Abstract Public attitudes toward climate change influence climate and energy policies and guide individual mitigation and adaptation behaviors. Over the last decade, as scientific certainty about the causes and impacts of, and solutions to the climate crisis has increased, cities, states, and regions in the United States have pursued diverse policy strategies. Yet, our understanding of how Americans’ climate views are changing remains largely limited to national trends. Here we use a large US survey dataset ( N = 27 075 ) to estimate dynamic, state-level changes in 16 climate change beliefs, risk perceptions, and policy preferences over 13 years (2008–2020). We find increases in global warming issue importance and perceived harm in every state. Policy support, however, increased in more liberal states like California and New York, but remained stable elsewhere. Year-by-year estimates of state-level climate opinions can be used to support sub-national mitigation and adaptation efforts that depend on public support and engagement.
more »
« less
The generational divide over climate change among American evangelicals
As urgency grows to address global warming, younger generations can play a strategic role in mobilizing communities that have generally been more opposed to climate action and policy, such as political and religious conservatives in the United States. American evangelical Protestants—and white evangelicals in particular—are the largest religious group in the U.S. and also the most skeptical of climate science. There is growing interest, however, around whether evangelicals are becoming ‘greener,’ and whether climate attitudes among younger generations are diverging from their elders. We analyze empirical evidence for such generational divides by comparing data from two Climate Change in the American Mind surveys (
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10377099
- Publisher / Repository:
- IOP Publishing
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Environmental Research Letters
- Volume:
- 17
- Issue:
- 11
- ISSN:
- 1748-9326
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- Article No. 114020
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
This study examines the idea that attitudes toward marriage are liberalizing in the US in the face of federal recognition of same-sex marriage legislation by examining attitudes toward conventional marriage ideals, same-sex marriage, and polyamorous marriage. It draws on a sample of liberal arts college students (n = 330) in the southeastern United States as a representation of a cohort more flexible to change and greater social tolerance. Findings indicate shifts away from conventional marriage and toward marriage as more inclusive of same-sex couples. At the same time, less than half support polyamorous marriage. Unsurprisingly, religious students are more likely to support conventional marriage ideals and less likely to support same-sex marriage and students with conservative political ideology are less likely to support same-sex marriage or polyamorous marriage. In particular, the negative impact of political ideology on these attitudes is stronger for men and straight students. Women are more likely than men to support same-sex marriage. LGBQ students are less likely to support conventional views of marriage and more likely to support polyamorous marriage than heterosexual students. While college students today have entered adulthood in the age of marriage equality, and are accepting of same-sex unions, students indicate more mixed feelings about what marriage encompasses, the value of marriage, and whether to support polyamorous marriage.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract Domestic climate migration is likely to increase in the future, but we know little about public perceptions and attitudes about climate migrants and migration. Understanding how perceptions and attitudes are formed is a critical task in assessing public support for assistance policies and developing effective messaging campaigns. In this paper, we aim to better understand how the U.S. public perceives domestic climate migrants. We use novel survey data to identify the relationship between climate change risk perceptions and awareness of “climate migrants,” belief that domestic climate migration is currently happening in the United States, perceived voluntariness of domestic climate migrant relocation, and support for the development of assistance programs for domestic climate migrants. We utilize a large, nationally representative panel of U.S. adults (
N = 4074) collected over three waves in 2022. We find that climate change risk perceptions and perceptions of whether migration is voluntary are key drivers of perceptions and attitudes toward domestic climate migrants. We provide key suggestions to policy makers and decision-makers to improve outcomes for host and migrant communities.Significance Statement This study illuminates factors that influence the how the public forms perceptions and attitudes about domestic climate migrants in the United States. For the first time, we offer insight into the drivers of public opinion toward domestic climate migrants and migration. Our results indicate that the various perceptions of climate migrants are largely driven by preexisting climate change risk perceptions and respondent characteristics. Our findings create a new connection with the existing literature on climate change risk perceptions and offer an opportunity for decision-makers and policy makers to create effective messaging campaigns on topics related to domestic climate migration in the United States.
-
more » « less
Two experiments examined the polarization of public support for COVID-19 policies due to people’s (lack of) trust in political leaders and nonpartisan experts. In diverse samples in the United States (Experiment 1; N = 1,802) and the United Kingdom (Experiment 2; N = 1,825), participants evaluated COVID-19 policies that were framed as proposed by ingroup political leaders, outgroup political leaders, nonpartisan experts, or, in the United States, a bipartisan group of political leaders. At the time of the study in April 2020, COVID-19 was an unfamiliar and shared threat. Therefore, there were theoretical reasons suggesting that attitudes toward COVID-19 policy may not have been politically polarized. Yet, our results demonstrated that even relatively early in the pandemic people supported policies from ingroup political leaders more than the same policies from outgroup leaders, extending prior research on how people align their policy stances to political elites from their own parties. People also trusted experts and ingroup political leaders more than they did outgroup political leaders. Partly because of this polarized trust, policies from experts and bipartisan groups were more widely supported than policies from ingroup political leaders. These results illustrate the potentially detrimental role political leaders may play and the potential for effective leadership by bipartisan groups and nonpartisan experts in shaping public policy attitudes during crises.
-
Abstract Climate Matters is a localized climate change reporting resources program developed to support television (TV) weathercasters across the United States. Developed as a pilot test in one media market in 2010, it launched nationwide in 2013; in the autumn of 2019 more than 797 weathercasters were participating in the program. In this paper we present evidence of the impact of the Climate Matters program on Americans’ science-based understanding of climate change. We analyzed three sets of data in a multilevel model: 20 nationally representative surveys of American adults conducted biannually since 2010 ( n = 23 635), data on when and how frequently Climate Matters stories were aired in each U.S. media market, and data describing the demographic, economic, and climatic conditions in each media market. We hypothesized that 1) reporting about climate change by TV weathercasters will increase science-based public understanding of climate change and 2) this effect will be stronger for people who pay more attention to local weather forecasts. Our results partially support the first hypothesis: controlling for market-level factors (population size, temperature, political ideology, and economic prosperity) and individual-level factors (age, education, income, gender, and political ideology), there is a significant positive association between the amount of Climate Matters reporting and some key indicators of science-based understanding (including that climate change is occurring, is primarily human caused, and causes harm). However, there was no evidence for the second hypothesis. These findings suggest that climate reporting by TV weathercasters, as enabled by the Climate Matters program, may be increasing the climate literacy of the American people.more » « less
