Environmental Polling Roundup – March 29, 2024
HEADLINES
The Economist + YouGov – Americans are split on new vehicle standards when told that they will lead automakers to shift toward EVs; very few recognize that EVs are more affordable to maintain [Topline, Crosstabs]
Data for Progress – Voters mostly like their utility companies, but overwhelmingly oppose junk fees and utilities using customers’ money to fund lobbying and political activities [Article, Crosstabs]
Yale + GMU – Different emotions about climate change are more closely linked with support for different types of policies to address it; fear is associated most with regulatory action like stronger emissions standards, while hope is associated most with proactive climate policies like investing in clean energy [Release, Open-Access Article]
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- The public is much more supportive of vehicle emissions standards when they aren’t explicitly tied to EVs. The Economist and YouGov find that Americans are split on new EPA standards when they are told that the standards will lead automakers to make more EVs and fewer gas-powered cars. However, previous polling by the American Lung Association has shown that new EPA vehicle emissions standards are widely popular when they are accurately described as measures to reduce harmful pollution (and not framed as specifically promoting EVs). In communicating about the new EPA vehicle rules to the general public, advocates are best off focusing on reducing pollution – a universally popular goal – and not on the specific types of cars that automakers might use to meet the new standards.
- Americans are hearing very little about the ways that EVs can save them money. The Economist and YouGov also find that voters widely and incorrectly believe that gas-powered cars are more affordable to maintain than electric vehicles, even as studies consistently show the opposite: that EVs are cheaper to maintain over time. Polling also consistently shows that the public is largely unfamiliar with new tax credits for consumers to purchase EVs. Amplifying information about EV tax credits and the long-term cost savings of EVs compared to gas-powered cars could therefore go a long way to convincing the public that EVs can be sensible options for everyday consumers.
GOOD DATA POINTS TO HIGHLIGHT
- [Utilities] 72% of voters support legislation to prevent utility providers from using money collected from customers’ monthly bills to fund political activities [Data for Progress]
- [Climate Change] 61% of Americans recognize that the world’s climate is changing as a result of human activity [The Economist + YouGov]
- [Issue Priority] More Americans name climate change and the environment as the single “most important issue” to them than any other issue aside from inflation/prices and immigration [The Economist + YouGov]
FULL ROUNDUP
The Economist + YouGov – Americans are split on new vehicle standards when told that they will lead automakers to shift toward EVs; very few recognize that EVs are more affordable to maintain [Topline, Crosstabs]
Polling on new vehicle emissions standards has found that the public widely supports stronger EPA rules to curb pollution from cars, trucks, and heavy-duty vehicles.
Last month, for example, the American Lung Association found that 72% of voters (including the majority of Republicans) support the EPA “setting stricter limits on carbon emissions from heavy-duty vehicles.” Additionally, 60% of voters said that they support the EPA “setting stricter limits on emissions from light-duty vehicles like cars and trucks.”
In this new Economist/YouGov poll, however, Americans are much more split on the idea of “setting standards for automakers that will lead them to transition from producing fewer gas vehicles to producing more electric and other low-emitting vehicles” (44% support / 41% oppose).
The contrast between the two polls underlines a couple of important findings: while the idea of reducing vehicle pollution is relatively uncontroversial, the idea of phasing out gas-powered vehicles tends to divide people along partisan lines. By tying new vehicle standards to the EV transition, the Economist/YouGov poll produced a very polarized reaction: around three-quarters of Democrats (73%) said that they support the new vehicle standards, while three-quarters of Republicans (75%) said that they oppose them.
The Economist/YouGov poll question actually does not mention “pollution” or “emissions” as part of the new rules, just vague “standards for automakers” that will prompt automakers to manufacture more EVs. This kind of framing is unhelpful, as it suggests that the rules are mostly about the types of vehicles that automakers manufacture and not about reducing pollution across automakers’ fleets.
Where possible, we recommend that advocates focus on the core intent and benefit of the new EPA vehicle emissions rules: reducing pollution. This is an important goal that the vast majority of the country can agree on, wherever they stand on EVs. The new vehicle rules are likely to be much more popular if the public correctly understands that the rules set stronger pollution limits and provide automakers with flexibility about how to adhere to those limits.
The Economist/YouGov poll also asked about people’s impressions of gas powered versus electric cars on a variety of dimensions, finding that Americans tend to believe that gas-powered cars are “more reliable” (56% gas / 13% electric), “more affordable to maintain” (54% gas / 14% electric), and “safer to operate” (39% gas / 15% electric). Meanwhile, Americans say that electric vehicles have advantages in being “more energy-efficient” (44% electric / 23% gas) and “better for the environment” (46% electric / 19% gas).
These data points illustrate some common misconceptions about electric vehicles. In particular, despite studies consistently showing that EVs are cheaper to maintain than gas-powered cars, only 14% of Americans say that EVs are more affordable to maintain. This represents a clear knowledge gap for clean car advocates to address in their communications to the public.
Elsewhere in the poll, the Economist and YouGov find that 61% of Americans recognize that the world’s climate is changing as a result of human activity – slightly higher than we typically see on this question.
And to underscore how little public backlash there has been against President Biden’s actions on climate change, only one-quarter of Americans (25%) say that the U.S. government is doing too much to address climate change. Americans are nearly twice as likely to say that the U.S. government is not doing enough on the issue (46%), while 17% say that the country is doing “about the right amount.”
Looking at the results by party affiliation, Democrats are much more likely to say that the country isn’t doing enough on climate change (69%) than Republicans are to say that the country is doing too much on the issue (48%).
Data for Progress – Voters mostly like their utility companies, but overwhelmingly oppose junk fees and utilities using customers’ money to fund lobbying and political activities [Article, Crosstabs]
Data for Progress finds that voters mostly have positive attitudes about their utility companies (61% favorable / 26% unfavorable), and large majorities say that their utility companies do at least “somewhat well” at ensuring that customers have reliable access to energy (76%) and responding quickly when customers have issues with their energy access (71%). (Polling on this topic is similar to what we see on health insurance, where Americans tend to believe that the system isn’t good but are generally content with their own experiences with it.)
Still, voters are eager to see stronger regulation on utilities – including banning junk fees and preventing utilities from using customers’ money for political activities.
Three-quarters of voters (75%) support banning junk fees based on the following description:
“Utility companies charge customers certain junk fees not related to their overall energy use. These include late fees, which can be charged at a flat rate or as a percentage of a customer’s total energy bill if a customer misses a payment deadline, and reconnection fees, which are typically charged at a flat rate if a customer is disconnected from the grid for missing a payment deadline or other reasons. Some lawmakers are considering legislation to ban utility companies from charging these junk fees.”
Language about this proposal appears to make a substantial difference, with voters reacting particularly strongly to the term “junk fees.” Data for Progress fins that voters support banning junk fees by a 75%-18% margin after reading the explanation above, while voters support the same proposal by a less lopsided 61%-30% margin after reading a version of the paragraph that describes the payments as “certain fees” rather than “junk fees.”
Voters also overwhelmingly support legislation to prevent utility providers from using money from customers’ monthly bills to fund political activities (72% support / 21% oppose) after reading that “utility providers often use money collected from customers’ monthly bills to fund their political activities, including lobbying, advertisements, and trade association membership dues.”
Support for this proposal is very balanced across party lines, with 74% of Democrats, 72% of independents, and 69% of Republicans in favor of legislation that would ban utility companies from using customers’ money on political activities.
Yale + GMU – Different emotions about climate change are more closely linked with support for different types of policies to address it; fear is associated most with regulatory action like stronger emissions standards, while hope is associated most with proactive climate policies like investing in clean energy [Release, Open-Access Article]
In this new open-access article, researchers from Yale and George Mason used data from several nationally representative surveys to explore whether five different emotional reactions to climate change (guilt, anger, hope, fear, and sadness) relate to individuals’ support for different types of climate policies.
Interestingly, they find that certain emotions are more strongly linked with support for different types of policies:
- Guilt and anger were most strongly associated with “personally costly” policy support (e.g., paying more in taxes or fees to fund pro-climate initiatives);
- Hope and sadness were most strongly associated with “proactive” policy support (e.g., increasing government investment in renewables); and
- Fear was most strongly associated with regulatory policy support (e.g., establishing stronger standards for emissions and fuel efficiency)
Pulling from the article linked above, with emphasis added in bold:
“As a whole, these results are in line with previous research that found that the discrete emotional reactions were linked with discrepant political outcomes in other contexts, such as immigration policy… Thus, this current research furthers our understanding that emotionality, in general, is important for understanding climate policy support, and begins to make the case that understanding the link between specific emotions and support for particular policy outcomes adds to our ability to predict such support.
These findings are relevant to people and organizations seeking to promote greater public support for climate policies. Research on political advertising has demonstrated that emotional political campaigns are more successful at engaging voter turnout than less emotional campaigns, and the same may prove true for generating support for climate policy engagement….
As previously shown, emotions are important predictors of policy support and this work indicates that advocates should consider tailoring their emotional appeals based in part on the types of policy options they are promoting–especially if they are seeking to advance one particular type of policy proposal. Thus, for those supporting regulatory options, communicating fear about climate change might be a useful strategy. Similarly, when advocating for personally costly solutions, arousing guilt might resonate with some audiences, especially audiences not predisposed to support climate policies. And when advocating for proactive solutions, messengers could emphasize hope for the future. Finally, for those advocating for general climate policy solutions, fear was the emotion most strongly associated with all types of policy support (compared to the other emotions).”
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.