We are pleased to host a guest opinion submission from Dr. Alison Head, Executive Director, Project Information Literacy, a national and independent research institute in the San Francisco Bay Area, summarizing a recent survey of more than 6,100 nationwide participants, including nearly 1,600 young voters from U.S. colleges and universities.
The study sheds further light on several important challenges and opportunities facing the NRDC Action Fund as we continue our work to build and broaden the political will necessary to accelerate the transition to a just and equitable clean energy economy for the U.S. and the world. In addition to illustrating the growing acceptance of the climate crisis and the need to address it across the political, age, and geographic spectrums in our country, the study explores the changed media ecosystem and its impact on the way Americans receive and consider news and information about the climate crisis and its solutions. This study concludes with some insights and suggestions to grow public support for action on climate and I encourage their integration into our collective efforts to accelerate the transition to the clean energy future.
Kevin S. Curtis
Executive Director
NRDC Action Fund
For months, polls have shown Americans are almost evenly divided over who should be our next president. While Kamala Harris entering the race has given climate advocates new hope, Trump is busy claiming offshore wind turbines drive whales crazy, telling rambling stories about electric boat batteries and sharks, claiming rising seas create more oceanfront property (rather than, you know, less), and pledging to roll back progress on reducing the nation’s CO2 emissions.
Stoked by Trump and his fossil fuel industry benefactors, the climate wars in America are heating up along with average temperatures. But how many Americans hold similar views as Trump, who once dismissed climate change as a “Chinese hoax”?
Not as many as you might assume.
Drawing on a research report we recently released with survey responses from 6,100 people from across the country, including nearly 1,600 students enrolled at nine U.S. colleges and universities, it’s clear we are indeed divided in this highly politicized environment. Yet, only nine percent of respondents actually believe climate change is a “hoax.”
Many of these climate change naysayers do not trust scientists or journalists and deny claims that climate change is real. Their skepticism is paired with a belief that they do not have a role in helping combat climate change.
As one survey participant commented, “A lot of what we’re hearing about climate change is hype, our climate has been changing since the beginning of time,” while another one said, “God created the climate and only he can fix it.”
Where does that leave the rest of the country?
We found the skeptics were vastly outnumbered. A third of our respondents believe climate change is a pressing threat and are anxious to see action to address the crisis. They believe humanity has the capacity to mitigate the climate emergency. One respondent simply described feeling “scared and optimistic.”
The largest group — 47% — are concerned about climate change but not sure what should be done about it. While most in this large group believe it is happening, they don’t follow much climate change news and don’t necessarily trust what they hear from scientists or journalists.
This intersection in the populace between those who accept the reality of climate change and those who are “reluctantly resigned” to it is where the climate wars will be most actively fought, no matter who wins the White House in November. That’s because our results indicate that almost half of Americans are potentially persuadable about climate action and the future of the planet, despite the misinformation coming from Trump and his party.
Call it what you want – being on the fence or open to suggestion – it’s increasingly hard to know where anyone stands on a given subject as information flows to them, online and in person, through multiple channels that have grown increasingly diverse, individualized, and unrelenting.
With less agreement about what is true, what can be trusted, and where information has originated, it’s more challenging than ever for the public to reach agreement about how to respond to big, complex problems like climate change. As one respondent summed it up, “Climate change is so politicized, people don’t know what to believe.”
In an ironic twist, what may convince the largest group of ambivalent people in the country to engage more with climate change is the severe weather that’s landing on many of their doorsteps.
Personal encounters with severe weather — droughts, wildfires, extreme temperatures, and tornadoes — have become a shared experience across every region in the country, collapsing differences in political orientation, religion, income, and age while having the potential for uniting communities.
Even though it may be tempting to tune out unpleasant news about the effects of climate change, living through a severe weather event makes disengagement impossible. This is because the shared experience of ongoing climate disasters is a challenge that can only be faced collectively.
Living through the hottest year on record, we’ve seen communities come together to survive an environmental emergency. Most have learned through adversity that they can unite around a common cause despite their differences.
After the storm clears, unity like this might be our best defense in the climate wars.
—
Alison J. Head, Ph.D. is the Executive Director of Project Information Literacy (PIL), a national and independent research institute in the San Francisco Bay Area, and a Fulbright Specialist, 2023 – 2026.
The research (PIL) referenced in this essay has affiliated sponsorship from the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Fulbright Specialist Program. The PIL research report and supplemental resources are available here.
