This week, a tracking poll from YouGov that has been running since at least 2009 found Americans rate climate change as the second-most important issue facing the country — the first time prioritization of the issue eclipsed that of the economy. Only health care had a higher share of adults rating it as the number one issue; 13% v 16%, respectively, said each was their top concern.
Given recent extreme weather events in North America, Europe and China, it makes sense that the salience of climate change policy would be rising. But it’s important to note that policy support can be high even when an issue isn’t prioritized.
Take a poll from Pew, released this week, as an example. Researchers there found that only 10% of Republicans say addressing climate change is“a top concern” for them personally; 32% said it is “one of several important concerns” while 58% said it’s not important at all:
But a majority of Republicans they surveyed still favored key policies designed to limit emissions or mitigate damage from climate change: Over 7 out of every 10 Republicans support tax breaks for businesses that work on carbon capture technology; nearly 6 in 10 favor tougher emissions restrictions on power plants; and just about a majority support a carbon tax for polluters and making cars more fuel-efficient:
I wonder how many of you are surprised by these numbers. For one, we are told about issue polarization so often that I bet Democrats expected these numbers to be lower. But given the relatively low issue prioritization for climate change, others may also be surprised that even Republicans are so on board with moderate climate change proposals. They may not like a Green New Deal, but they still think it’s important to keep the Earth inhabitable for future generations… even if they don’t seem willing to do what it’ll take to avoid 2-3°C of warming in the next century:
Doesn't it seem that this information is very useful/somewhat useful/not too useful depending on how widely and frequently it is viewed and repeated? It would be prudent to have it widely disseminated in Kentucky (Mitch McConnell), Texas (John Cornyn), Florida (DeSantis), etc. So how to do that. . .
Doesn't it seem that this information is very useful/somewhat useful/not too useful depending on how widely and frequently it is viewed and repeated? It would be prudent to have it widely disseminated in Kentucky (Mitch McConnell), Texas (John Cornyn), Florida (DeSantis), etc. So how to do that. . .