Location: Minnesota

In a new report produced with the support of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Synapse Energy Economics, RAP and Community Action Partnership take an in-depth look at the disparate impacts of electric and natural gas infrastructure on economic, social, and health outcomes — and consider how to ensure that a clean-energy future is a more equitable future.

Long-form, “deep canvass”-style door to door climate conversations may not be more effective at generating activism than a standard, more direct, canvass approach.  In an experiment involving 1,449 canvass conversations with voters conducted by Minnesota 350, voters were randomly assigned to either a long-form or standard script, and then asked to sign a postcard to lawmakers and recruited for future activism. Future activism rates did not differ between those receiving the two scripts, though the standard script may have produced slightly higher postcard signature rates. Conversely, there is some evidence that volunteer canvassers preferred delivering the long-form script, which may have led to higher volunteer participation in the canvass program. (Supported by a grant from the Climate Advocacy Lab)             

Highlighting the positive voting records of environmentally-friendly legislators may be an effective strategy for solidifying support for them. But don’t expect such “accountability” messages to boost election turnout; and conversely, don’t expect get-out-the-vote (GOTV) messages to change views of legislators. In a test of mail pieces to inconsistent Minnesota voters supportive of action on climate change, GOTV mail boosted turnout, and accountability mail (highlighting the voting record of elected legislators on several conservation issues) affected views of legislators and the legislature, but not visa versa. The accountability mailers did not appear to increase turnout. And the GOTV mail did not have persuasive effects