This post includes climate and environment headlines, data points, and key takeaways from recent public polls - including lots of new polling on climate and the environment as issues in this year’s election, new polling of Latino voters, new polling about conservation in the states that touch the Mississippi River, and new polling about clean energy infrastructure siting in California.

Nearly two-thirds of Latino voters prefer a president who prioritizes climate action over one who prioritizes oil and gas. Latino voters widely agree that extreme weather is becoming worse because of climate change and increasing their utility bills. 83% of Latino voters are concerned about air and water pollution, including 49% who are “very concerned” about it. 78% of Latino voters are concerned about climate change, including 46% who are “very concerned” about it. 65% of Latino voters agree that “we need a president who is committed to addressing climate change and extreme weather and who will make it a key priority of their policy agenda”. 67% of Latino voters agree that extreme weather events are increasing in frequency, and 72% attribute them to climate change.

The Environmental Voter Project (EVP) employs a unique climate form of a “get out the vote” (GOTV) strategy. Rather than convincing people to care about climate change, it identifies people who already do, but don't consistently vote, and works to get them to the polls. In this Volts podcast episode, EVP founder Nathaniel Stinnett discusses how to find these voters, keep them engaged, and measure their impact. EVP has been involved in many elections to date and has studied its own impact. Its long-term goal is to build a national bloc of climate voters that politicians must listen to.

In the face of climate-related disasters, effective communication around evacuation orders and recovery resources can mean the difference between life and death. Unfortunately, individuals with Limited English Proficiency (LEP), who are at the front lines of climate change and climate-related disasters, are often excluded from these lifesaving communications— further compounding their vulnerability to climate change. Fortunately, states like New York and Hawaii are pioneering legislative efforts to enhance language access during emergencies and disasters. These models offer a crucial template for other states, demonstrating how targeted policy and funding can ensure that language is not a barrier to safety and disaster resilience. There are three policy recommendations that should be considered: tracking emerging languages as climate migration increases; building trust and embedding cultural competence in emergency management; and measuring translation performance based on accuracy, speed, and literacy accessibility.

This post includes climate and environment headlines, data points, and key takeaways from recent public polls - including new national and swing state polling on the IRA’s tax credits and offshore drilling + new research on the terminology of climate change + new polling in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and South Carolina.

Overwhelming majorities nationally and in key swing states support maintaining tax credits for EVs, clean energy, and energy efficiency while limiting offshore drilling. 88% of Americans support maintaining or increasing the tax credit for residential clean energy production. 89% of Americans support maintaining or increasing the tax credit for new energy-efficient heating or air conditioning systems. 86% of Americans support maintaining or increasing the tax credit for energy-saving improvements, such as fuel-efficient lighting, doors, windows, or insulation. 70% of Americans support the EPA’s standards requiring new cars and light trucks to get 20-30% more miles per gallon by 2027. 80% of Americans support maintaining or increasing the tax credit for used EVs, and 79% support maintaining or increasing the tax credit for new EVs. 76% of Americans say that the government should either maintain or decrease the current amount of offshore drilling, while only 23% want to increase it.

There is substantial differences in climate change awareness, knowledge, and support for government action between genders and across countries and territories with varying income and emission levels. In low income/emission countries and territories, a substantial proportion of men (45%) and women (44%) are Alarmed. This contrasts with high income/emission countries and territories where women (36%) are more Alarmed than men (30%). In high income/emission countries and territories, women (11%) are also much less likely to be Doubtful or Dismissive than men (20%). Self-reported knowledge about climate change differs by gender and even more by income/emission level. In low per-capita income/emission countries and territories, small percentages of men (13%) and women (9%) say they know “a lot” about climate change, and an additional 30% of men and 33% of women say they know “a moderate amount” about it. By contrast, in high per-capita emissions and income countries and territories 22% of men and 16% of women say they know “a lot” about climate change, and an additional 40% of men and 43% of women say they know “a moderate amount” about it. 42% of men and 41% of women in low per-capita income/emission countries and territories say climate change should be a “very high” priority for the government where they live, as do 39% of women in high per-capita income/emission countries and territories. By comparison, fewer men in high income/emission countries and territories think so (34%).

This post includes climate and environment headlines, data points, and key takeaways from recent public polls - including new polling on climate and clean energy issues in the presidential race, extreme weather, nuclear energy, and PFAS.

Voters haven’t heard much about PFAS, but express deep concerns after learning about them. Voters are particularly concerned about PFAS exposure through drinking water, and overwhelmingly support new EPA standards to limit it. Most voters (71%) say that they haven’t heard anything at all about PFAS or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, and half (50%) also say that they’ve heard nothing about the term “forever chemicals.” Following a description and additional information about PFAS contamination in food, the high incidence of PFAS exposure in the population, and the health risks of PFAS exposure, more than four in five voters (83%) say that they’re concerned about long-term exposure to PFAS and half (51%) are “very” concerned about it.

Pennsylvania voters widely support expanding clean energy in the state, as most believe that it will bring benefits for people’s health and future generations. 78% of Pennsylvania voters support the state “significantly” increasing its use of clean energy sources like wind and solar to generate electricity, with around half (48%) strongly in favor of this proposal. Support for clean energy expansion also extends across party lines in the state, with 93% of Democrats, 84% of independents, and 59% of Republicans all in favor. Additionally, Pennsylvanians are far more likely to anticipate positive than negative impacts from clean energy expansion on the economy (49% positive / 23% negative), the reliability of electricity (47% positive / 21% negative), and the affordability of electricity (46% positive / 25% negative).