Audience: Environmental 'Base'

The Climate Reality Project and Citizens’ Climate Lobby were interested in knowing whether informing people about existing bipartisan governmental bodies (e.g., the Climate Solutions Caucus in the US House of Representatives) would make the public, in particular moderates and conservatives, both think and act differently about climate. Their hypothesis was that signaling bipartisanship and governmental provenance in an organization could increase enthusiasm about climate action by showing people that powerful interests could unite to tackle the issue.
They find that messaging about government initiatives (as opposed to business and NGO efforts) significantly increases peoples’ sense of efficacy for climate action, which then translates to increased support for personal action-taking. Among conservative men, emphasizing bipartisan government action increases their support for personal action by 30% compared to the bipartisan NGO condition due to raising their second-order beliefs. In other words, telling conservative men that bipartisan governmental groups exist to work on climate change reduces their propensity to say that the average Republican opposes climate action by the government. The researchers do not find any evidence that emphasizing bipartisan government action increases respondents’ optimism about the climate crisis.

This post includes a roundup of climate + environment headlines from this week’s public polls, good data points to highlight, and a full roundup with key takeaways from each poll – including new polls on the Build Back Better budget, a study on the impact of language in the natural gas debate, and extreme weather polling.
HEADLINES

Navigator – Specific details engender broad support for the Build Back Better budget, even when it’s framed as a Democratic bill (Release, Slide Deck, Topline)
Washington Post/ABC News – The Build Back Better budget has slim majority support when described as $3.5 trillion in spending for “expanded social programs, educational assistance and programs to address climate change” (Topline, Crosstabs)
No Labels & American Action Network – Opposition polls claim that Americans want to pause on the kind of government spending included in the Build Back Better budget (Axios Article on No Labels Poll, No Labels Release, American Action Network Release)
Yale Program on Climate Change Communication – Language used to describe gas as an energy source is hugely impactful in shaping opinions; Americans have positive attitudes about “natural gas,” but not about methane (Academic Paper, YPCCC Article)
Economist/YouGov – Americans continue to attribute recent extreme weather events more to climate change than natural patterns; nearly one in four say they were personally impacted by Eastern seaboard hurricanes (Topline, Crosstabs)

The segment of the American public “alarmed” about climate change has grown from 17% (2008) to 26% (2020). This is the biggest change of any of the “Six Americas” global warming belief categories of public opinion (others include “concerned”, “cautious”, “disengaged”, “doubtful”, “dismissive”). Notably, higher proportions of Latinos (37%) and Black Americans (27%) are “alarmed”—as compared to White Americans (22%). Among the total population, the second biggest change from 2008-2020 has occurred among the “disengaged”, dropping from 15% (2008) to 6% (2020) of the US.             

Relational climate conversations (talking about climate change with people you know) can be very effective at changing hearts and minds, but requires thoughtful practice to implement and evaluate. It takes more than just trainings and a script. Rather, the tactic only works with an existing organizational support structure that can create a community of collective accountability and help advocates navigate potentially vulnerable social interactions. Intentional focus on community-building and mutual support is key.  A panel presentation as part of the Greenpeace Data Activist Co-Op.