Environmental Polling Roundup – March 22, 2024
HEADLINES
Walton Family Foundation + Morning Consult – Voters are largely unaware that the Supreme Court weakened the Clean Water Act, and overwhelmingly want to restore protections for wetlands and waterways; the most effective messaging on the topic emphasizes how wetland protections help to ensure access to clean and safe water [Release with link to deck]
Fossil Free Media + Data for Progress – Voters distrust fossil fuel companies and the politicians that they fund, and want to see fossil fuel companies held accountable for their pollution [Article, Crosstabs]
Yale + GMU – There is a large gap between people’s interest in climate activism and their self-reported actions; social norms are linked with increased follow-through [Article]
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- The Supreme Court’s weakening of the Clean Water Act is a potentially animating issue, but people aren’t hearing about it. Clean water regularly polls as the single most important environmental priority for the American public and, in the few polls that we’ve seen test reactions to the Sackett v. EPA decision on wetlands protections, the Supreme Court’s decision to weaken the Clean Water Act is deeply unpopular. Newly released polling from the Walton Family Foundation and Morning Consult finds that voters across party lines are overwhelmingly concerned about the decision and want to see new legislation to remedy it, but few are hearing about it. This signals an opportunity for advocates to mobilize a large, cross-partisan coalition of voters around issues of clean water protection by educating the public about the Supreme Court’s actions.
- Voters’ distrust of oil and gas companies extends to the politicians that they fund. Polls consistently show that voters distrust the fossil fuel industry and are angry about both the industry’s dangerous pollution and its price-gouging of consumers. New polling by Fossil Free Media and Data for Progress finds that voters also react negatively to politicians who are associated with the oil and gas industry, with most voters saying that they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who receives political contributions from fossil fuel companies or their CEOs. And as for the presidential race, the poll finds that key voting groups that President Biden is underperforming with – including young voters and voters of color – want him to make pollution from the fossil fuel industry more of a priority this year.
GOOD DATA POINTS TO HIGHLIGHT
- [Clean Water + Agriculture] 86% of voters agree that farmers should be subject to clean water requirements to help protect downstream water quality [Walton Family Foundation + Morning Consult]
- [Clean Water + Supreme Court] 80% of voters are concerned that the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the Clean Water Act [Walton Family Foundation + Morning Consult]
- [Clean Water + Supreme Court] 72% voters support a new law to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision and fully restore the previous level of protection for wetlands and waterways [Walton Family Foundation + Morning Consult]
- [Oil + Gas Accountability] 84% of voters are concerned about oil and gas companies making large profits while consumers face rising energy bills [Fossil Free Media + Data for Progress]
- [Oil + Gas Accountability] 78% of voters agree that “oil and gas companies that knew about the polluting impact of burning fossil fuels, but that intentionally misled the public about it, should be held accountable” [Fossil Free Media + Data for Progress]
- [Oil + Gas Accountability] 53% of voters would be less likely to vote for a candidate who accepted campaign donations from and oil gas companies or oil and gas CEOs, while only 12% would be more likely to vote for the candidate [Fossil Free Media + Data for Progress]
FULL ROUNDUP
Walton Family Foundation + Morning Consult – Voters are largely unaware that the Supreme Court weakened the Clean Water Act, and overwhelmingly want to restore protections for wetlands and waterways; the most effective messaging on the topic emphasizes how wetland protections help to ensure access to clean and safe water [Release with link to deck]
This new release, based on a national survey conducted in November, shows that voters have very strong reactions to the Sackett v. EPA decision when they hear about it.
Previous polling on the Supreme Court decision showed that it was deeply unpopular, and this new release dives deeper on the topic.
The Walton Family Foundation and Morning Consult find that few voters have heard about the Sackett decision: just 29% say that they’ve heard at least “some” about a recent Supreme Court decision that significantly weakened the Clean Water Act.
When they hear about the decision, however, voters have deep concerns about it and overwhelmingly want to see it reversed through new legislation. Four in five voters (80%) say that they are concerned to hear that the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the Clean Water Act in a way that might allow for more dumping of polluting waste into streams and wetlands, including half (50%) who are “very” concerned about the decision.
As for possible solutions, seven in ten (72%) support a law to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision and fully restore protections for wetlands and waterways – including majorities of Democrats (79%), independents (71%), and Republicans (63%).
The poll finds that most voters (54%) would prefer that the federal government, rather than state governments, establish standards to protect waters and wetlands from pollution and development. Still, the overwhelming majority of voters (83%) – including large majorities of Democrats (87%), independents (81%), and Republicans (77%) – would also support legislation at the state level to restore protections to their state’s wetlands and waterways.
The poll further tested several possible arguments in favor of new protections for wetlands, finding that arguments that focus on ensuring universal access to safe and clean water for drinking and food production are highly persuasive. Most voters rate each of the following messages as “very convincing” arguments in favor of action to protect wetlands:
- We must be able to trust that the water coming from our taps is clean and safe for our families to drink, cook, and to bathe. Wetlands serve to filter and clean water at the source. New and clear wetland protections are critical to safeguard our water supply and the health of our families and communities. (56% very convincing)
- Farmers need clean water to grow safe and nutritious food to feed our families. Protecting American wetlands are crucial to maintaining our food supply now and for future generations. (55% very convincing)
- Strong federal water protections help to ensure that everyone – no matter which state they live in or their zip code – has access to clean water. Where you live should not determine whether you can access clean and safe water. (51% very convincing)
Fossil Free Media + Data for Progress – Voters distrust fossil fuel companies and the politicians that they fund, and want to see fossil fuel companies held accountable for their pollution [Article, Crosstabs]
Recent polling has consistently shown that voters want to see more accountability for oil and gas companies, with fossil fuel companies continuing to bear blame both for their pollution and for price-gouging consumers on energy and gas prices.
This newly released poll by Fossil Free Media and Data for Progress shows that voters across party lines react negatively to the fossil fuel industry’s profiteering and misleading of the public:
- 84% of voters are concerned about oil and gas companies “making large profits while consumers face rising energy bills,” including majorities across party lines (91% of Democrats, 85% of independents, and 77% of Republicans)
- 78% of voters agree that “oil and gas companies that knew about the polluting impact of burning fossil fuels, but that intentionally misled the public about it, should be held accountable” – including 91% of Democrats, 78% of independents, and 66% of Republicans
The poll additionally finds that voters have little trust in oil and gas companies to speak truthfully about their pollution or to prioritize anything but their own profits. Less than half of voters say that they have at least “some” trust in oil and gas companies to do any of the following:
- Speak truthfully about the impact of fossil fuels on climate and the environment (38%)
- Prioritize their U.S. consumers over overseas profit (36%)
- Prioritize minimizing climate and environmental pollution over profit (33%)
Importantly, the poll also finds that voters’ distrust of oil and gas companies extends to the politicians that they fund: most voters (53%) say that they are less likely to vote for a candidate who accepts campaign donations from oil and gas companies or oil and gas CEOs, while just 12% say that they would be more likely to vote for such a candidate.
There is also a clear appetite for President Biden to get tougher on the fossil fuel industry’s pollution this year, particularly among key constituencies that Biden is underperforming with. Half of voters (50%) say that Biden should prioritize placing stricter limits on climate pollution produced by fossil fuel companies in 2024, including majorities of Democrats (80%), voters aged 18-29 (63%), Black voters (61%), and Latino voters (63%).
Yale + GMU – There is a large gap between people’s interest in climate activism and their self-reported actions; social norms are linked with increased follow-through [Article]
Comparing Americans’ stated interest in various types of climate activism with their actual self-reported behaviors in recent national surveys, Yale and GMU uncover some interesting patterns about the gaps between intention and behavior.
First, there is a big difference between those who say that they “definitely” or “probably” would take an action. Across several different types of activism – including donating money to climate-focused organizations, signing petitions, or contacting government officials – those who say that they would “definitely” take an action are more than twice as likely to report that they’ve actually done it in the past 12 months than those who say that they would “probably” take an action.
Among those who say that they would only “probably” take these kinds of actions, less than one in four report actually doing so in the past 12 months.
This kind of difference in intensity is well-known to pollsters, who typically associate a “top-box” or “most intense” response to a poll question (e.g., “definitely” likely to vote for a candidate, “very” concerned about an issue) with far greater likelihood of real-life action.
Yale and GMU also find that Americans who follow through on climate activism tend to feel more social pressure to do so. Comparing the “definitely willing and active” (people who say that they would “definitely” take some form of action and also report doing so in the past 12 months) to the “definitely willing but inactive” (people who say that they would “definitely” take some form of action but report that they haven’t done so in the past 12 months), there are some notable differences in the social norms that these two groups perceive.
Compared to the “definitely willing but inactive,” people who have taken action in the past 12 months are considerably more likely to say that:
- They discuss global warming with their family and friends “often” or “occasionally”
- Their family and friends make at least “a moderate amount” of effort to reduce global warming
- Their family and friends think it is at least “moderately” important that they take action to reduce global warming
- They hear about global warming in the media “at least once a month” or more often
- They hear other people talk about global warming “at least once a month” or more often
People who take action also tend to feel a greater sense of self-efficacy. Compared to the “definitely willing but inactive,” those who take action are considerably more confident that people like them working together can affect what the federal government does about global warming. Those who take action also express more confidence that collective action can affect what corporations do about global warming.
Based on the findings of this analysis as well as other research on these topics, Yale and GMU’s article provides the following set of recommendations to increase climate activism:
“Ask people directly to get involved. Interpersonal communication can have a powerful influence on people’s beliefs and behavior. People can be asked directly through digital means or face-to-face (e.g., by community members, opinion leaders), which may be especially effective at promoting change. For instance, research has found that face-to-face discussions (e.g., deep canvassing) about political issues leads to enduring changes in attitudes and behavior.
Make it easy and show people how to do it. Many people say they don’t have the time or information about how to act. Providing convenient opportunities that are quick to perform and include easy-to-follow steps (e.g., flow charts, infographics) can reduce time and knowledge barriers to engagement.
Provide options and describe their benefits. There are many ways that people can reduce climate change. Providing a short menu of options can help people choose the actions that best suit them and may also help to reduce the barrier of feeling like ‘I am not an activist.’ Additionally, showcasing the benefits of action can encourage people to choose behaviors that align with their personal values and interests (i.e., what they care most about).
Strengthen perceptions of collective efficacy. The belief that people can collectively make a difference on climate change is a key motivator of climate action. To address the perceived barrier that ‘it wouldn’t make any difference,’ communicators can remind people that every individual action matters. For instance, by highlighting success stories and the positive effects of taking action, individuals may feel more confident and inspired to act themselves.
Encourage talking about climate change and provide guidance. Discussing climate change with others is a significant climate action that everyone can engage in. Also, research shows that increased discussions about climate change can strengthen acceptance of climate science. Researchers have proposed that ‘talking about climate change amplifies and normalizes it within networks, making people more likely to act.’ Providing guidance on how to talk about climate change and encouraging discussions may support more public engagement.
Amplify pro-climate social norms and diverse public voices. Social norms can powerfully shape people’s behavior and social intervention strategies are among the most effective ways to promote pro-climate behavior. Communicating social norms may also reduce identity-related barriers to action and show people there are others like them getting involved. For instance, showcasing diversity within the climate movement can change people’s perceptions of what a typical ‘environmentalist’ looks like. Highlighting a variety of role models and communicating the norm that many people from diverse backgrounds are actively participating and advocating for climate action may motivate more individuals to get involved.”
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.