Consumer Activism on Global Warming, September 2021

Report Summary

Our latest national survey finds that millions of Americans are willing to “vote with their dollars” to reward companies taking climate action and punish companies blocking action. But the primary barrier holding consumers back is simply knowing which companies to reward or punish.

This report is based on findings from a nationally representative survey – Climate Change in the American Mind – conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication (climatecommunication.yale.edu) and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication (climatechangecommunication.org). Interview dates: September 10 – 20, 2021. Interviews: 1,006 Adults (18+). Average margin of error +/- 3 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.

Executive Summary

Drawing on a nationally representative survey (n = 1,006), this report describes Americans’ willingness to engage in consumer activism to reduce global warming. The survey was fielded from September 10 – 20, 2021. This report builds on three previous reports from this same survey that focused on public support for U.S. domestic climate policy, public support for international climate action, and Americans’ beliefs and attitudes about global warming. Among the key findings of this report:

Individual Consumer Actions

• 33% of Americans say they have rewarded companies that are taking steps to reduce global warming by buying their products in the past 12 months, and 28% say they have punished companies that are opposing steps to reduce global warming by not buying their products.
• 41% of Americans say that, over the next 12 months, they intend to reward companies that are taking steps to reduce global warming more frequently than they do now; the same percentage (41%) say they intend to punish companies that are opposing steps to reduce global warming more frequently than they do now.
• Asked why they might not punish companies that oppose steps to reduce global warming:
  • 71% say they do not know which companies to punish
  • 61% say they are not an activist
  • 58% say nobody has ever asked them to do so
  • 49% say their actions wouldn’t have any influence on a company
  • 47% say they can’t afford to do it
  • 45% say it would be inconvenient
  • 35% say they are too busy
  • 35% say it’s too much effort
• Half of Americans (50%) say they would be more likely to purchase goods from a company that is lobbying Congress to pass legislation to reduce global warming, while only 15% say they would be less likely to purchase goods from such a company.
• 38% of Americans say they would be either “extremely” (8%), “very” (10%) or “moderately” likely (20%) to switch banks or credit cards if they knew their bank or credit card company was investing in fossil fuels companies.

Consumers’ Collective Efficacy

• 54% of Americans are at least “moderately confident” that people like them, working together, can affect what the local businesses in their community do about global warming, and nearly half (48%) are confident that people like them can affect what corporations do about global warming.

Consumers’ Expectations for Industries and Companies

Three in four or more Americans think stopping the spread of false information about global warming should be either a “high” or “medium” priority for the U.S. government (78%), news organizations (77%), social media companies (75%), and citizens themselves (75%).

• Half or more Americans say that each of the 22 industries asked about in our survey should be doing “more” or “much more” to address global warming, including two in three or more who say fossil fuel companies (70%), airlines (69%), auto companies (68%), and trucking companies (67%) should be doing more.

• Majorities of Americans either “strongly” or “somewhat” agree that companies should take various climate-friendly actions, including the following:

1. not advertising their products and services on television networks that spread misinformation about climate change (75%)
2. purchasing 100% clean, renewable energy to power their operations (70%)
3. not contributing to the campaigns of candidates who oppose action to reduce global warming (65%)

• 64% of Americans say car companies should do more to encourage people to buy electric vehicles.

1. Individual Consumer Actions

1.1 One in three Americans say they have engaged in consumer activism on global warming.

One in three Americans (33%) say they have rewarded companies that are taking steps to reduce global warming by buying their products in the past 12 months. About three in ten Americans (28%) say they have punished companies that are opposing steps to reduce global warming by not buying their products. The proportion of Americans who say they have rewarded companies that are taking steps to reduce global warming or punished companies that are opposing steps to reduce global warming have waxed and waned slightly over time, and are currently at levels similar to when we first asked these questions in November 2008.

1.2 About four in ten Americans intend to engage in consumer activism on global warming more frequently in the next year.

About four in ten Americans (41%) say that, over the next 12 months, they intend to reward companies that are taking steps to reduce global warming more frequently than they do now. The same percentage (41%) say they intend to punish companies that are opposing steps to reduce global warming more frequently than they do now.

About half of Americans say they intend to take these steps about as often as they are doing now – 51% say they intend to reward companies about as often as they do now, and 49% say they intend to punish companies as often as they do now. Only about one in ten Americans say they intend to take these steps less frequently than they do now – 8% say they intend to reward companies less frequently, and 10% say they intend to punish companies less frequently.

1.3 Reasons more Americans don’t punish companies for opposing climate action.

Asked why they might not punish companies that oppose climate action, about seven in ten Americans (71%) say they do not know which companies to punish. Additionally, more than half say they are not an activist (61%) or because nobody has ever asked them to (58%). One in three or more Americans say their actions wouldn’t have any influence on a company (49%), they can’t afford to do it (47%), it would be inconvenient (45%), they are too busy (35%), or it’s too much effort (35%).

1.4 Half of Americans say they are more likely to purchase goods from a company lobbying Congress to pass legislation to reduce global warming.

When asked whether they would be more or less likely to purchase goods from a company that is lobbying Congress to pass legislation to reduce global warming, half of Americans (50%) say they would be more likely to purchase goods from that company, while only 15% say they would be less likely to purchase goods from that company. About one in three (34%) say it would make no difference either way.

1.5 More than one in three Americans say they would be likely to switch banks or credit cards if the bank or credit card company was investing in fossil fuel companies.

More than one in three Americans (38%) say they would be either “extremely” (8%), “very” (10%) or “moderately” likely (20%) to switch banks or credit cards if they knew their bank or credit card company was investing in fossil fuels companies. Four in ten (40%) report being “not at all likely” to switch banks or credit cards for this reason, and 17% report being “a little likely” to make such a switch.

2. Consumers’ Collective Efficacy

2.1 Americans are more confident they can influence local businesses than corporations.

Perceived collective efficacy regarding global warming – the belief that like-minded citizens can work together to influence what government and business leaders do about global warming – is an important motivator for individuals to take collective action.1 More than half of Americans (54%) are at least “moderately confident” that people like them, working together, can affect what the local businesses in their community do about global warming and nearly half (48%) are confident that people like them can affect what corporations do about global warming.

3. Consumers’ Expectations for Industries and Companies

3.1 Most Americans think companies across industries should be doing more about global warming.

Half or more Americans say that each of the 22 industries asked about in our survey should be doing “more” or “much more” to address global warming. Two in three or more say fossil fuel companies (70%), airlines (69%), auto companies (68%), and trucking companies (67%) should be doing more.

In general, only about 10 to 15 percent of Americans say that these 22 industries should be doing “less” or “much less” to address global warming, with highs of 18% saying news organizations and 17% saying social media companies should be doing less. About 20 to 30 percent of Americans say that each of these types of companies are “currently doing the right amount” to address global warming.

3.2 A majority of Americans support companies taking climate-friendly actions.

Most Americans either “strongly” or “somewhat” agree that companies should take various climate-friendly actions. Three in four (75%) say companies should stop advertising their products and services on television networks that spread misinformation about climate change; 70% say companies should purchase 100% clean, renewable energy to power their operations; 65% say companies should not make campaign contributions to candidates who oppose action to reduce global warming; and 64% say car companies should do more to encourage people to buy electric vehicles.

3.3 Three in four or more Americans think stopping the spread of false information about global warming should be a priority for government, media organizations, and citizens.

Three in four or more Americans think stopping the spread of false information about global warming should be either a “medium” or “high” priority for the U.S. government (78%), news organizations (77%), social media companies (75%), and citizens themselves (75%). Only about one in four or fewer Americans think it should be either a “low priority” or “no priority” for each of these groups.

Appendix I: Data Tables

Data tables can be found beginning on p. 14 of the PDF version of the full report:

consumer-activism-on-global-warming-september-2021

Appendix II: Survey Method

The data in this report are based on a nationally representative survey of 1,006 American adults, aged 18 and older. The survey was conducted September 10 – 20, 2021. All questionnaires were self-administered by respondents in a web-based environment. The median completion time for the survey was 24 minutes.

The sample was drawn from the Ipsos (formerly GfK) KnowledgePanel®, an online panel of members drawn using probability sampling methods. Prospective members are recruited using a combination of random digit dial and address-based sampling techniques that cover virtually all (non-institutional) resident phone numbers and addresses in the United States. Those contacted who would choose to join the panel but do not have access to the Internet are loaned computers and given Internet access so they may participate.

The sample therefore includes a representative cross-section of American adults – irrespective of whether they have Internet access, use only a cell phone, etc. Key demographic variables were weighted, post survey, to match U.S. Census Bureau norms.

From November 2008 to December 2018, no KnowledgePanel® member participated in more than one Climate Change in the American Mind (CCAM) survey. Beginning with the April 2019 survey, panel members who have participated in CCAM surveys in the past, excluding the most recent two surveys, may be randomly selected for participation. In the current survey, 300 respondents participated in a previous CCAM survey.

The survey instrument was designed by Anthony Leiserowitz, Seth Rosenthal, Jennifer Carman, Matthew Goldberg, Karine Lacroix, and Jennifer Marlon of Yale University, and Edward Maibach and John Kotcher of George Mason University. The charts and tables were designed by Liz Neyens of Yale University.

Sample details and margins of error

All samples are subject to some degree of sampling error – that is, statistical results obtained from a sample can be expected to differ somewhat from results that would be obtained if every member of the target population were interviewed. Average margins of error for each wave, at the 95% confidence level, are plus or minus 3 percentage points except where noted.

• September 2021: Fielded September 10 – 20 (n = 1,006)
• March 2021: Fielded March 18 – 29 (n = 1,037)
• December 2020: Fielded December 3 – December 17 (n = 1,036)
• Apri 2020: Fielded April 8 – April 17 (n = 1,029)
• November 2019: Fielded November 8 – November 20 (n = 1,303)
• April 2019: Fielded March 29 – April 8 (n = 1,291)
• December 2018: Fielded November 28 – December 11 (n = 1,114)
• March 2018: Fielded March 7 – March 24 (n = 1,278)
• October 2017: Fielded October 20 – November 1 (n = 1,304)
• May 2017: Fielded May 18 – June 6 (n = 1,266)
• November 2016: Fielded November 18 – December 1 (n = 1,226)
• March 2016: Fielded March 18 – 31 (n = 1,204)
• October 2015: Fielded September 30 – October 19 (n = 1,330)
• March 2015: Fielded February 27 – March 10 (n = 1,263)
• October 2014: Fielded October 17 – 28 (n = 1,275)
• April 2014: Fielded April 15 – 22 (n = 1,013)
• November 2013: Fielded November 23 – December 9 (n = 830)
• April 2013: Fielded April 10 – 15 (n = 1,045)
• September 2012: Fielded August 31 – September 12 (n = 1,061)
• March 2012: Fielded March 12 – March 30 (n = 1,008)
• November 2011: Fielded October 20 – November 16 (n = 1,000)
• May 2011: Fielded April 23 – May 12 (n = 1,010)
• June 2010: Fielded May 14 – June 1 (n = 1,024)
• January 2010: Fielded December 24, 2009 – January 3, 2010 (n = 1,001).
• November 2008: Fielded October 7 – November 12 (n = 2,164).
  • Data were collected over two periods: from October 7 – October 20 and from October 24 – November 12. Margin of error plus or minus 2 percentage points.

Rounding error

For tabulation purposes, percentage points are rounded to the nearest whole number. As a result, percentages in a given chart may total slightly higher or lower than 100%. Summed response categories (e.g., “strongly agree” + “somewhat agree”) are rounded after sums are calculated (e.g., 25.3% + 25.3% = 50.6%, which, after rounding, would be reported as 25% + 25% = 51%).

Appendix III: Sample Demographics

Sample demographics can be found on p. 37 of the PDF version of the full report:

consumer-activism-on-global-warming-september-2021