being selected by 4.5 points.

Other issue priorities had more of an effect: naming “lowering everyday costs” or “health care” as priorities, for example, increased candidates’ chances of being selected by double digits over conditions where the candidate did not prioritize these issues. In other words, there could be some opportunity cost for candidates to prioritize other issues over the cost of living or health care. This is common sense in today’s political landscape, and even the most ardent climate supporters are generally not pushing for candidates to campaign about climate change above all else.

Nonetheless, this data indicates that signaling that climate change is a priority has a positive, additive effect on a candidate’s chances–and therefore refutes the central premise of “climate hushing.” Americans would rather support a candidate who prioritizes the cost of living, health care, and climate change than a candidate who prioritizes the cost of living and health care and doesn’t prioritize climate change.

Americans who support government action on climate change are much more motivated to vote on the issue than opponents of climate action. The reason that support for climate action is an electorally beneficial position comes down to simple math: voters who support climate action and care about it enough for it to impact their vote greatly outnumber those who oppose climate action and care enough about it for it to influence their voting decisions.

The UC-Santa Barbara research finds that Americans who support government action on climate change (75+ on a 0-100 scale of support) and say that a candidate’s position on it has a big influence on their decision of who to vote for (75+ on a 0-100 scale of vote importance) make up a majority of the population (56%). Meanwhile, just 11% of Americans oppose government action on climate change (0-25 on a 0-100 scale of support) and say that a candidate’s position on climate action has a big impact on who they vote for (75+ on a 0-100 scale of vote importance).

For some of the other issue positions tested in the survey, such as restricting abortion access and using the military for economic reasons, large numbers on both sides of the issue said that they cared enough to vote on it. This is not the case for climate change, however, where support for climate action is a motivating factor for many Americans but opposition to climate inaction is not.

Americans prefer candidates who prioritize climate change even though voters typically don’t rank it as a top-tier issue for themselves. This research finds that 12% of Americans rank climate change as one of their own top three issues. In terms of relative importance, this places climate change roughly on par with immigration (14%), tariffs and trade (12%), and foreign policy (8%) but considerably lower than the cost of living (50%), the economy (35%), or health care (32%).

In this way, the research supports some of the situational analysis made by “climate hushers.” Hushers argue that, because climate change is not a top priority for voters, candidates who focus on it signal that they are disconnected from regular Americans’ priorities and therefore lose support.

This data confirms the first part of that argument: it is true that Americans don’t name climate change as one of their top priorities, particularly in an era where the cost of living is vastly overshadowing everything else. However, the inference that climate hushers are then making from this initial observation–that it’s therefore detrimental for candidates to talk about climate change–continues to be refuted by the available data.

Fox News – Voters across party lines, including MAGA Republicans, say that they would oppose a local AI data center [Website, Topline, Crosstabs]

Seven in ten voters say that they would oppose a local AI data center, including majorities of every political affiliation. Fox News finds that 70% of voters oppose a local data center project when it’s described as “the building of a data center in your area to support artificial intelligence technology.”

This is on the high end of opposition we’ve seen in data center polling, but is consistent with a May survey by Gallup that found that 71% of Americans oppose “the construction of a data center in [their] area to support artificial intelligence, or AI, technology in the U.S.”

Given Americans’ pessimism about the impacts of AI, it is common for polls to find higher opposition to local data centers when the poll question specifies that the data center would be used for AI.

Fox News strikingly finds that majorities of voters of every political affiliation, all the way from DSA Democrats to MAGA Republicans, would oppose a data center in their area–a remarkable level of cross-partisan agreement in the current political climate:

Democrats Total – 24% support / 76% oppose
DSA Democrats – 24% support / 76% oppose
Independents – 24% support / 76% oppose
Republicans Total – 40% support / 60% oppose
MAGA Republicans – 46% support / 53% oppose

Voters are much more swayed by the arguments for slowing data center expansion than the arguments for accelerating it. When presented with the following arguments for and against data center expansion in general, voters side overwhelmingly with the argument for slowing their construction:

The U.S. should slow construction of AI data centers until environmental and community concerns are addressed – 78% agree more with this argument
The U.S. should build AI data centers as quickly as possible to advance the technology and maintain our competitive advantage over China – 21% agree more with this argument

Again, voters of all political factions find themselves on the same side as large majorities of Democrats (85%) and Republicans (68%) both agree more with the argument in favor of slowing data center expansion.

Note: Previously released data from this poll was included in an earlier weekly roundup.

Voters are receptive to messaging about the reliability of clean energy, even in the face of opposition messaging. Polls have shown that concerns about reliability–often even more than costs–remain a key barrier for clean energy to overcome in order to gain broader support for the clean energy transition.

Encouragingly, voters find here that clean energy advocates can win in head-to-head debates about the reliability of the technology. By a 62%-25% margin, voters side more with an argument in favor of clean energy expansion when exposed to back-and-forth messaging with a heavy emphasis on reliability:

Clean energy is more reliable and faster than other sources: new wind and solar projects take less than a year to build, significantly faster than building new gas plants; and in that time, we can bring enough clean energy online to meet rising demand that is supplemented with increased battery storage. – 62% agree more with this argument
Green energy is not reliable and can’t replace coal and gas: they are reliable, tried and true, and affordable, and we should stick with what we know works. – 25% agree more with this argument

And in a simulated back-and-forth debate specifically about the reliability of clean energy technologies, clean energy comes out on top by a similar margin (63%-26%):

Clean energy is reliable: battery storage makes it so that wind and solar can generate energy when wind and sun are abundant, then store that electricity in batteries to be deployed when energy is needed later. – 63% agree more with this argument
Green energy is not reliable: wind and solar don’t produce energy all the time, which is a real challenge when demand is high or during extreme weather. – 26% agree more with this argument

Voters have solid familiarity with wind and solar, but not with battery storage. The winning arguments that Climate Power tested referenced battery storage to strengthen the case for clean energy’s reliability. However, they find elsewhere in the poll that only around two in five voters (38%) are at least “somewhat familiar” with battery storage facilities. There is reason to believe, therefore, that arguments in support of clean energy’s reliability would be even stronger if advocates could increase voters’ understanding of battery storage.

Additionally, Climate Power’s data indicates that arguments presenting clean energy as a tried-and-true technology may be better served by referring to it as coming from “wind and solar farms” (which 66% of voters say that they are familiar with) as opposed to “renewable energy power plants” (which 55% of voters express familiarity with).

Bipartisan majorities support policies to expand clean energy, upgrade the grid, and strengthen accountability on data centers and utilities. In testing a dozen energy policy proposals, Climate Power finds particularly intense support behind policies that would strengthen accountability over data centers and utility companies. These include:

Forcing data centers to build or pay for any new energy systems they require, so that they don’t put strain on the energy supply in communities where they are building or raise utility costs for consumers – 79% support, 53% “strongly”
Creating a “ratepayer bill of rights” that would protect people from massive rate hikes, prevent people from having their power shut off during surges, and provide more oversight and accountability for utility companies – 77% support, 49% “strongly”

In terms of energy development, voters are more inclined to expand clean energy than fossil fuels. A slight majority also favor the idea of utilizing existing gas power plants but not building new ones:

Cutting red tape and streamlining the federal permitting process for clean energy – 67% support, 32% “strongly”
Creating a tax credit for the companies that build new transmission lines to help bring more clean energy online – 66% support, 28% “strongly”
Building more gas power plants to generate more electricity to keep up with demand – 57% support, 24% “strongly”
Using existing gas power plants to generate electricity, but not building any new ones – 54% support, 20% “strongly”
Building more coal power plants to generate more electricity to keep up with demand – 45% support, 19% “strongly”

And as we’ve seen in other polling, proposals to upgrade and improve the electric grid earn overwhelming support:

Upgrading and modernizing the electric grid to handle higher demand and prevent outages – 83% support, 45% “strongly”
Improving grid resilience against outages caused by things like natural disasters or cyberattacks – 82% support, 47% “strongly”
Limiting utility company profits if they don’t invest in energy infrastructure improvements – 74% support, 40% “strongly”

Effective messaging on clean energy, energy infrastructure, and data centers should call out the corporations that voters blame for high energy prices, present clean energy as the solution, and simply communicate how it is cost-effective and reliable. Synthesizing the findings from this research, Climate Power provides the following messaging guidance for advocates to meet the moment:

“Our Message

Context: For too long, politicians have let utility companies and Big Tech put their profits ahead of working families. Families are paying higher electricity bills because we’re relying on outdated energy infrastructure, while massive new data centers are putting even more strain on the grid. Families shouldn’t be the ones footing the bill.

Populist Angle: The companies driving demand, not working families, should help pay for these investments. The technology companies building massive data centers should pay their fair share, with strong protections to ensure they can’t pass those costs on to consumers. It’s time to build an energy system that works for families, not just corporate executives.

Solution: It’s time to modernize our energy infrastructure by upgrading the electric grid, building more affordable clean energy, adding battery storage, and expanding the transmission lines that deliver electricity to homes and businesses.

Cost Stats: Wind and solar are already among the cheapest and fastest ways to generate new electricity, taking less than a year to build while new gas power plants take up to 7 years and cost up to 60% more. The government is spending billions of

dollars on things like a new White House ballroom; we should spend the money on something like this that will actually benefit American families by bringing down utility costs.

Reliability Prebuttal: At the same time, battery storage saves that energy generated when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing so it’s there when we need it most. Together, these investments create jobs, strengthen reliability, and lower energy costs over time.”

Qualitative research on the Iran War shows that voters directly blame Trump for it. In a large-scale qualitative research study, which split 534 voters into discussions that started with either the cost of living or the Iran War and then converged on who’s to blame and how to address energy costs, Climate Power finds that voters immediately blame Trump for the war and directly link it to rising costs.

Pulling from the deck:

“War is Trump’s decision: Participants assign the war directly to Trump (not Iran, not outside forces). In both discussions participants describe it as a blunder without a plan.

Republicans own the war by silence: Congressional Republicans are blamed for not stopping it and for continuing to support Trump.

The war spikes energy prices across the board. Participants in both discussions connect the war to gas prices through the Strait of Hormuz and Middle East oil supply disruption. This understanding is broadly shared, not limited to the Iran entry group.”

Voters suspect that oil companies were a factor in the decision to intervene. Pulling again from the deck:

“Oil company ties explain the motive: Both discussions surface the inference that Republicans wanted high oil prices because their donors profit from them. The war is reframed as a donor payoff, not a strategic decision. This is the deepest and most durable level of distrust.”

Messaging in favor of clean energy is strengthened by connecting it to affordability and energy independence and referencing new “breakthroughs.” Pulling again from the deck:

“Affordability/lower bills: Many are open to clean energy as a means to cut household energy costs and ease financial strain.

Energy independence / security: Respondents appreciate the link between domestic clean energy production and national security by reducing reliance on foreign oil and potential conflicts.

‘Breakthroughs’ in clean energy: People know clean energy is healthier, but they’re unsure if it’s more affordable or more (or as) reliable. Speaking in terms of ‘breakthroughs’ that have made affordability/reliability possible can make people excited about clean energy and help alleviate some of these concerns.”

[Battleground Districts] Navigator – Voters in battleground U.S. House districts have overwhelmingly negative attitudes about data centers and AI companies [Website, Deck, Topline]

Data centers are deeply unpopular in the congressional battleground. More than two-thirds of voters in battleground districts have unfavorable opinions of data centers (18% favorable / 69% unfavorable), and the intensity behind these attitudes (43% “very” unfavorable) lends further credence to the idea that data centers will be a major issue in the November elections for Congress.

When exposed to back-and-forth messaging, battleground voters end up very skeptical about the economic benefits of data centers. After being presented with arguments for and against the claimed economic benefits of data centers, voters side more with an argument downplaying their economic benefits by a nearly four-to-one margin (62%-16%):

“Data centers make big promises to get into communities, including claiming they bring economic growth and new jobs, but in reality: data centers are warehouses full of computer servers that mostly run on their own, not major job-creators. One analysis found data centers in Virginia created just one permanent job for every $54 million invested.” – 62% agree more with this argument
“Data centers create local union jobs during construction, in addition to long-term operational jobs in fields like IT, mechanics, and security. These jobs allow young people to stay in their communities instead of relocating. Data centers directly employ more than 600,000 people nationally, more than many other industries.” – 16% agree more with this statement

Battleground voters are wary of Big Tech and AI companies in general. Battleground residents’ general negativity toward Big Tech and the AI industry undergirds their distrust of data centers, as nearly two-thirds of these voters have unfavorable attitudes about Big Tech (25% favorable / 66% unfavorable) and AI companies (23% favorable / 65% unfavorable).

Focus group research shows that swing voters are familiar with the downsides of data center development and unsure of the benefits. Pulling from Third Way’s article on a recent data center focus group with swing voters:

“Only a handful of participants expressed unequivocal support. Most ‘supporters’ framed data centers as a ‘necessary evil.’ They didn’t want to see data centers built in their communities, but they acknowledged that tech companies need server space to fuel growth, and local data center build-out seemed inevitable. They rationalized that there could be some benefits for their community, like new construction jobs or tax revenue…

Anti-data center participants worried about the impact of construction on the local environment, mentioning concerns about pollution, traffic, and noise. One participant described ongoing construction in their state, saying it had already ‘caused flooding, washed-out roads, caused lots of damage.’

Others worried about the impact of data centers on local electricity costs. ‘Data centers cause pollution, add traffic, and drive up energy costs. It is the indisputable truth,’ said one participant. ‘We don’t need the pollution, the noise & certainly not the energy increase,’ said another.

Ultimately, participants felt they were asked to give more than they received: allow data centers to change their community, impact the environment, and potentially raise energy bills; gain, if all goes well, jobs and tax revenue.”

Voters distrust the corporate figures that are trying to sell them on data centers. Pulling again from the article:

“Participants believed someone would benefit from data center buildout, just not them…

Participants were shown footage of an exchange between Kevin O’Leary and Tucker Carlson. The two discuss O’Leary’s ongoing investment in an AI data center campus in Utah. O’Leary argues that the project would create 2,000 long-term and 10,000 manufacturing and construction jobs. Carlson questions whether creating 2,000 permanent jobs in Utah justifies the impact of AI on other American workers. Respondents, including many who self-identified as Democrats or Liberals, overwhelmingly agreed with Carlson…

Participants were similarly skeptical of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s testimony before Congress on the benefits of AI and data centers–including both those who did and did not know who he was. Most respondents found his testimony unpersuasive and did not believe he was being truthful or that he is a credible source….

Most participants were open to new data center development if they believed their communities would actually receive the benefits promised by tech companies and investors like Kevin O’Leary. But the trust isn’t there. Communities need some evidence or assurance that developers will make good on their promises and greater transparency around plans for data center buildout.”

Latino voters are being exposed to a lot of misinformation about climate change and clean energy. Climate Power finds that many false claims about climate and clean energy are reaching Latino audiences. Latino voters are particularly likely to say that they’ve heard the following claims:

Climate change policy is really about controlling how people live, not the environment – 59% have heard this
Clean energy like solar and wind is the most expensive form of energy – 58%
Electric vehicles cause more environmental harm to manufacture than they make up for over their lifetime – 56%
Airplanes are spraying chemicals (also called “chemtrails”) to control the weather or harm people – 54%

While Latino voters can easily refute some pieces of misinformation, others–including about EVs, “clean” coal, and the cost impacts of clean energy –require more pushback. By wide margins, Latino voters disagree with outlandish claims that cold weather and winter storms prove that the planet is not warming (30 points net disagreement) and that airplanes are secretly spraying “chemtrails” (20 points net disagreement).

However, there are certain pieces of misinformation that stand out for how much Latino voters are hearing them and by the slim margins by which Latino voters disagree with them (or even the margins by which they believe them). These include:

Climate change policy is really about controlling how people live, not the environment – 59% have heard this, one-point margin of disagreement
Electric vehicles cause more environmental harm to manufacture than they make up for over their lifetime – 56% heard, 15-point net agreement
Coal is a clean source of energy when modern technology is used – 47% heard, five-point net disagreement
The switch from fossil fuels to clean energy like wind and solar is the primary reason that utility bills have increased – 45% heard, one-point net agreement

Latino voters are split on whether clean energy sources or fossil fuels are more costly. Latino voters are closely divided between believing that electricity from clean energy is cheaper (31%) and more expensive (30%) than electricity from fossil fuels. An additional one-quarter (24%) admit that they aren’t sure, while 15% believe that they cost about the same.

Even with their uncertainty about clean energy’s costs, Latino voters believe that clean energy is more important than fossil fuels for keeping electricity costs down amid rising demand. When asked which energy source will be most important in keeping electricity costs down as data centers drive up demand, Latino voters are nearly three times more likely to choose clean energy (64%) than fossil fuels (22%).

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