Environmental Polling Roundup – October 6, 2023
HEADLINES
Climate Power + LCV Victory Fund – Voters want to hold fossil fuel companies accountable and speed up the transition to clean energy; climate denialism and fealty to Big Oil are both major vulnerabilities for politicians [Report]
Washington Post + UMD – Most Americans would be comfortable with solar and wind projects in their communities; purchase costs and convenience remain the public’s greatest concerns about EVs [Clean Energy Siting Article, Electric Vehicle Article, Topline + Crosstabs]
Navigator – Voters are more inclined to blame the UAW strike on corporate greed than EVs [Release, Report]
Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) – Religious and non-religious Americans have diverging attitudes about climate change [Article, Report]
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Holding Big Oil accountable is good politics. Climate Power and the LCV Victory Fund find that voters prefer candidates who will “crack down on price gouging and profiteering” by major oil companies by a wide margin over candidates who want to give oil and gas companies tax cuts and incentives to increase fossil fuel production. Voters also have major concerns about politicians who are influenced by Big Oil donors, especially when they are informed that Big Oil-funded politicians are driving up costs for consumers by blocking clean energy development.
- Climate denialism has become a major political vulnerability as more Americans feel the impacts of climate change and extreme weather in their own lives. Climate Power and the LCV Victory Fund find that majorities of Americans recognize that extreme weather is becoming more frequent and blame it on climate change. Voters accordingly have major concerns about candidates who deny the science of climate change and disagree with experts like NASA and the Department of Defense while refusing to act in the face of increasingly extreme heat.
- Americans aren’t inclined to oppose clean energy projects in their communities, but we still need to be vigilant against anti-clean energy astroturfing. The Washington Post and UMD find that majorities of Americans, including self-identified Republicans and rural residents, would be comfortable with solar panel fields and wind turbines in their communities. While advocates should be encouraged that there is more public good will toward these types of local projects than conventional wisdom might suggest, it’s critical to cultivate and solidify that support in areas that are likely to see clean energy development. As we’ve seen in many cases, astroturfed opposition can quickly drown out support for these projects if local supporters aren’t as engaged and organized.
GOOD DATA POINTS TO HIGHLIGHT
- [Clean Energy Siting] 75% of Americans say that they would be comfortable with a field of solar panels being built in their community [Washington Post + UMD]
- [Clean Energy Siting] 68% of Americans say that they would be comfortable with wind turbines being built in their community [Washington Post + UMD]
- [Extreme Weather] 70% of voters say that weather events like extreme heat waves, wildfires, flooding, and droughts are increasing in frequency [Climate Power + LCV Victory Fund]
- [Extreme Weather + Climate Change] 61% of voters say that weather events like extreme heat waves, wildfires, flooding, and droughts are happening because of climate change [Climate Power + LCV Victory Fund]
- [Energy Transition] 70% of voters say that it’s important for the United States to increase its use of clean and renewable energy sources like wind power and solar energy [Climate Power + LCV Victory Fund]
- [Energy Transition] 63% of voters say that the United States should speed up the country’s transition to using more clean and renewable energy sources [Climate Power + LCV Victory Fund]
- [Energy + Elections] Voters prefer a candidate who “supports cracking down on price gouging and profiteering by the major oil companies” by a 63%-23% margin over a candidate who “supports giving tax cuts and incentives to oil and gas companies to increase the production of oil and gas” [Climate Power + LCV Victory Fund]
- [Energy + Elections] Voters prefer a candidate who “supports speeding up the transition to clean energy sources like wind and solar power to reduce the cost of energy” by a 54%-35% margin over a candidate who “supports increasing oil and gas production and building more pipelines to reduce the cost of energy” [Climate Power + LCV Victory Fund]
FULL ROUNDUP
Climate Power + LCV Victory Fund – Voters want to hold fossil fuel companies accountable and speed up the transition to clean energy; climate denialism and fealty to Big Oil are both major vulnerabilities for politicians [Report]
This new polling from Climate Power and the LCV Victory Fund includes a lot of fresh messaging guidance for advocates about leaning into voters’ pro-clean energy attitudes and going on offense against climate denialism and obstructionism.
Voters overwhelmingly support clean energy expansion. The poll finds that seven in ten voters (70%) say that it’s important for the United States to “increase its use of clean and renewable energy sources like wind power and solar energy,” while nearly two-thirds (65%) agree that it’s important for the United States to “reduce its reliance on fossil fuel energy sources like coal, oil, and natural gas.”
The difference in voters’ reactions to these two ways of framing the clean energy transition are subtle and largely driven by Republican-identifying voters. As we’ve seen in other polling, many voters – especially Republicans – feel positively about both clean energy and fossil fuels. When communicating to the general public about the clean energy transition, therefore, it is generally more effective to frame it as increasing clean energy use rather than reducing fossil fuel use.
Americans prefer political candidates who want to address energy costs by boosting clean energy rather than by increasing oil and gas production. By a 54%-35% margin, voters prefer a candidate who wants to reduce the cost of energy by “speeding up the transition to clean energy sources like wind and solar power” over a candidate who wants to reduce the cost of energy by “increasing oil and gas production and building more pipelines.”
Voters are prepared to reward candidates who get tough on Big Oil, and punish those who are in Big Oil’s pockets. By a commanding 40-point margin, voters prefer a candidate who “supports cracking down on price gouging and profiteering by the major oil companies” (63%) over “a candidate who supports giving tax cuts and incentives to oil and gas companies to increase the production of oil and gas” (23%).
Siding with Big Oil donors over consumers is a major vulnerability, as three in five voters (61%) say that the following statement raises “big concerns” for them: “Republicans are on the side of their Big Oil donors, not the American people. They do everything in their power to stop the development of clean energy. They cancel successful clean energy projects that are underway–even though that means higher energy costs for families.”
That message about how politicians’ fealty to Big Oil is driving up costs raises more concerns, including among key subgroups, than a statement about how politicians’ fealty to Big Oil is keeping the country dependent on fossil fuels.
Americans widely recognize that climate change is making extreme weather more frequent, and are troubled by candidates who deny the science and block action. Consistent with other polling, Climate Power and LCV VF find that voters recognize the personal impacts of climate change, see that extreme weather is becoming more frequent, and link extreme weather to climate change:
- 70% say that weather events like extreme heat waves, wildfires, flooding, and droughts are increasing in frequency
- 61% believe that weather events like extreme heat waves, wildfires, flooding, and droughts are happening because of climate change
- 50% say that they have already felt the impacts of climate change, and an additional 14% expect to feel the impacts in the future
- When asked how specifically they’ve been impacted by climate change, those who say that they have felt the effects are most likely to cite hot weather (52%) and extreme weather or natural disasters (49%)
Voters accordingly have significant doubts about politicians who deny the science and refuse to act as the weather gets more extreme. More than three in five voters say that each of the following statements raise “big concerns” for them:
- “This summer’s extreme weather–from wildfires in Hawaii, to smoke covering the East Coast, to unrelenting 100-degree heat waves across the South and West–signals a growing crisis. July was the hottest month ever recorded. Unless we act now it is only going to get worse. Yet Republicans are stopping us from doing anything about it and undoing the work we’ve made toward a sustainable future.” (64% raises big concerns)
- “Nearly every scientist, including NASA and the Department of Defense, agrees that humans are making climate change worse and that switching to clean energy will start to fix the problem. But Republicans tell the scientists they are wrong, that politicians understand what is happening with climate better than scientists do. Republicans are denying scientific facts while climate change just gets worse every year.” (62% raises big concerns)
Consistent with other polling we’ve seen, Climate Power and LCV VF find that voters are more persuaded by messaging on extreme weather that focuses on commonly experienced events like extreme heat than messaging about fatalities from natural disasters. While more alarming language can fire up “base” supporters of climate action, persuadable voters seem to respond better to messaging that is more reflective of their own personal experiences.
Washington Post + UMD – Most Americans would be comfortable with solar and wind projects in their communities; purchase costs and convenience remain the public’s greatest concerns about EVs [Clean Energy Project Article, Electric Vehicle Article, Topline + Crosstabs]
The Washington Post and UMD find that large majorities of Americans say that they would be comfortable with a field of solar panels (75%) or wind turbines (68%) being built in their community.
News stories about community opposition to wind and solar projects might suggest otherwise, but support for local clean energy projects is consistently high in national polls.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post and UMD find that Americans are much less comfortable (33%) with the idea of nuclear power plants in their communities.
Importantly, support for local solar and wind projects spans partisanship and geography. Majorities of Republicans say that they would be comfortable with solar (66%) and wind projects (59%) where they live, and majorities of rural Americans also say that they would be comfortable with solar (71%) and wind (69%) being built in their communities.
This polling serves as a good reminder that the loudest voices on an issue often do not represent mainstream opinion, and there is more public good will toward wind and solar projects than the conventional wisdom might suggest.
However, as advocates who have worked to implement clean energy projects know, astroturfing local opposition to these projects is a real problem. Americans’ attitudes about climate and clean energy are often “soft,” in that the typical American has not given a great deal of thought about these topics. Opinions can therefore change quickly when people are inundated with new information – especially when it comes disproportionately from one side of the debate.
The poll also probed Americans’ attitudes about electric vehicles, finding that cost and convenience concerns continue to undercut EVs’ perceived advantages on reducing climate change, air pollution, and the costs of refueling/recharging.
Here are the margins by which Americans believe that EVs or gas-powered vehicles are better on various dimensions:
- Reducing air pollution – EVs +60
- Reducing climate change – EVs +47
- Cost of refueling/recharging – EVs +10
- Driving places you go day-to-day – EVs +2
- Purchase cost – Gas-powered vehicles +54
- Driving more than 250 miles – Gas-powered vehicles +63
- Convenience of refueling/recharging – Gas-powered vehicles +65
Some of these public opinion challenges can be addressed with communications and education, and there is especially clear room to increase awareness that it is cheaper on average to charge EVs than to fuel gas-powered vehicles.
Additionally, advocates can amplify facts about the rapid increase in EV charging ports as concerns about convenience continue to rank on par with cost concerns as barriers to EV interest.
Navigator – Voters are more inclined to blame the UAW strike on corporate greed than EVs [Release, Report]
We haven’t seen much polling that focuses on the clean energy aspects of the United Auto Workers strike. However, as opponents of climate action scapegoat electric vehicles as the problem, Navigator encouragingly finds that we can effectively counter anti-EV arguments about the UAW strike by pointing to corporate greed as the real problem.
Specifically, voters side more with an argument that corporate greed is to blame than an argument that EVs are to blame by a 63%-37% margin when presented with the two arguments below.
[Corporate Greed Argument] “American car companies are making record profits and have given their CEOs a 40% pay raise in the last 4 years, while their
employees’ average hourly wage has dropped more than 30% in the last 20 years. Corporate greed is hurting these employees, and they deserve better working conditions and pay.”
[Anti-EV Argument] “The push for electric vehicles is hurting America’s auto workers, with cars requiring fewer parts to be manufactured in combination with the ongoing outsourcing of manufacturing to other countries. This all hurts their salary, working conditions, and job opportunities.”
Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) – Religious and non-religious Americans have diverging attitudes about climate change [Article, Report]
PRRI finds that, in addition to commonly observed divides in climate attitudes along lines of partisanship, age, education, and news sources, there is a notable split in climate views between religious and non-religious Americans. Additionally, this split appears to be growing over time.
Consistent with other polling, their survey finds that the majority of Americans (61%) recognize that climate change is caused mostly by human activities like burning fossil fuels. However, the more important Americans say religion is in their lives, the less they tend to agree that humans are causing climate change.
Americans who say that religion is not important in their life, for example, are twice as likely to agree that humans are the main cause of climate change (78%) than Americans who say that religion is the most important thing in their lives (39%).
Beliefs that climate change is a “crisis” follow a similar pattern, with 27% of Americans overall agreeing that the problem is a crisis – including 45% of those who say that religion is not important to them and only 13% of those who say that religion is the most important thing in their lives.
PRRI also strikingly finds that, over the past nine years, climate concerns have increased among non-religious Americans while backsliding among religious Americans. Compared to a previous survey conducted in 2014, Americans who say that religion is not important to them are now 12 points more likely to say that climate change is a crisis. Over the same time period, beliefs that climate change is a crisis have decreased among those who say that religion is the most important thing in their lives (-5), stayed about the same among those who say that religion is one of many important things (-1), and decreased among those who say that religion is not as important as other things (-5).
It’s important to note that there are a lot of other variables, such as partisanship, that overlap with Americans’ religiosity. It’s therefore difficult to tease out how religion in isolation shapes Americans’ climate views. There is also a great deal of variance in climate attitudes across religious groups: in the PRRI data, for example, Hispanic Catholics and Jewish Americans have relatively high concerns about climate change while LDS Americans and White Evangelical Protestants tend to be more skeptical of climate change than other groups.
Still, this polling signals that the climate movement needs stronger validators in faith communities to talk about the need for climate action.
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.