Yesterday, the Supreme Court suspended implementation of the Clean Power Plan, siding with a coalition of states, corporations, and state agencies suing the EPA to stop the program. The Clean Power Plan, which took effect in late 2015, sets strict CO2 limits on coal-fired power plants across the country. The effort to reduce power plant emissions will now be on hold until an appellate court hears the case this summer.
This recent step and the suit overall puts most of the Governors and Attorneys General in these states at odds with their own citizens.
The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference opens in Paris on November 30. In preparation for the negotiations, each country was asked to submit their own national action plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and over 90% have done so, including the United States. President Obama is now going to Paris to press for an international agreement to reduce global warming. What does the American public think?
In our recent national survey, we asked Americans about the U.N. Summit in Paris, how much the U.S. and other countries should do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and whether the U.S. should only act if other countries do. Most say an agreement is important and countries should do more about global warming.
Talking about global warming with those who think it is not happening can sometimes be awkward or frustrating, especially at the holiday dinner table. However, there are often more points of agreement than we may realize.
To provide some guidance on constructive ways to talk to people with opposing climate change viewpoints, we analyzed the Yale AP-NORC Environment Poll, a survey conducted among the American public (ages 18 and over) by the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies and the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research late last year.
Some politicians argue that taking action to protect the environment will harm the economy and cost jobs. However, a recent national survey finds that only 15% of Americans agree with this argument. Instead, a large majority of Americans (60%) say that in the long run, protecting the environment actually improves economic growth and provides new jobs, while another 22% say that protecting the environment has no impact on economic growth or jobs. In other words, 82% of Americans say that environmental protection is either good or neutral for economic growth, while only 15% think environmental protection harms the economy.
On October 23rd, President Obama’s signature climate change program The Clean Power Plan was entered into the Federal Register. Almost immediately, 26 US states sued to stop the policy, which sets strict limits on coal-fired power plants. However, according to our model of state-level public opinion (Yale Climate Opinion Maps, 2014), a majority of the public in 23 out of the 26 states filing suits actually support setting strict limits on coal-fired power plants. Across all 26 suing states, 61% of the public supports the policy, ranging from 73% public support in New Jersey to 43% in Wyoming and West Virginia. Across all 26 suing states, only 38% of the public on average opposes the policy.
With Pope Francis now on U.S. soil, what can be said about Americans’ receptivity to his moral entreaty to act now to limit climate change? Our research indicates the American public – Catholics and non-Catholics alike – will be receptive to the Pope’s message.
The final rules of the EPA Clean Power Plan are now unveiled. The plan requires states to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, one of the nation’s largest sources of carbon pollution.
In recent months, some Republicans in Congress and governors from coal-producing states have attacked the new plan. These attacks might suggest there is widespread public opposition to regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant. However, our research finds the opposite.
In our latest national survey (March, 2015), we found that a large majority of Americans support setting strict emission limits on coal-fired power plants; by more than a two-to-one margin: 70% support; 29% oppose.
Likewise, our models of public opinion in all 50 states (2014) find that a majority of Americans in almost every state support setting strict emission limits on coal-fired power plants.
On June 18th, Pope Francis released a much-anticipated encyclical—one of the most significant forms of communication within the Catholic Church—on climate change. In September, the Pope will visit the United States, where one in four Americans are Catholic, and address the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress at the invitation of House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH).
Our research has shown that, in general, Republicans are less convinced that human-caused global warming is happening and less supportive of climate and clean energy policies than are Democrats. We have also found that American Catholics are more likely than other American Christians to believe global warming is happening and to be worried about it
In this Climate Note we investigate whether or not there are differences in global warming beliefs, attitudes, and policy preferences between Catholic and non-Catholic Republicans. Overall, we find that Catholic Republicans are more convinced that global warming is happening and human-caused, and are more worried and supportive of climate policies, than are non-Catholic Republicans. These differences between Catholics and non-Catholics are unique to Republicans; that is, we see far fewer differences between Catholic and non-Catholic Democrats and Independents on these issues.
In January 2015, the U.S. Senate voted on an amendment sponsored by Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) stating that: “it is the sense of Congress that — (1) climate change is real; and (2) human activity significantly contributes to climate change.” 50 Senators voted in favor of the amendment, while 49 opposed it.
In this note we compare each Senator’s vote on the Schatz amendment with the views of their own constituents, according to our model of public opinion about climate change at the state level. The comparison finds that Senators were more likely to vote “Yea” on the Schatz amendment if they represent states where a majority of constituents think global warming is at least partly caused by human activities. Senators from states where the public was evenly split or slightly more likely to say global warming isn’t happening or naturally caused were more likely to vote “Nay.”
This summer, Pope Francis, who leads 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide, will issue a papal encyclical on climate change. An encyclical is a letter that sets church doctrine on critical issues and is one of the most important forms of communication within the church.
Early indications are that he will define climate change as a fundamentally moral and religious challenge for the world. Pope Francis will then separately address the General Assembly of the United Nations and a joint session of the U.S. Congress in September in the lead-up to this year’s critical UN climate negotiations in Paris.
What do American Catholics and other Christians currently believe about global warming, how worried are they, and do they support policy action?
To answer these questions, we conducted a special analysis on our recent nationally representative survey conducted in the fall of 2014. Overall, we find that Catholics – 24% of all American adults – are more convinced that global warming is happening, are more worried, and are more supportive of policy action than other Christians.
We are pleased to share a piece we authored recently published in The Conversation about how the American electorate is changing in ways that bode well for increased support for tackling climate change.
The Rising American Electorate (RAE) is a voting block identified by the non-profit Voter Participation Center as young voters (18-30 year olds), Latinos, African-Americans, unmarried women and others. According to exit polls, this group accounted for about half of voters (48%) in the 2012 national elections and is projected to comprise a growing proportion of the electorate in the coming years.
The RAE is more engaged than other Americans on climate issues. According to YPCCC/George Mason research, a solid majority of the RAE is worried about global warming (63%), compared to just half of other Americans registered to vote (50%), and more of the RAE say global warming is important to them (62% versus 52%, respectively).
The new Republican leaders in Congress have pledged to roll back the EPA’s proposed new regulations on coal-fired power plants – a key component of President Obama’s strategy to reduce global warming.
However, Republican voters are actually split in their views about climate change. A look at public opinion among Republicans over the past few years finds a more complex – and divided – Republican electorate.
For this study, we combined the results from six of our nationally-representative surveys over the past three years, which provided enough data for an in-depth analysis of the diversity of views about global warming within the Republican party.
We find that solid majorities of self-identified moderate and liberal Republicans – who comprise 30% of the party – think global warming is happening (62% and 68% respectively). By contrast, 38% of conservative Republicans think global warming is happening. At the extreme, Tea Party Republicans (17% of the party) are the most dismissive – only 29% think global warming is happening.
As the new leaders of Congress try to pass legislation to approve the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline, a recent poll by the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies and the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds that Americans are divided about the safety of the pipeline. Only about a quarter of Americans (24%) say they are extremely or very confident that it will be a safe way to transport oil, while 43% are moderately confident and 31% are not very or not at all confident it is safe. Democrats are more than twice as likely as Republicans to say they are “not very” or “not at all confident” that the pipeline would safely transport oil (43% vs. 19%).
Happy New Year from the YPCCC team! 2014 was a big year for climate change – from major scientific reports, to public marches, to breakthrough international agreements – and it was an incredible year for us. Continue reading for highlights from our work last year and where we’re taking these projects in 2015.
Since Thanksgiving week last year, over 4,000 people and organizations have thanked each other through the hashtag #ClimateThanks and reached almost 70 million with their message. There was much to celebrate last year - from new government action, to the largest climate march in history, to countless efforts by individuals, organizations, and businesses to reduce carbon emissions. We are filled with gratitude for the many people who participated in this campaign: a huge #ClimateThanks to you for contributing to progress on creating a safe climate. Please continue to give #ClimateThanks whenever the spirit moves you, the hashtag is not going away!
Environmental groups are spending record amounts of money on environment and energy campaign ads this season. Candidates in hotly contested races are using climate change to distinguish themselves from their opponents, even though the issue is not top-tier for voters in the midterms.
An important driver of the prominence of global warming in American politics is how the issue resonates with the so-called Rising American Electorate (RAE) – Millennials (18-to-30 year olds), Latinos, African Americans, and unmarried women, among others. According to the Census, the RAE is a rapidly growing segment within the U.S. population and as a group, the RAE comprised nearly half (48%) of the electorate in 2012 according to national exit polls.
As the RAE votes in growing numbers, they will increasingly replace more traditional types of voters, such as older white men and married women. So what does the RAE think of global warming?
In our Spring 2014 survey, we asked a representative sample of American voters how a candidate’s support or opposition to reducing global warming would influence their vote. While all registered voters appear more likely to support a pro-climate action candidate (45%) over an anti-climate action candidate (17%), the RAE is particularly likely to do so when compared to traditional voters (51% and 12%, respectively).
Participants in the People’s Climate March in New York City on September 21st each came with a message. Looking across the endless river of people and signs flowing through Manhattan it was hard to absorb the vast variety of communication on display. Noticeable though was one young man in a lab coat clutching a placard, “Climate Change is a Health Crisis.” The sign conveys a serious consequence of global warming that few Americans currently understand.
In June, we reported that Americans have not yet connected the dots between global warming and impacts on health. When we asked Americans in our national survey for their best estimate of the impact on human health worldwide—now and 50 years into the future—the majority of respondents said, “I don’t know.” Only 18% to 32% of Americans said correctly that each year worldwide, thousands will die or millions will become ill, or be injured by global warming.
This understanding does not match up with scientific consensus about the severe impacts of global warming on public health.
The visuals at the People’s Climate March in New York last Sunday conveyed more than just catchy slogans and clever words of inspiration. The signs and costumes and floats were messages to the world designed to create change. This marcher is making a very clear statement that is supported by our findings, presented in our recent report, Politics and Global Warming, Spring 2014. We find that while big differences do exist between conservative Republicans and Democrats, other Republicans look more like Democrats than their conservative fellow party members on numerous climate issues. Just one example among registered voters: Majorities of Democrats (88 percent) and moderate-to-liberal Republicans (61 percent) think global warming is happening. By marked contrast, only about one in four – 28 percent – conservative Republicans agree.
Millions of registered voters would sign a pledge to vote for, would work for, or would give money to candidates who share their views on global warming – if asked to by a person they like and respect. This suggests that global warming could become a more prominent electoral issue if campaigns engage and mobilize this potential “issue public.”
In our spring 2014 national survey, we asked Americans who are registered to vote how important 19 different issues will be to their vote in the 2014 Congressional election. Here we focus only on those who say an issue will be “very important” to their vote – the strongest possible response. Fewer than half of Americans say a candidate’s stance on energy independence (43%), protecting the environment (39%), developing clean energy sources (39%), or global warming (32%) will be “very important” to their vote.
In our spring 2014 national survey, we asked Americans to give us their best estimates of the impacts of global warming on human health worldwide – currently and 50 years from now. The largest proportion of respondents (38% to 42%) simply said, “I don’t know.” The next largest proportion (27% to 39%) said either “no one” or “hundreds” of people worldwide will die, be made ill or injured by global warming each year, either now or 50 years from now.
Only 18% to 32% of Americans said, correctly, that each year either “thousands” or “millions” of people worldwide will die, be made ill or injured by global warming, either now or 50 years from now.
Our latest survey from April 2014 finds that only one in three Americans thinks people in the U.S. are being harmed “right now” by global warming in the United States. Even as the impacts of global warming have increased over time, public worry has remained stable, and many Americans still perceive global warming as a relatively distant threat.
In our latest survey conducted in April 2014 we found that the public misunderstanding of the degree of scientific consensus about human-caused climate change persists. Only about half the American public believes that climate change, if it is happening, is mostly human caused.
Americans support limits on CO2 from existing coal-fired power plants and regulating CO2 as a pollutant
Each year in the United States about 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions – the primary cause of global warming – comes from electric power plants, especially those powered by the burning of coal.
On Monday, June 2, the EPA will release new proposed limits on CO2 emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. These regulations are likely to face fierce resistance from the coal industry and their allies.
What do Americans think about these proposed limits?
A national opinion survey we conducted in April of this year finds that – by nearly a two to one margin – Americans support setting strict limits on carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal-fired plants, even if the cost of electricity to consumers and companies increases.
Americans have very different mental models of the stability of the climate system. In a nationally representative study, we examined Americans’ understanding of how the climate system works. Survey respondents were presented with the following question:
“People disagree about how the climate system works. The five pictures below illustrate five different perspectives. Each picture depicts the Earth’s climate system as a ball balanced on a line, yet each one has a different ability to withstand human-caused global warming. Which one of the five pictures best represents your understanding of how the climate system works?”
Fragile: Earth's climate is delicately balanced. Small amounts of global warming will have abrupt and catastrophic effects.
Threshold: Earth's climate is stable within certain limits. If global warming is small, climate will return to a stable balance; if it is large, there will be dangerous effects.
Gradual: Earth's climate is gradual to change. Global warming will gradually lead to dangerous effects.
Random: Earth's climate is random and unpredictable. We do not know what will happen.
Stable: Earth's climate system is very stable. Global warming will have little or no effects.
Most respondents chose the Threshold model (34%), followed by the Gradual (24%), Random (21%), Fragile (11%) and Stable (10%) models. Scientifically, at different temporal or spatial scales the climate system can exhibit each of these behaviors, but the best overall answer is the threshold model.
Each year in the United States about 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions – the primary cause of global warming – comes from electric power plants, especially those powered by the burning of coal.
This June, the EPA is expected to propose new limits on CO2 emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. These regulations are likely to face fierce resistance from the coal industry.
What do Americans think about these regulations?
Our new survey this month finds that – by nearly a two to one margin – Americans support setting strict limits on carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal-fired plants, even if the cost of electricity to consumers and companies increases.
Most Democrats support setting such limits, over half of Republicans oppose it, while Independents are evenly divided.
As the country celebrates Earth Day (April 22), leaders in Washington DC should bear in mind that majorities of Americans say a variety of environmental issues should be a high priority for the president and Congress.
Our recent national survey found that over half of Americans say Washington DC should make addressing water pollution (62%), developing sources of clean energy (61%), toxic waste (56%), and air pollution (54%) a “very high” or “high” priority.
Nearly half also say the president and Congress should give high priority to the issues of damage to the Earth’s ozone layer (46%), loss of tropical rain forests (45%), and global warming (44%).
The American public expects their representatives in Washington to take action to protect the environment.
97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and human caused, at least in part. However, fewer than half of Americans believe in human-caused global warming and only 15% understand the degree of consensus in the scientific community.
In the past decade, the images and feelings Americans associate with the term “global warming” have shifted dramatically. We recently published an article in the journal Risk Analysis that identifies and analyzes these shifts in the connotative meaning of “global warming.”
The graph below summarizes how Americans’ associations to “global warming” changed from 2003 to 2010 (more data can be found in the paper).
Today marks the 1-year anniversary of the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan. The nuclear meltdowns, plant explosions, and release of radioactive material at Fukushima refocused world attention on the risks of nuclear power and caused many ripple effects, including shifts in public perceptions of this technology.
In his new proposed federal budget, President Obama today called on Congress to repeal more than $4 billion a year in subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, arguing that these “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies…impede investment in clean energy sources and undermine efforts to address the threat of climate change." As of November 2011, a large majority of Americans (70%) also opposed federal subsidies for the fossil fuel industry (coal, oil, and natural gas), including majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.
December 17, 2011 marked three months since the beginning of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Acknowledging the impact of social movements across the world (from the Middle East to Wall Street), Time Magazine named “The Protester” as its 2011 Person of the Year. In this Climate Note, we examine what Americans from different political parties think about the Occupy Wall Street protests and how angry they are at Wall Street.
On December 11 at the Durban (South Africa) Conference on Climate Change, the world agreed to extend the Kyoto Protocol and begin negotiations on a new global treaty that will require all countries (developed and developing) to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. In a national survey completed in November 2011, we found that a large majority of Americans (66%) support signing an international treaty requiring the US to cut emissions 90% by 2050.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) today released a special report on the influence of climate change on extreme weather events. In the United States, Americans have endured a record-setting series of extreme weather events in 2011, including the Mississippi floods, record high summer temperatures, and severe drought in Texas and Oklahoma. In a November 2011 national survey, we found that a majority of Americans believe global warming made the following events worse:
Americans’ Knowledge of Climate Change reports results from a national study of what Americans understand about how the climate system works, and the causes, impacts, and potential solutions to global warming. Among other findings, the study identifies a number of important gaps in public knowledge and common misconceptions about climate change.
On Thursday, June 10, the U.S. Senate is scheduled to vote on a resolution to take away the EPA's authority to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, which President Obama has threatened to veto. As of June 1, however, large majorities of registered voters, including Republicans, Independents, and Democrats, supported regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant.