Environmental Polling Roundup – March 7, 2025
Headlines
Navigator – Most voters are concerned about the extent of recent government funding cuts and layoffs, and there are a wide variety of salient examples to point to–including cuts to disaster relief [Release, Report, Topline]
ecoAmerica – Trump’s early actions on climate change and clean energy are unpopular; Americans particularly disapprove of halting wind energy projects, as they believe that stopping clean energy projects will hurt job growth [Release, Full Report, Crosstabs]
AP-NORC – Majorities of Americans continue to say that they’ve been impacted by extreme weather and that climate change was a factor behind it, and most are concerned that climate change will increase property insurance premiums [Article, Release, Topline]
Key Takeaways
Cuts to disaster relief help to underscore the dangerousness of DOGE’s approach. In testing voters’ reactions to many of the recent funding cuts by the Trump administration, Navigator finds that cuts to disaster relief rank among the most concerning. Previous research by Data for Progress last year found that voters would much rather increase federal support for disaster relief than decrease it, with virtually no voters of any political persuasion believing that disaster relief should be cut.
This strong concern over disaster relief cuts is also consistent with new polling conducted by the EPC and Combined Defense, which will be included in the briefing on Tuesday, March 11.
We should be including rising property insurance rates more in our messaging about costs. As climate change increasingly threatens Americans’ abilities to protect and insure their homes, from the widespread home losses from recent hurricanes and wildfires to the ongoing insurance market crisis in Florida and other disaster-prone areas, rising property insurance premiums are emerging as a salient example of the economic costs of climate change.
AP-NORC finds that nearly three in five Americans are “extremely” or “very” concerned that climate change will increase property insurance premiums for households. As we continue to develop and test messaging about the costs of climate inaction, this data indicates that rising insurance costs can help to personalize the issue.
Good Data Points to Highlight
- [DOGE/Cuts] 67% of voters are concerned about the Trump administration cutting disaster relief for events like wildfires, hurricanes, and tornadoes, including 44% who are “very concerned” about these cuts [Navigator]
- [Clean Energy] 57% of Americans oppose the Trump administration’s action to halt new wind energy projects [ecoAmerica]
- [Clean Energy] 57% of Americans agree that the Trump administration will hurt job growth by stopping clean energy projects [ecoAmerica]
- [Drilling] 61% of Americans agree that the Trump administration’s plan to increase oil and gas drilling will harm air and water quality [ecoAmerica]
- [Drilling] 60% of Americans agree that the Trump administration’s plan to increase oil and gas drilling will increase pollution and harm people’s health [ecoAmerica]
- [Climate Change] 72% of Americans recognize that climate change is happening [AP-NORC]
- [Climate Change + Extreme Weather] 72% of Americans who self-report experience with extreme weather in recent years say that climate change was a cause [AP-NORC]
Full Roundup
Navigator – Most voters are concerned about the extent of recent government funding cuts and layoffs, and there are a wide variety of highly salient examples to point to–including cuts to disaster relief [Release, Report, Topline]
Three in five voters are concerned about the extent of recent government cuts and layoffs. The majority of voters (61%), including 63% of independents, say that they’re concerned about how the Trump administration has “recently made significant cuts to federal government spending, including laying off thousands of federal government employees.”
These concerns also run deep, with two in five (41%) saying that they are “very” concerned about the cuts.
While voters like the idea of cutting government spending, they dislike how Trump and Musk have gone about it. Navigator’s polling illustrates how Trump’s reckless approach to cutting the budget is turning voters against an effort that they may otherwise be inclined to support.
On balance, voters say that Trump’s cuts to government spending make them feel more positively than negatively about him (42% more positive / 36% more negative).
However, by double digits, voters say that Elon Musk’s involvement in the administration (33% more positive / 45% more negative) and the way that Trump has fired workers and attempted to close government agencies (33% more positive / 44% more negative) have more of a negative than positive impact on how they view Trump.
Our argument against cutting funding is more persuasive if we first acknowledge that there is government waste to be cut, and then clarify how the current approach is too reckless. Consistent with this notion that voters want to see government spending cut in a sensible way, Navigator finds that our messaging against Trump and DOGE’s approach is more effective if we first acknowledge that there is government waste that should be cut.
In a split-sample experiment, Navigator tested two potential rebuttals to a statement in favor of the Trump/DOGE approach–with the only difference between the two rebuttals being that one of them stated that “everyone knows there is waste in government that should be cut” while the other did not.
Pro-Trump/DOGE Statement: “The federal government has been bloated and wasteful for far too long. Right now, we have an opportunity to make big cuts to wasteful spending to right-size the government. We should make real change now, and we can always restore funding for important things later.”
Rebuttal 1: “Everyone knows there is waste in government that should be cut, but Trump and Republicans are recklessly cutting critical programs that Americans rely on, without thinking about who it will hurt. They have already threatened funding for cancer research, food for hungry kids, and protections for people who have been scammed by big banks and credit card companies.”
Rebuttal 2: “Trump and Republicans are recklessly cutting critical programs that Americans rely on, without thinking about who it will hurt. They have already threatened funding for cancer research, food for hungry kids, and protections for people who have been scammed by big banks and credit card companies.”
Voters sided with the rebuttal message that acknowledged government waste by a 12-point margin (56%-44%) over the pro-Trump/DOGE statement, compared to just a four-point margin (52%-48%) for the rebuttal message that didn’t include that language.
Cuts to disaster relief are one of many highly concerning examples of Trump and Musk’s dangerous approach to budget cuts. Navigator gauged voters’ concerns about 14 different recent funding cuts, finding that majorities of voters are at least “somewhat” concerned about all of them.
Below are the cuts that elicited the strongest reactions, with more than 60% saying that they’re concerned about each one and more than 40% saying that they’re “very” concerned:
- Ending programs keeping women and children safe from sexual abuse, including cuts to rape crisis centers and programs preventing child exploitation and human trafficking worldwide – 48% very concerned
- Cuts to life-saving health care for veterans through Veterans Affairs – 46% very concerned
- Cuts to the National Institutes of Health, threatening medical research to find cures and treatments for diseases like cancer and suspending clinical trials – 45% very concerned
- Cuts to staff and funding at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the agency overseeing air traffic control and safety – 44% very concerned
- Cuts to disaster relief for events like wildfires, hurricanes, and tornadoes – 44% very concerned
- Cuts to the Department of Education, like teacher training and programs to help children with disabilities – 44% very concerned
- Pausing medical programs around the world that have beaten back malaria, HIV, and other diseases – 43% very concerned
- Firing food inspectors at the Food and Drug Administration – 43% very concerned
- Firing veterans who are working in agencies across the federal government, as veterans often take jobs as civil servants after their careers in the armed forces – 42% very concerned
While most voters also say that they’re at least “somewhat” concerned about firing park rangers at the National Park Service (58%), there is relatively less intensity behind this concern (35% “very concerned”) than for cutting disaster relief or for the other top-testing items in the survey.
ecoAmerica – Trump’s early actions on climate change and clean energy are unpopular; Americans particularly disapprove of halting wind energy projects, as they believe that stopping clean energy projects will hurt job growth [Release, Full Report, Crosstabs]
Americans disapprove of Trump’s early actions on climate and the environment. ecoAmerica finds that more Americans oppose than support each of the following actions by the administration:
- Halting new wind energy projects (43% support / 57% oppose)
- Withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, a global treaty to reduce climate pollution (47% support / 53% oppose)
- Pausing funding to support clean energy and reduce pollution under the Inflation Reduction Act (47% support / 53% oppose)
While robust support from Republicans prevents any of these actions from becoming too unpopular in the aggregate, it’s worth highlighting how much independents disapprove of them. ecoAmerica find that independents oppose the halting of wind energy projects by a 22-point margin (39% support / 61% oppose), oppose the IRA funding pause by a 20-point margin (40% support / 60% oppose), and oppose the Paris Agreement withdrawal by a 12-point margin (44% support / 56% oppose).
Majorities expect several negative impacts from the administration’s actions on the environment and energy, including harming public health and job growth. While polls have shown a mixed response to the administration’s plan to increase oil and gas drilling, Americans agree that it will have a range of negative consequences:
- 61% agree that it will harm air and water quality
- 60% agree that it will increase pollution and harm people’s health
- 57% agree that it will increase the pollution that causes more frequent and extreme weather events (e.g., floods, hurricanes, and wildfires)
In addition to the harms from increasing oil and gas drilling, majorities agree about the following negative effects of other Trump administration actions:
- 59% agree that cutting clean energy spending will hurt America’s leadership in energy technology and allow countries like China to surpass us
- 57% agree that stopping clean energy projects will hurt job growth
- 57% agree that leaving global climate agreements will weaken America’s role as a world leader
- 54% agree that rolling back electric vehicle targets and incentives will slow efforts to reduce harmful pollution
AP-NORC – Majorities of Americans continue to say that they’ve been impacted by extreme weather and that climate change was a factor behind it, and most are concerned that climate change will increase property insurance premiums [Article, Release, Topline]
Most Americans say that they’ve been affected by extreme weather in the past few years, with extreme heat the most common experience. Around four in five Americans say that they have been personally affected by at least one type of extreme weather in the past five years. Extreme heat continues to be Americans’ most common self-reported experience with extreme weather, followed by severe winter weather:
- Extremely hot weather or extreme heat waves – 55% say that they’ve been affected
- Severe cold weather or severe winter storms – 49%
- Major droughts or water shortages – 31%
- Hurricanes or severe tropical storms – 25%
- Major flooding – 18%
- Tornadoes – 17%
- Wildfires – 16%
- Other severe weather events or weather disasters – 20%
It’s worth noting that people’s self-reported experiences with extreme weather tend to vary by season. AP-NORC last asked these questions in the summer (July 2024), and about twice as many people in that round of the survey self-reported experience with extreme heat in recent years (71%) than experience with severe cold weather (34%).
Those who self-report experience with extreme weather overwhelmingly say that climate change was a factor, despite Republicans’ doubts. Among the large majority of Americans who say that they’ve been affected by extreme weather in recent years, around seven in ten (72%) say that climate change was a cause.
While Democrats (89%) and independents (72%) overwhelmingly attribute their experiences with extreme weather to climate change, Republicans are more split (43% climate change was a cause / 55% climate change was not a cause).
This is consistent with past research, which has shown that Republicans are both less likely to say that they’ve been affected by extreme weather and less likely to connect it to climate change if they do say that they’ve experienced it.
More than two-thirds believe that climate change will have a “major” impact in their lives. AP-NORC finds that around seven in ten Americans (72%) recognize that climate change is happening, including virtually all Democrats (93%), the majority of independents (62%), and around half of Republicans (51%).
Nearly seven in ten (69%) also believe that climate change will have a major impact in their lives, including around one-quarter (26%) who say that it has already had a major impact on them and an additional 43% who believe that climate change will have a major impact on them in the future.
Most also believe that climate change will have a major impact on their lives in specific ways, such as affecting the air quality where they live (65%), their personal health (56%), and the availability of water in their area (55%).
Americans are strongly concerned that climate change will increase costs in multiple ways, including property insurance premiums. Majorities say that they’re either “extremely” or “very” concerned that climate change will increase property insurance premiums for households (59%) and increase energy costs for households (55%).
And beyond these direct costs for individuals and families, around half also say that they’re “extremely” or “very” concerned that climate change will increase costs for local emergency responders (48%) and increase infrastructure costs for the government (47%).
Americans widely support policies to help Americans in disaster-prone areas, including both preparedness and post-disaster relief. By wide margins, Americans support each of the following proposals to help Americans who live in areas that are becoming more susceptible to destruction by weather disasters such as hurricanes, wildfires, and flooding:
- Providing money to local residents to make their property more resistant to natural disasters (63% favor / 10% oppose)
- Providing money to local residents to help them rebuild in the same community (60% favor / 14% oppose)
- Providing homeowners’ insurance in these communities for people who cannot get private insurance (58% favor / 16% oppose)
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.