Environmental Polling Roundup – June 26, 2026
Headlines
Climate Power – Even amid deepening skepticism toward data centers, voters are amenable to building them in their communities if they are powered by new clean energy projects [Website, Deck]
LCV – Simple contrasts on clean energy and pollution shift the generic ballot for Congress in Democrats’ favor; the most effective contrast focuses on lowering costs with clean energy [Website, Memo]
Rockefeller Foundation + Potential Energy Coalition – The most persuasive messages to increase support for climate action focus on direct human consequences for public health and our children’s futures [Website]
Data for Progress – Progressive proposals to address energy costs–including a windfall profits tax on large oil companies, policies to boost clean energy production, and a pause on data center construction–all earn bipartisan support [Populist Energy Plan Article, Populist Energy Plan Crosstabs, Data Center Moratorium Article, Data Center Moratorium Crosstabs]
Key Takeaways
Voters have very different reactions to data centers depending on how they’re powered. While public polling has shown that Americans have turned sharply against the idea of local data center development, attitudes on the topic are still malleable enough that specifics of a proposed project–particularly how the data center draws its energy–can have a big impact.
Climate Power finds that most voters (62%) would support a data center in their community if it was powered by new wind and solar instead of fossil fuels. Support for a proposed data center drops to 48% if it’s powered by new natural gas plants, and all the way down to 31% if it’s powered by new on-site diesel and natural gas generators.
Other recent polling by Embold Research found that pairing a data center with new clean power generation ameliorates voters’ fears about the impact on local electricity prices, which consistently rates as voters’ greatest concern about local data centers.
Public health and future generations continue to resonate as strong rationales for climate action. New messaging research released by the Rockefeller Foundation and Potential Energy Coalition finds that narratives about the impacts of climate pollution on people’s health and future generations outperform other messaging frames at increasing support for climate action.
Messages with more of an economic focus, such as a narrative focused on the affordability of clean energy, were not as effective at shifting Americans’ attitudes.
These findings are a good reminder that, even as the cost of living continues to be Americans’ dominant issue concern, cost-focused messages are not necessarily the most effective in building support for environmental policy goals. Framing climate action and clean energy investment around health and future generations has proven to be persuasive in poll after poll, both before and during the current cost of living crisis. A survey last year by Third Way, for example, found that voters rated a “future generations” message as much more convincing than other rationales for clean energy investment and climate action–including messages focused on clean energy affordability and on the impact of climate change on insurance rates.
Good Data Points to Highlight
[Data Centers + Grid] 71% of voters support requiring data centers to fund transmission and grid upgrades needed to support their operations in the communities they are considering [Climate Power]
[Data Centers + Clean Energy] 70% of voters support mandating that new data centers “bring their own clean power” or get dedicated clean energy sources to avoid straining the existing grid [Climate Power]
[Data Centers + Clean Energy] 67% of voters support requiring new data centers to use clean energy sources rather than fossil fuels [Climate Power]
[Data Centers + Clean Energy] 62% of voters would support a data center in their community if it was powered by new wind and solar instead of fossil fuels, compared to 48% who would support a local data center if it was powered by new natural gas plants and just 31% who would support a local data center if it was powered by new on-site diesel and natural gas generators [Climate Power]
[Windfall Profits Tax] 69% of voters, including 59% of Republicans, support requiring large oil companies to pay a 50% tax on sudden and unusually high profits, such as during the U.S.-Iran War, and using this money to freeze or lower electricity rates for American consumers [Data for Progress]
Full Roundup
Climate Power – Even amid deepening skepticism toward data centers, voters are amenable to building them in their communities if they are powered by new clean energy projects [Website, Deck]
Most voters are hearing about data centers in general, but relatively few are hearing about local data center projects–even in counties with existing or planned data centers. Most voters (60%) say that they’ve heard at least “some” about data centers in the U.S., compared to 40% who have heard “a little” or “nothing” about them.
Meanwhile, only around one-third (35%) say that they’ve heard at least “some” about data centers being built or considered in their community. While this low figure in part reflects the fact that many areas aren’t seeing data center development, Climate Power also finds that voters in areas that do have existing or planned data centers aren’t hearing much about them either.
Among voters in counties that have a data center, only 38% say that they’ve heard at least “some” about data centers in their community. Similarly, less than half of voters in counties with a planned data center (43%) say that they’ve heard at least “some” about data centers being built or considered in their community.
Voters continue to believe that data centers are driving up utility costs. Most voters (54%) believe that data centers are causing utility costs to go up, including majorities of both Democrats (58%) and Republicans (53%).
Among a wide variety of political and corporate actors that the survey asked about, only utility companies (65%), oil and gas companies (64%), and Donald Trump (60%) receive more widespread blame than data centers for rising utility costs.
Pluralities don’t trust either party to deal with data centers or AI in general. Climate Power finds that voters are closely split on which party they trust more to handle affordability issues such as the cost of utilities (Democrats +3), the cost of groceries (Democrats +2), the cost of gas (Even), and costs generally (Even). On each of these issues, around one-third of voters (32%-37%) say that they either don’t trust either party or don’t know enough to say.
When it comes to AI (Democrats +3) and data centers (Democrats +2), meanwhile, Democrats have slight trust advantages but many voters either don’t trust either party or don’t know enough about the differences between the parties’ approaches to say. Roughly half of voters (49%) don’t trust either party over the other to handle AI, and 46% don’t trust one party over the other to handle data centers.
This points to a real vacuum of policy leadership and communication from the major parties on these issues, with neither having a clearly understood agenda to regulate them.
Impacts on utility costs remain the greatest concern about data centers across the political spectrum, while jobs are the clearest benefit. When asked to choose their top three concerns about data centers from a list of 10, voters are far more likely to cite the notion that data centers “raise utility cost for consumers by using massive amounts of electricity” (top-three concern for 38% of voters) than any other downside. The impacts on utility costs stand out as the top concern for Democrats, independents, and Republicans alike.
The next most common concerns for voters are that data centers “strain local water supply, especially in drought-ridden areas” (top-three concern for 27%) and that data centers “increase electricity outages by using so much energy” (top-three concern for 25%).
In evaluating the potential impacts of a local data center, voters expect that a local center in their area would have more of a positive than negative impact on a variety of economic metrics:
- Job creation in your community in the short term (next 1-2 years) – 53% positive impact / 17% negative impact
- Job creation in your community in the long term (next 5-10 years) – 50% positive / 21% negative
- The economy in your community – 41% positive / 28% negative
- The national economy – 34% positive / 25% negative
Meanwhile, voters expect that a local data center project would have much more of a negative than positive impact on their costs and on the environment:
- Your cost of living – 20% positive / 45% negative
- The environment in your community – 20% positive / 44% negative
- Drinking water quality in your community – 18% positive / 35% negative
- Air quality in your community – 18% positive / 39% negative
- Your utility bills – 18% positive / 49% negative
- Climate change – 16% positive / 39% negative
Support for local data centers is highly malleable, depending on how they’re powered. While public polling has shown widespread opposition to local data center construction in general, Climate Power finds that attitudes shift substantially depending on how a hypothetical data center project is powered.
Majorities say that they would support a data center in their community if it was powered by new solar or wind farms, while support is far lower for nuclear- or fossil fuel-powered data centers.
Below are the percentages who say that they would support and oppose a data center being built in their community if it was powered by various different energy sources:
- New wind and solar instead of fossil fuels – 62% support / 23% oppose
- New solar farms with battery storage – 61% support / 23% oppose
- New wind energy – 61% support / 24% oppose
- New natural gas plants – 48% support / 34% oppose
- New nuclear power plants – 37% support / 47% oppose
- New diesel and natural gas generators next to data centers – 31% support / 49% oppose
- New coal plants – 31% support / 52% oppose
Voters support a wide range of data center regulations, with particularly strong support for regulations that directly control cost impacts. Climate Power finds majority support for each of 15 different data center regulations that they asked about.
Widely supported policies with particular relevance for environmental advocates include:
- Instituting stronger protections from air, water, and noise pollution from data centers (83% support)
- Setting efficiency and sustainability standards for data centers, including limits on water usage and energy intensity (71%)
- Mandating that new data centers “bring their own clean power” or get dedicated clean energy sources to avoid straining the existing grid (70%)
- Requiring new data centers to use clean energy sources rather than fossil fuels (67%)
Of all the data center regulations that they tested, Climate Power finds the most intense support for measures that directly address voters’ greatest concern about data centers: their impact on utility rates. These measures include:
- Requiring data centers to pay the full cost of the energy and grid infrastructure they say they need, preventing cost increases for ratepayers (76% support, including 53% who “strongly” support this policy)
- Freezing utility rates so that consumers do not see their costs go up (72% support, 49% “strongly”)
LCV – Simple contrasts on clean energy and pollution shift the generic ballot for Congress in Democrats’ favor; the most effective contrast focuses on lowering costs with clean energy [Website, Memo]
Simple contrasts on energy and pollution issues shift the generic ballot in Democrats’ favor. In a test of different ways of framing the generic ballot for Congress, Climate Power finds that each of the following frames shift the vote by at least 2.5 points in Democrats’ favor compared to the standard generic ballot (an unnamed Democratic candidate vs. an unnamed Republican candidate):
- [Lower Costs with Clean] A Democratic candidate who wants to lower energy costs by increasing clean energy production vs. a Republican candidate who opposed clean energy production – +3.4 points compared to the standard generic ballot
- [Pollution] A Democratic candidate who wants more regulation to reduce pollution vs. a Republican candidate who wants to reduce regulation even if it means more pollution – +2.9 points
- [More Wind & Solar] A Democratic candidate who wants more production of wind and solar power vs. a Republican candidate who wants to cancel wind and solar power projects – +2.8 points
- [Utilities] A Democratic candidate who wants more regulation of utility companies vs. a Republican candidate who wants less regulation of utility companies – +2.6 points
- [More Clean] A Democratic candidate who wants more production of clean energy vs. a Republican candidate who wants less production of clean energy – +2.6 points
Contrasts on climate prioritization and debates over specific energy sources are less effective. While they still shift the vote slightly in Democrats’ favor, Climate Power finds that these contrasts are relatively less helpful for Democratic candidates. Re-framing the generic ballot as “a Democratic candidate who thinks fighting climate change is a top priority vs. a Republican candidate who does not,” for example, only shifts the vote by 1.1 points in Democrats’ favor.
Additionally, a contrast on the candidates’ position on expanding clean energy is more effective than one that pits different energy sources against each other. Framing the race as a “Democratic candidate who wants to lower energy costs by increasing clean energy production vs. a Republican candidate who opposed clean energy production” shifts the vote twice as much in Democrats’ favor (3.4 points) as framing the race as “a Democratic candidate who wants to lower energy costs by increasing clean energy production vs. a Republican candidate who wants to lower energy costs by increasing fossil fuel production” (1.7 points).
Rockefeller Foundation + Potential Energy Coalition – The most persuasive messages to increase support for climate action focus on direct human consequences for public health and our children’s futures [Website]
Direct human impacts, including for public health and for future generations, continue to resonate as strong rationales for climate action. In a survey of more than 83,000 adults across six nations (the U.S., Canada, U.K., Germany, Italy, and France), the Rockefeller Foundation and Potential Energy Coalition tested 11 different narratives to determine which were most effective in increasing support for the following government actions:
- Addressing climate change
- Building more clean energy like solar, wind, and nuclear
- Cutting fossil fuel pollution, such as from oil and gas
Averaging the impact on these three metrics, their test found that the following two messages stood as particularly persuasive to a U.S. audience:
[Love – “Overheating Planet” Version] “You don’t have to be a scientist to see how extreme weather like floods, heat waves, hurricanes, and wildfires are becoming more frequent and intense, threatening the people and places we care about.
Global temperatures keep rising, and the last ten years have been the warmest on record. Our overheating planet is already putting lives and livelihoods at risk. It’s hurting our farmers, over-polluting our cities, reducing our water supply, and costing billions in damage. Most importantly, it’s putting our children’s futures at risk.
If we don’t stop polluting, it will only get worse. Carbon pollution traps heat and stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years, so the effects cannot be reversed. We need immediate action to address our overheating planet, because later is too late to protect what you love.”
[Health] “Today, plastic, toxins, and chemicals are everywhere, including our food, water, and air. We’re slowly poisoning ourselves.
Doctors are finding plastic in the blood and organs of unborn babies. We use petroleum-based dyes to color our food. And we power factories by burning chemicals like oil and methane while air pollution causes 1 in 5 deaths worldwide.
The solution is simple. We need healthier food, healthier water, and healthier energy. The less we use chemicals like oil, methane, and plastic in our daily lives, the better.
Every child deserves a chance at a healthy life, safe from pollution, poisons, and harmful chemicals. We have the chance to give it to them.”
These messages created the highest average lift in the U.S. on the three outcome metrics (support for addressing climate change, support for building more clean energy, and support for cutting fossil fuel pollution), with the shifts on all three metrics reaching the threshold of statistical significance.
Two of the other nine narratives–including an alternate version of the “Love” message that used the phrase “climate change” instead of “our overheating planet” and a message calling for corporate polluters to pay for the financial costs of climate impacts–also produced statistically significant shifts on the three outcome metrics in the U.S.
Narratives focused on other economic dimensions, including the affordability of clean energy and the potential for clean energy to drive new job growth, produced statistically significant shifts in other countries but not for the U.S. audience.
Simple phrasing changes, such as referring to “our overheating planet” instead of “climate change,” can have a big impact. While both versions of the “Love” message produced statistically significant movement, the version that referenced “our overheating planet” instead of “climate change” was more effective in the U.S. and in the other countries surveyed.
Pulling from the report:
“In our randomized controlled trial, we tested two nearly identical messages that put the concept and consequences of climate change front and center. Each of the messages directly described the role of carbon pollution, the human costs of extreme weather, and the need for solutions. The only difference was that one message used the phrase ‘climate change,’ and one used ‘overheating planet.’
This test revealed three key insights:
- The ‘climate change’ version of the message was still one of the top-performing messages tested overall, increasing support by an average of 7 percentage points across all metrics.
- The ‘overheating planet’ version of the message was statistically significantly better, further increasing support a few percentage points on average across outcome metrics
- The gap was confined entirely to the ideological right; moderates responded to both messages identically. Differences on the left were statistically significant but not consequential, since baselines were already so high.”
Data for Progress – Progressive proposals to address energy costs–including a windfall profits tax on large oil companies, policies to boost clean energy production, and a pause on data center construction–all earn bipartisan support [Populist Energy Plan Article, Populist Energy Plan Crosstabs, Data Center Moratorium Article, Data Center Moratorium Crosstabs]
Policies to expand clean energy production are popular across the political spectrum. Testing policies that were recently featured in Maine U.S. Senate Candidate Graham Platner’s “Take Back American Power” energy plan, Data for Progress finds that bipartisan majorities support the following ideas to boost clean energy:
- Developing a strategic national stockpile of clean energy technologies to lower the cost of domestically manufactured components and products (69% support, including 65% of Republicans)
- Creating a National Energy Infrastructure Fund to fund new clean energy projects across the country (68% support, including 60% of Republicans)
- Reforming the permitting process in order to review and approve clean energy projects more quickly (67% support, including 65% of Republicans)
It’s worth noting here that many Republican voters still favor the idea of expanding clean energy, as long as it does not directly mean less fossil fuel production. Pew recently found, for example, that 44% of Republicans support the federal government encouraging the production of wind and solar power even though the large majority of Republicans (71%) say that the country should prioritize fossil fuels over clean energy sources.
Voters support energy policies that hold corporate actors more accountable, including a windfall profits tax on oil companies and a moratorium on data centers. Data for Progress finds that cross-partisan majorities support each of the following proposals:
- Requiring large oil companies to pay a 50% tax on sudden and unusually high profits, such as during the U.S.-Iran war, and using this money to freeze or lower electricity rates for American consumers (69% support, including 59% of Republicans)
- Pausing the construction of new AI data centers for at least one year (63% support, including 58% of Republicans)
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.