Putting Climate Change Into Ideological And Economic Perspective

In my previous piece I wrote about how climate change is not an existential crisis. In this piece I used data from an excellent paper “The Science vs. the Narrative vs. the Voters: Clarifying the Public Debate Around Energy and Climate” by Roger Pielke, Jr. and Ruy Teixeira of the American Enterprise institute(AEI). The paper is based on a survey of over 3,000 voters that was conducted for AEI by YouGov between September 20-26, 2024. I got a number of comments about this piece and responded to them here. A number of objections were raised, and some good points were made, which I acknowledged. But there were also comments that rather made my point about needing a new narrative. There were also a few comments I thought were unfair to the Ecoright and I addressed those.

Here I want to provide further data about the need for a new narrative, again using data from this AEI survey and more detailed data not in the report which Dr. Ruy Teixeira kindly provided to me. As shown in Figure 9, 40% of Americans regard dealing with climate change as a top priority. To put this in perspective, the top five priorities are strengthening the nation’s economy (70%), fighting inflation (68%), defending the country from future terrorist attacks (63%), and taking steps to make the social security system financially sound (63%), and reducing health care costs (59%).

Another 28% view it as important but a lower priority while 18% see it as not important and 14% think nothing should be done about. So two-thirds of Americans think climate change is an important issue but it ranks 15th in a list of 18 issues, ahead of dealing with drug addiction, addressing issues around race, and, in last place, dealing with global trade issues. I suspect that Trump’s tariffs have made that a higher priority which probably pushes climate change done a slot.

The Ideological Dimension of Climate Change

Looking at more detailed data there are no significant differences for families with or without children, full time or part-time employment, and income. There are modest differences with more women, college educated, and not married people seeing climate change as a priority. Young people (52% of 18-29) and black people (52% ) are more concerned.

But the most pronounced differences, no surprise, are along the political spectrum. Democrats are at 54%, Independents at 44%, and Republicans at a mere 14%. Those who see climate change as not something to be addressed are, respectively, 1%, 12%, and 27%. Similarly, in terms of professed ideology the numbers are 70% for Liberals, 40% for Moderates, 12% for Conservatives. The corresponding numbers for those who don’t see climate change as an issue are 1%, 8%, and 31%.

What clearly stands out are the low and high numbers for Republicans and Conservatives. There are a variety of explanations for this. One is that this group largely rejects the science of climate change. Another is that they believe technological solutions will solve the problem. A third is that they are reacting to what has become a liberal cause with a liberal narrative and they simply reject it for that reason.

But how important is this skepticism of Republicans? After all, they only represent 20% of the 262 million eligible U.S. voters vs. 23% for Democrats, 37% for Independent and Other, and 20% not registered. One could argue that this is a fringe of voters that don’t matter. But when you look at how people identify in terms of political ideology rather than party, the numbers give a different story. A recent Gallup poll shows that 73% of Americans identify as very conservative, conservative, or moderate. Only 26% identify as liberal or very liberal. America is a center-right country, and it is becoming more so as well as more polarized.

Since 1994 the percentage of Republicans who identify as very conservative or conservative has grown from around 60% to 77% with 18% saying moderate (down from around 32%) and, somewhat remarkably, 4% as liberal or very liberal (down from around 9%). On the flip side, Democrats have moved to the left. Over the last 10 years those identifying as liberal or very liberal has grown from around 25% to 55%, with moderates declining from nearly 50% to 35% and, again rather remarkably, there are 9% who identify as conservative or very conservative, down from around 25%. This vividly illustrates how American is becoming a more polarized country. Interestingly enough, the percentages for Independents (the largest registration block) have remained remarkably constant with 45% as moderate, 30% as conservative or very conservative, and 20% as liberal or very liberal.

America needs a narrative for addressing climate change that appeals to the vast majority of the American people, not the one-quarter who identify as liberal or very liberal. Yet the dominant narrative today has been shaped by this group and is largely unacceptable to everyone else.

The Economic Dimension of Climate Change

More perspective gain be gained through data in the report about how much people are willing to personally pay to address climate change. The question was “Suppose a proposal was on the ballot next year to add a fee to consumers’ monthly electricity bill to combat climate change. If this proposal passes, it would cost your household $X every month. Would you vote in favor of this monthly fee to combat climate change, or would you vote against it?” Figure 10 shows the responses for monthly fees of $1, $20, $40, $70, and $100. A mere $1 per month doesn’t get a majority and the numbers drop rapidly after that. Only one-quarter of the American people will pay $20/month. One in 10 will pay $100/month.

Not surprisingly, party affiliation and political ideology matter. Seventy-two percent of Democrats would vote for the bill at $1/month, but only 25% of Republicans. These numbers are 78% for liberals, 51% for moderates, and 18% for conservatives. What’s more telling is when you get to the larger numbers. At only $40/month the numbers are 29% for Democrats (8% for Republicans) and 28%, 22%, and 9% for Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives, respectively. At $75/month not even one-quarter of Democrats (22%) and Liberals (23%) would be willing to pay.

The ability to pay also matters and again the results are telling. At $1/month, 42% of households with less than $50,000 in annual income would be willing to pay; this rises to 51% for those earning $50,000-100,000, and 56% for those making more than $100,000 per year. So just a little over half for the wealthiest income bracket for whom $12/year is 0.01% of annual income. At $40/month these numbers drop to 13%, 25%, and 23%. At $100/month they’re 9%, 11%, and 17% respectively. $1,200 per is 1.2% of $100,000.

Four Facts Important for a Succesful Energy Policy to Address Climate Change

From this analysis it is clear that any U.S. energy policy and its associated narrative to address climate change must deal with four facts: (1) climate change is a relatively low priority for most Americans, (2) America is a center-right country and moving to the right, (3) America is becoming more politically polarized, and (4) the appetite to personally pay to address climate change is quite low. In my next piece I will suggest four basic elements for a U.S. policy for climate change.