In this update on Global Warming’s Six Americas, we report that the Alarmed have grown from 10 percent of the American adult population in 2010 to 16 percent in 2012. At the same time, the Dismissive have decreased in size, from 16 percent in 2010 to 8 percent in 2012. The report focuses on how the six groups perceive the benefits and costs of reducing fossil fuel use or global warming; their support for different national climate change and energy policies; and their beliefs about who has influence over the decisions that elected officials make.
Executive Summary
Perceived Benefits and Costs of Reducing Fossil Fuel Use and Global Warming
- For five of the Six Americas, improved public health now ranks among the top three perceived benefits of the nation taking action to reduce fossil fuel use and global warming.
- A range of other important outcomes – reducing our dependence on foreign oil, creating green jobs and improving the economy – are also ranked among the top five benefits by all Six Americas.
- One of the least recognized benefits is improved national security, which is ranked as one of the two least likely benefits by five of the segments. Preventing starvation and poverty worldwide were also largely unrecognized benefits, ranking within the two least likely benefits for five of the segments.
- The drawbacks most likely to be cited were increased government regulation and higher energy prices; these were the top two drawbacks for every segment.
Support for National Policies
- Majorities of all Six Americas say the U.S. should increase its use of renewable energy.
- In five of the six segments, larger proportions prefer to reduce, rather than increase fossil fuel use; only the Dismissive prefer to increase the nation’s use of fossil fuels.
- In every segment except the Dismissive, half or more favor the elimination of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, and oppose the elimination of subsidies to renewable energy companies.
- Majorities of the Alarmed, Concerned and Cautious – comprising 70 percent of the U.S. population – say the U.S. should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of what other nations do.
- Among the Six Americas, support for a candidate who supports a carbon tax varies considerably,
depending on the details of the proposal. The most popular versions – supported by half or more of the Alarmed, Concerned and Cautious – specify that the tax will either create more jobs in the
renewable energy and energy efficiency industries; decrease pollution by encouraging companies to find less polluting alternatives; or be used to reduce the federal income tax. The least popular version proposes to use the revenue to provide a tax refund of $180, on average, to each American household. - Funding research on renewable energy, and providing tax rebates for purchases of energy-efficient vehicles and solar panels have remained popular policies among five of the Six Americas since tracking began in 2008.
- Opposition to building more nuclear power plants has increased among all segments; four of the Six Americas currently oppose building more plants.
- Support for offshore drilling has decreased in all six segments, but four of the six groups still support offshore drilling on average.
Beliefs about Who Influences Elected Officials’ Decisions about Global Warming
- In five of the Six Americas, majorities believe that if they work with others who share their views, they can influence their elected representatives’ decisions.
- All Six Americas, however, believe that people who share their own views on global warming have less influence than campaign contributors, fossil fuel companies, the media, etc. People who share their views are, in fact, perceived as having the least political influence by every segment.
- Five of the six segments believe that large campaign contributors have the strongest influence on elected officials.
- Four segments – the Alarmed, Concerned, Cautious and Disengaged, say that the fossil fuel industry has more influence than the renewable energy industry, while the Doubtful and Dismissive believe that renewable energy companies have more influence than fossil fuel companies.
- The Dismissive tend to believe the liberal news media has the strongest influence on elected officials; 50 percent say the liberal media affect legislators “a lot.”
Interview dates: August 31 – September 12, 2012
Interviews: 1,061 Adults (18+)
Margin of error: +/- 3 percentage points at the 95% confidence level for the full sample.
NOTE: All results show percentages among all respondents, unless otherwise labeled. Totals may occasionally sum to more occasionally round to more than 100 percent due to rounding.
This study was conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, and was funded by the Surdna Foundation, the 11th Hour Project, the Grantham Foundation, and the V. K. Rasmussen Foundation.
Principal Investigators
Anthony Leiserowitz, PhD
Yale Project on Climate Change Communication
School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Yale University
(203) 432-4865
[email protected]
Edward Maibach, MPH, PhD
Center for Climate Change Communication
Department of Communication
George Mason University
(703) 993-1587
[email protected]
Connie Roser-Renouf, PhD
Center for Climate Change Communication
Department of Communication
George Mason University
[email protected]
Geoff Feinberg
Yale Project on Climate Change Communication
School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Yale University
(203) 432-7438
[email protected]
Peter Howe, PhD
Yale Project on Climate Change Communication
School of Forestry & Environmental Studies
Yale University
[email protected]
Cite as: Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G. & Howe, P. (2013) Global Warming’s Six Americas, September 2012. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. http://environment.yale.edu/climate/publications/Six-Americas-September2012