Environmental Polling Roundup – June 20, 2025
Headlines
Yale + GMU – Even amid growing political polarization around climate change and clean energy, voters widely oppose climate-related Trump administration policies such as ending federal climate research, eliminating FEMA, and prohibiting new offshore wind [Website, Full Report]
Climate Power – Voters across party lines oppose clean energy cuts in the reconciliation bill; messages that emphasizes how the cuts will increase energy costs, make the U.S. less secure and energy independent, and threaten the reliability of the electric grid are most persuasive [National Memo, AZ Memo, GA Memo, MI Memo, PA Memo]
Data for Progress – Most voters see climate change as a cost of living issue, with particularly clear connections to utility bills and food prices [Article, Crosstabs]
Key Takeaways
The Trump administration’s major climate-related actions are unpopular, even among Republicans. Yale and GMU find that majorities of voters oppose major climate actions that Trump has announced or taken–including ending federal climate research, eliminating FEMA, and prohibiting new offshore wind projects. Even among Republican voters, most oppose shutting down FEMA and stopping federal agencies from conducting climate research. Further, the majority of Republican voters say that the country should be using more rather than less energy from renewable sources like solar and wind.
These new findings are consistent with a clear shift in how Trump has governed relative to public opinion in his second term compared to his first. Whereas Trump’s first-term actions generally followed the demands of the Republican electorate, Trump 2.0 is increasingly pursuing policies–on energy, the environment, and many other issues–that appeal to narrower and narrower slices of his base. This may not be an immediate problem for Trump as he isn’t standing for re-election, but it does open up new avenues to put pressure on the vulnerable Republican lawmakers who he is counting on to enact his agenda.
Voters from both parties oppose cutting clean energy in the reconciliation bill, and it’s helpful to show how the cuts conflict with Trump’s stated goal of “energy dominance.” Similar to how Yale and GMU find majority Republican support for clean energy expansion, Climate Power finds that most Republicans–along with the vast majority of Americans–say that Congress shouldn’t eliminate clean energy investments in its budget bill.
Climate Power also provides applicable messaging guidance for advocates who are trying to persuade the public to oppose clean energy cuts, as arguments that the cuts will increase Americans’ energy bills, reduce the reliability of the power grid, and make us less energy independent are especially persuasive. They also find that Republicans are most moved by the argument that cutting clean energy will hurt U.S. energy independence, as the notion that we’ll cut back on American-made energy sources is in clear opposition to Trump’s stated goal of “energy dominance.”
Good Data Points to Highlight
- [Clean Energy] 74% of voters say that the U.S. should use more renewable energy than it does today [Yale + GMU]
- [Clean Energy] 67% of voters support transitioning the U.S. economy from fossil fuels to 100% clean energy by 2050 [Yale + GMU]
- [Clean Energy] 64% of voters say that developing sources of clean energy should be a “high” or “very high” priority for the president and Congress [Yale + GMU]
- [Environmental Justice] 79% of voters support strengthening enforcement of industrial pollution limits in low-income communities and communities of color that are disproportionately impacted by air and water pollution [Yale + GMU]
- [Climate Research] 79% of voters oppose ordering all federal agencies to stop doing research on global warming [Yale + GMU]
- [FEMA] 75% of voters oppose eliminating FEMA [Yale + GMU]
- [Electrification] 71% of voters support tax credits or rebates to encourage people to buy electric appliances, such as heat pumps and induction stoves [Yale + GMU]
- [Offshore Wind] 63% of voters oppose prohibiting construction of new offshore wind farms [Yale + GMU]
- [Reconciliation] 73% of voters, including 56% of Republicans, say that Congress should not eliminate clean energy investments in its budget bill [Climate Power]
- [Reconciliation] Voters oppose “Republicans’ in Congress’ proposed budget plan” by a 15-point margin (36% support / 51% oppose) [Navigator]
Full Roundup
Yale + GMU – Even amid growing political polarization around climate change and clean energy, voters widely oppose climate-related Trump administration policies such as ending federal climate research, eliminating FEMA, and prohibiting new offshore wind [Website, Full Report]
While half of voters want the country to prioritize global warming, a historically low number of Republicans say that it should be a priority. Slightly more than half of voters (52%) say that global warming should be a “high” or “very high” priority for the president and Congress, which is roughly level with the 54% that Yale and GMU found in their last survey in December 2024.
More than four in five Democrats (84%) say that global warming should be a national priority but only 16% of Republicans say so, which is the lowest figure for Republicans in Yale and GMU’s tracking going back to 2008.
A clear majority of voters continue to support clean energy expansion. Around three in five voters (64%) say that developing sources of clean energy should be a “high” or “very high” priority for the president and Congress, with no real change since December (63%).
Democrats (86%) are 50 points more likely than Republicans (36%) to say that the government should make clean energy development a priority. Still, polarization around clean energy is less dramatic than it is around climate change because Republicans are considerably more likely to rate clean energy as a priority than global warming. While Democrats are about equally likely to say that clean energy (86%) and global warming (84%) should be priorities for the government, Republicans are more than twice as likely to say that the president and Congress should prioritize clean energy (36%) than global warming (16%).
Specific policies to combat climate change and expand clean energy still earn support from across the political spectrum. Even with their disparate views of climate change and clean energy as general priorities, voters on both sides of the political divide can agree on several specific climate-friendly policy solutions:
- 88% support providing federal funding to help farmers improve farming practices to protect and restore the soil so that it stores more carbon (including 80% of Republicans)
- 80% support funding more research into renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power (including 61% of Republicans)
- 79% support strengthening enforcement of industrial pollution limits in low-income communities and communities of color that are disproportionately impacted by air and water pollution (including 62% of Republicans)
- 75% support regulating carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas, as a pollutant (including 55% of Republicans)
- 71% support providing tax credits or rebates to encourage people to buy electric appliances, such as heat pumps and induction stoves, that run on electricity instead of oil or gas (including 51% of Republicans)
Proposals to shift the country entirely to clean energy and to hold fossil fuel companies financially responsible for climate damages also earn majority support overall, but are relatively less popular with Republicans:
- 67% support transitioning the U.S. economy–including electric utilities, transportation, buildings, and industry–from fossil fuels to 100% clean energy by 2050 (including 36% of Republicans)
- 63% support requiring fossil fuel companies to pay for the damages caused by global warming (including 35% of Republicans)
There is significant resistance across the political spectrum to Trump’s climate-related policies, such as ending federal research on climate change, shutting down FEMA, and prohibiting new offshore wind projects. In addition to finding bipartisan support for many climate-friendly policies, Yale and GMU find substantial opposition across party lines to harmful climate-related policies that have been taken or announced by the Trump administration:
- 79% oppose ordering all federal agencies–such as NASA, NOAA, and the EPA–to stop doing research on global warming (including 61% of Republicans)
- 78% oppose ordering all federal agencies–such as NASA, NOAA, and the EPA–to stop providing information about global warming to the public (including 62% of Republicans)
- 75% oppose eliminating FEMA (including 53% of Republicans)
- 63% oppose prohibiting the construction of new offshore wind farms (including 49% of Republicans)
One important caveat about the high levels of Republican opposition to these policies is that the survey did not ascribe the policies to Trump, and we’ve seen in other polling that Republicans are quick to consolidate behind Trump’s positions once they learn of them. Yale and GMU demonstrate this effect in this same survey as they find that the majority of Republican voters (57%), as well as 79% of voters overall, support the U.S. participating in the Paris Agreement. After being told about Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, however, 70% of Republican voters say that they support Trump’s decision to pull out from the agreement.
Majorities say that the U.S. should use more renewable energy and less fossil fuel energy. Nearly three-quarters of voters say that the U.S. should use more renewable energy sources like solar and wind in the future (74%), while a 57% majority agree that the country should use less energy from fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas than it does today.
The difference between these two figures reflects a consistent and important finding in communicating about the clean energy transition. Americans’ inclination is that the U.S. should be producing more energy in general, and it is accordingly more persuasive to focus on what the clean energy transition means more of (clean, renewable, and affordable energy) than what it requires less of (energy from fossil fuels).
Undergirding popular support for the clean energy transition is the notion that it will be a net benefit for the economy. Voters are 19 points more likely to say that transitioning from fossil fuels to clean energy will improve economic growth and create jobs (48%) than to believe that it will reduce economic growth and cost jobs (29%).
It is important to note, however, how far apart Democrats and Republicans are in their beliefs and preferences for the country’s energy future. Overwhelming majorities of Democrats say both that the country should use more renewable energy (91%) and less fossil fuel energy (80%). Republicans, meanwhile, tilt in favor of using more renewables (51% more / 27% the same amount / 21% less) but are essentially evenly divided on whether fossil fuel use should be increased (34%), decreased (30%), or kept the same amount as it today (34%).
Additionally, while Democrats see the clean energy transition as a clear positive for the economy (73% improve growth and jobs / 9% reduce growth and jobs), Republicans are more likely to say that it will have a negative than positive economic impact (21% improve growth and jobs / 51% reduce growth and jobs).
Voters widely support the production of clean energy on public lands, while fossil fuel extraction on public lands continues to be deeply divisive. Another way in which the survey reveals Americans’ preference for clean energy is in their attitudes about energy production on public lands.
Around three-quarters of voters (76%) support generating renewable energy like solar and wind on public land in the U.S., including majorities of both Democrats (91%) and Republicans (55%).
Meanwhile, less than half of voters (44%) support drilling or mining for fossil fuels on public land in the U.S.–including the majority of Republicans (72%) but just 21% of Democrats.
Voters are particularly resistant to the idea of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (30% support / 69% oppose), as Democrats overwhelmingly oppose the idea (12% support / 88% oppose) and Republicans are split on it (53% support / 46% oppose).
Climate Power – Voters across party lines oppose clean energy cuts in the reconciliation bill; messages that emphasizes how the cuts will increase energy costs, make the U.S. less secure and energy independent, and threaten the reliability of the electric grid are most persuasive [National Memo, AZ Memo, GA Memo, MI Memo, PA Memo]
There is cross-partisan opposition to proposed clean energy cuts in the reconciliation bill, as voters are concerned that these cuts will raise electricity bills and hurt average Americans. Pulling from the memo on Climate Power’s national survey on the topic, the findings of which are largely mirrored in its state-level memos from additional polls in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania:
“Voters see the Republican budget bill’s energy plan as a direct threat to their wallets, energy reliability, and the broader economy.
- After learning about the energy policies in the budget bill, 61% of voters say the plan would hurt average Americans…
- 62% of voters expect electricity prices to rise if the Republican budget bill passes. Large majorities of Democrats (86%) and independents (71%) expect electricity prices to go up, while even Republicans see more harm than benefit (39% prices up vs 27% down).
- 58% of voters believe the bill would hurt the reliability of the electric grid… Similarly, by a 14-point margin, voters say the bill would hurt the overall U.S. economy (55% hurt, 41% help).
…
Voters overwhelmingly oppose cuts to clean energy in the Republican budget bill, and they want Democrats to fight back.
- Three in four (73%) voters say Congress should not eliminate clean energy investments in the budget bill, including 51% who feel strongly. Opposition cuts across party lines: 90% of Democrats, 74% of independents, and 56% of Republicans oppose these cuts.
- Before hearing any details, voters already lean against the Republican budget bill overall (47% oppose, 38% support, 16% unsure). Once voters learn more about what clean energy programs would be eliminated and what’s at stake, opposition jumps to 67%.
- Voters want Democrats to take a stand to protect clean energy investments. Fully 60% say they would feel positive toward Senate Democrats who fight to protect clean energy investments, including 88% of Democrats and 60% of independents.”
In messaging against clean energy cuts, voters are most receptive to arguments that focus on costs, energy independence, and reliability. Climate Power identifies the three messages below as the “most effective frames for opposing efforts to eliminate clean energy investments.”
- “[COSTS] With energy prices already high, now is the time to produce more energy–not less–to drive down those costs. Cutting clean energy means America produces less energy overall, and that means families will pay even more to keep the lights on. Repealing clean energy investments could increase energy costs by $110 per family starting next year.
- [NATIONAL SECURITY] No foreign country should be able to threaten or control America’s energy supply. To protect our national security and energy dominance, we need to produce as much energy as possible here at home. American-made clean energy keeps both money and power here in the U.S., not overseas.
- [RELIABILITY] We’ve seen what happens when there is severe heat, ice storms, and other dangerous extreme weather: thousands of people lose power. Lives are put at risk and businesses lose millions of dollars. Eliminating these investments would leave the electric grid weaker and more vulnerable when we need it most.”
Climate Power further notes that arguments focused on costs and reliability are the most effective with Democrats and independents, while the energy independence/national security message is the most persuasive to Republican audiences.
Data for Progress – Most voters see climate change as a cost of living issue, with particularly clear connections to utility bills and food prices [Article, Crosstabs]
Rising electric bills are one of the most noticeable ways that voters are feeling the cost of living increase. Of all the ways that Americans report their household costs going up in the past year, rising electric bills are the second-most common example cited by voters after the increasing costs of groceries and food:
- Groceries and food – 77% say that they are paying more
- Electric bills – 60%
- Household goods, such as appliances and furniture – 46%
- Gas – 46%
- Water bills – 43%
- Health care or health insurance – 39%
- Housing costs, such as rent or mortgage payments – 38%
- Cars or car payments – 21%
Costs rank as the most compelling rationale for the government to prioritize energy and the environment, for both Democrats and Republicans. When asked to select the two best reasons for the federal government to address energy and environmental issues from a list, voters choose rising costs above all other rationales for action:
- To address higher costs that Americans are facing, such as on their electric bills and home insurance – 38%
- To support farmers with resources and funding that strengthen the food system against impacts of climate change – 28%
- To preserve public lands and other natural resources for future generations – 23%
- To improve access to health care resources that address climate-related health impacts, like asthma or heatstroke – 19%
- To hold historic polluters, like oil and gas companies, accountable for the pollution they emitted – 16%
- To create more good-paying jobs in fields like electric battery manufacturing – 12%
- To make the U.S. manufacturing and energy sectors competitive with countries like China – 11%
- To address historic pollution and injustice, especially in communities of color – 10%
- To develop more globally competitive manufacturing and energy sectors – 9%
- To make buildings and communities better able to withstand extreme weather – 8%
Notably, rising costs are the top rationale for both Democrats (32%) and Republicans (44%) when presented with this list of reasons for the government to address energy and the environment.
Most voters believe that climate change will have a direct financial impact on their family, with particularly common concerns about the effects of climate change on food prices and cooling costs. The majority of voters (58%) believe that climate change will either “greatly” or “somewhat” have a direct financial impact on them and their family, including majorities of Democrats (73%) and independents (58%) as well as four in ten Republicans (41%).
When further probed to choose the most concerning potential financial impacts of climate change, concerns about higher food prices and home cooling costs stand out:
- Higher food prices due to crop failures – 58% choose this as one of the most concerning financial impacts
- Higher cooling costs during summer – 46%
- Higher home insurance rates or difficulty getting coverage – 35%
- Water restrictions or higher water bills due to drought – 35%
- Health care costs due to impacts from heat, smoke, or pollution – 33%
- Weather-related damage to your home or property – 31%
- Loss of property value due to increased flooding or fire risk – 22%
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.