Environmental Polling Roundup – November 21, 2025
Headlines
[NJ + VA] CAP Action – Democrats in the NJ and VA gubernatorial races won the debates on utility costs, and pro-clean energy arguments are more persuasive when they invoke the Trump administration’s efforts to block solar and wind [Release, Memo, Topline]
Data for Progress – Amid COP30, most voters say that the U.S. should take ambitious action to address climate change regardless of what other countries do [Release, Crosstabs]
Key Takeaways
Voters are rejecting the Trump administration’s efforts to block clean energy. National polling shows that cuts to clean energy are deeply unpopular, and new post-election polling by CAP Action in New Jersey and Virginia finds that majorities of voters who participated in those states’ gubernatorial elections had heard about and opposed the Trump administration’s efforts to block new solar and wind energy.
There is significant room to raise awareness of the Trump administration’s war on clean energy, however, and it comes with clear strategic benefits for advocates. The same poll by CAP Action finds that messaging in favor of clean energy (and against prioritizing fossil fuels) is more persuasive when it invokes the current “ban” on solar and wind.
Democrats are now winning the cost of living debate, but shouldn’t assume that this extends to energy prices. At the national level, Navigator finds that Democrats recently overtook Republicans as the party more trusted to handle inflation and the cost of living. And in New Jersey and Virginia, CAP Action finds that voters trusted the victorious Democratic candidates for governor over their Republican opponents to handle the cost of living generally and the cost of utilities like electricity and heating specifically.
When CAP Action asked voters in New Jersey and Virginia which party they trust more at the national level, however, voters say that they trust Democrats over Republicans in Congress to handle the cost of living generally but are much more split on which party they trust to handle utility prices specifically. This again suggests a lack of familiarity with the parties’ competing proposals to bring down electricity prices, and a vulnerability for national Democrats if they don’t define themselves as clearly on the issue as Sherrill and Spanberger did.
Good Data Points to Highlight
[Climate Impacts] 66% of voters are concerned about the impacts of climate change on future generations [Data for Progress]
[Climate Action] 65% of voters agree that the U.S. should take ambitious climate action, even if other countries do not [Data for Progress]
[NJ] 61% of voters who turned out in New Jersey’s gubernatorial election oppose the Trump administration’s plans to cancel new solar and wind energy production [CAP Action]
[VA] 61% of voters who turned out in Virginia’s gubernatorial election oppose the Trump administration’s plans to cancel new solar and wind energy production [CAP Action]
Full Roundup
[NJ + VA] CAP Action – Democrats in the NJ and VA gubernatorial races won the debates on utility costs, and pro-clean energy arguments are more persuasive when they invoke the Trump administration’s efforts to block solar and wind [Release, Memo, Topline]
Voters in NJ and VA knew about and opposed the Trump administration’s efforts to block solar and wind energy production. In this post-election survey of voters who participated in this month’s gubernatorial elections, majorities in both New Jersey (64%) and Virginia (63%) said that they had heard at least “some” about the Trump administration’s plan to cancel new energy production that involves solar and wind energy.
Voters in each state also reject these efforts to block solar and wind energy: by identical 61%-39% margins, voters in both New Jersey and Virginia say that they oppose the Trump administration’s plan to cancel new solar and wind energy production. Opposition to these efforts is also intense, with more than 40% in each state saying that they strongly oppose the administration’s plan to block solar and wind.
Democratic governors-elect Mikie Sherilll and Abigail Spanberger both won the debates on utility costs. In each state, voters said that they trusted the Democratic candidate over her Republican opponent to handle the costs of utilities like electricity and heating.
New Jersey voters trusted Sherrill over Republican Jack Ciattarelli by a nine-point margin on the issue (48% Sherrill / 39% Ciattarelli), while Virginia voters trusted Spanberger over Republican Winsome Earle-Sears by a 15-point margin on the issue (52% Spanberger / 37% Earle-Sears).
NJ and VA voters side more with arguments in favor of clean energy expansion than fossil fuel expansion, especially when our arguments invoke the administration’s ban on solar and wind. In a split-sample experiment, the survey tested two different arguments in favor of clean energy against the same argument in favor of fossil fuel expansion.
Voters side with an argument in favor of prioritizing solar and wind over an argument in favor of prioritizing oil and gas by an eight-point margin in New Jersey and a seven-point margin in Virginia:
- We should prioritize new energy production like wind and solar because it can be added to the grid faster and drives down energy costs by creating competition – 54% side more with this argument in NJ and 55% side more with this argument in VA
- We should prioritize oil and gas energy because it’s reliable and it’s what the energy infrastructure is already built for – 46% side more with this argument in NJ and 45% side more with this argument in VA
By even larger margins (13 points in NJ and 19 points in VA), voters side more with an argument in favor of producing more energy “across the board” and not banning solar and wind over the same argument in favor of prioritizing oil and gas:
- We should produce more energy across the board rather than banning wind and solar projects because it drives down energy costs by creating competition – 56% side more with this argument in NJ and 59% side more with this argument in VA
- We should prioritize oil and gas energy because it’s reliable and it’s what the energy infrastructure is already built for – 44% side more with this argument in NJ and 41% side more with this argument in VA
Democrats at the federal level have clear advantages on the cost of living in these states, but have room to expand their advantages on the cost of utilities. When asked who they trust more between Democrats and Republicans in Congress to handle various issues, voters in both New Jersey (Democrats +23) and Virginia (Democrats +11) say that they trust Democrats more by double digits.
When it comes to the cost of utilities like electricity and heating specifically, however, voters in both New Jersey (Democrats +4) and Virginia (Democrats +2) afford only small advantages to congressional Democrats.
This data suggests that Democrats in Congress could take lessons from the Sherrill and Spanberger campaigns and take a more proactive approach to defining their plans to bring down utility costs, as CAP Action argues in their memo:
“Attacking on high utility bills and clean energy cuts is critical; ignoring energy and utilities is a mistake that could cost candidates. In the big conversation about the cost of living, energy is where Republicans will attack. Strategies that pretend Democrats can minimize the salience of the issue by ignoring it rely on an outdated understanding of our media environment and should be dismissed. Energy costs will rise next year and are a top issue for voters Democrats can win. Governors-elect Sherrill and Spanberger demonstrated this last week. Winning campaigns in the battleground will copy their approach to turn the table on Republican attacks that are sure to come. Going on offense on energy is how to slam shut Republicans’ only way to contest who to trust on the cost of living. Attacking rising utility prices in earned media is a winning strategy to take control of the issue and keep pressing a Democratic advantage on affordability….
Candidates must have a vision on utility prices. Nationally, Democrats and outside organizations have an opportunity to change the battleground with an earned media strategy over the winter. The winning recipe for campaigns starts with attacking high utility costs due to Republican policies like cuts to clean energy. Candidates should develop ideas that contrast with Republicans by generating new energy (wind and solar are fast and cheap) and lower costs for consumers and those on fixed incomes.”
Data for Progress – Amid COP30, most voters say that the U.S. should take ambitious action to address climate change regardless of what other countries do [Release, Crosstabs]
The large majority of voters across party lines recognize that climate change is happening, with partisans diverging more around its causes. Data for Progress finds that roughly three-quarters of voters (76%) recognize that climate change is happening, including 49% who say that it is happening mostly due to human activities like burning fossil fuels and 27% who say that it is happening mostly due to natural patterns in the Earth’s environment. Only around one in five voters (19%) say that there is no solid evidence that climate change is happening.
Even among Republicans, the notion that there isn’t solid evidence of climate change is a minority view (32%). Around three in five Republicans (62%) recognize that climate change is happening, though Republicans are more likely to say that it is mostly happening because of natural patterns (36%) than to say that it is mostly happening due to human activities like burning fossil fuels (26%).
Among Democrats, meanwhile, nine in ten (91%) recognize that climate change is happening and roughly three-quarters (73%) say that it is due to human activities.
Voters widely share concerns about the impacts of climate change on future generations. Around two-thirds (66%) say that they are at least “somewhat” concerned that future generations will be impacted by climate change, including large majorities of Democrats (88%) and independents (67%) and more than two in five Republicans (44%).
Voters say that the U.S. should take action on climate change regardless of what other countries do. By a 40-point margin (65%-25%), voters side more with an argument in favor of the U.S. taking climate action and showing leadership on the issue over an argument against it:
- The United States should take ambitious action to address climate change, even if other countries do not. We should lead the world on this issue and set the example for other countries to follow suit. – 65% agree more with this argument
- If other countries do not take action to address climate change, the United States should not either. It is not fair for us to act while other countries contributing to the problem are sitting still. – 25% agree more with this argument
Voters support a worldwide phaseout of fossil fuels, and continue to support it by double digits after exposure to simulated debate on the topic. After reading that some countries are proposing a worldwide phaseout of fossil fuels such as coal and oil to address climate change, voters support the idea by a 23-point margin overall (55% support / 32% oppose) despite a deep partisan split between Democrats (74% support / 12% oppose) and Republicans (34% support / 53% oppose).
After seeing the below arguments for and against the proposal, the margin of support tightens but voters continue to support it by a 15-point margin (52% support / 37% oppose):
“Supporters say that phasing out fossil fuels will help lower energy costs by replacing volatile fossil fuel prices with cheaper renewable energy, while delivering cleaner air quality and a healthier environment for future generations.
Opponents say that phasing out fossil fuels will create chaos in the energy market by eliminating fossil fuel companies and jobs, while forcing consumers to buy electric vehicles and make electrification upgrades for homes and businesses.”
While most voters agree that the U.S. should phase out fossil fuels long-term, they are divided on the speed. The majority of voters say that they support the U.S. phasing out fossil fuels including coal and oil by 2100 (54% support / 37% oppose), again despite sharp disagreement between Democrats (74% support / 18% oppose) and Republicans (33% support / 56% oppose).
When it comes to the speed of the phaseout, however, voters are more evenly divided as they are receptive to arguments that a fast transition will increase their costs. Data for Progress finds that voters side narrowly more with an argument in favor of phasing out fossil fuels as quickly as possible over an argument against it:
- We should cut emissions and phase out fossil fuels as fast as possible because we need to urgently address climate change and its impacts on all of us – 48% agree more with this argument
- We should not cut emissions and phase out fossil fuels as fast as possible because it would disrupt consumers’ lives and raise costs in the short term – 42% agree more with this argument
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.