Effectively communicating climate change is more important than ever, and it’s crucial that advocates and policymakers inform their communications strategy with the best available data. This includes analyzing polling on how communities feel about climate change and climate policy, working to highlight the tangible, immediate benefits of proposed policies, and utilizing lessons learned and best practices from seasoned climate communicators.
We invited a panel of experts to dive into the current state of American climate support and ways you can structure your advocacy and policy communications strategy for 2025. Our expert panel included Edward Maibach, Director of Mason’s Center for Climate Change Communication; David Gold, Director of the Environmental Polling Consortium at The Partnership Project; and Joshua Low, Partnerships Director at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.
In this recap article, we’ll provide highlights from our experts’ presentations, including climate change in the American mind, climate change in the 2024 elections, similarities and difference in opinions across political groups, and key tools and best practices for effective messaging and communications campaigns.
Edward Maibach, Mason’s Center for Climate Change Communication
Dr. Maibach is a distinguished University Professor and Director of Mason’s Center for Climate Change Communication (Mason 4C). His research focuses on understanding and promoting public engagement in climate change, including as a Principal Investigator of the Yale/George Mason Climate Change in the American Mind polling project, which recently released its Fall 2024 report and was the focus of this presentation.
The American Perception of Climate Change
Best Practices: Simple Messaging by Trusted Messengers
Most Americans understand that climate change is happening, but many see it as a distant threat — something that will impact us later in the century, or in other parts of the world, or for certain species of animals and plants. Communicating the impacts of climate change today, in our communities and in our everyday lives, is essential to bridging this gap.
The most powerful climate change communication strategies involve simple, clear messages, repeated often, and by a variety of trusted and caring voices. There are six key truths about climate change that can structure any related communications, and have been proven to be an impactful approach:
- It’s real — climate change is happening
- It’s us — human activity is the main cause of climate change
- Experts agree — there’s no disagreement about human-caused climate change among climate scientists
- It’s bad — the impacts of climate change seriously harm humans and our health
- There’s hope — there are actions we can take that will make a big difference
- Others care — most people are worried about climate change and support climate action; you’re not alone
The contents of the message itself isn’t everything — the messenger themself is extremely important, and different groups of people trust different types of messengers. Across all registered voters, top trusted officials include NASA, family and friends, climate scientists, primary care doctors, and the EPA. A few of those messengers, including NASA, climate scientists, and the EPA, are common trusted sources among liberal Democrats, moderate/conservative Democrats, and liberal/moderate Republicans. Republicans rate family and friends, NASA, and their primary care doctor as top trusted sources, with conservative Republicans also highly ranking the Fox News Channel and religious leaders. Understanding the influence of these messengers, as well as the fact that many of these are shared across political groups, is essential to activating groups that may support climate action but haven’t yet been mobilized.
Support for Climate Action across Political Parties
Most registered voters think developing sources of clean energy should be a high priority for the president and Congress, but polarization between Democrats and Republicans has been increasing in recent years. As recently as 2018, the majority of all Republicans, including conservative Republicans, agreed that we should prioritize clean energy, but by December 2024, less than half of liberal/moderate Republicans and only a quarter of conservative Republicans agreed.
Support for specific types of climate policies also varies across the political spectrum, but the majority of all registered voters support some sort of climate action. The majority of moderate Republicans and over 90 percent of Democrats surveyed support more research into renewable energy sources, stricter limits on methane emissions from oil and gas production, and regulating carbon dioxide pollution. However, policies related to transitioning the economy to 100 percent clean energy and providing tax rebates vary drastically, with over 70 percent of Democrats in support but less than 45 percent of Republicans.
A majority of Democrats and moderate Republicans agree that the country should be using more renewable energy. However, a quarter of moderate Republicans and almost 40 percent of conservative Republicans support increasing our use of fossil fuels. In order to change the minds of these groups, it’s essential to communicate the impacts of increased fossil fuel use on humans and human health.
David Gold, Environmental Polling Consortium
David Gold is an experienced progressive campaigner and political consultant. As director of the Environmental Polling Consortium (EPC) at The Partnership Project, he works to make research more accessible and to democratize data across the movement, by collecting, distributing, and interpreting polling data on climate and environmental issues.
Climate in the 2024 Presidential Election
Despite the results of the election, the 2024 electorate had a clear pro-climate tilt.
Around two thirds of voters said that they’re concerned about climate impacts in their communities, and the majority also want the country to prioritize clean energy over fossil fuels. However, climate was not the top issue for voters in the 2024 election. Harris won big among voters who were very concerned about climate change, and Trump did the same among voters who were not too concerned, but the election was very competitive with people who were only somewhat concerned about climate. A lot of people concerned about climate voted for Trump, most often because they were simply more concerned about other issues, notably inflation.
Additionally, while the majority of voters trusted Harris more than Trump on climate change, Trump overwhelmingly carried voters who couldn’t say which candidate they trusted more. The takeaway here is that Trump voters were not anti-climate; around 40 percent of Trump voters were somewhat concerned about climate, but it simply wasn’t the decisive factor in their vote.
On energy, Harris won by a big margin (74 percent) with voters who believed the country should be prioritizing the expansion of renewable energy. However, while that group is the majority of all voters (56 percent), Trump countered this with an even larger margin (82 percent) among the minority who prioritize the expansion of fossil fuel production.
An important note is that public opinion about environment and climate issues tends to be “thermostatic,” meaning that concern about these issues rises under Republican administrations and declines under Democratic administrations. Environmental protection rose as a priority for voters after Trump’s first election, and decreased as a priority after Biden’s election.
Public Opinion Opportunities for Climate and Clean Energy
There are clear public opinion opportunities for the climate movement, including that clean air and water protections are viewed as non-negotiable government responsibilities across political parties, including 77 percent of Republicans. This is in contrast with many other issues that Americans think industry or local governments are responsible for or might handle better, such as healthcare and education. Water quality in general, and drinking water safety more specifically, are particularly top of mind amongst all environmental concerns. Tying climate issues to impacts on water quality is an especially impactful communications strategy.
Bipartisan majorities also continue to say that we should be using more solar and wind power. The difference lies in that Democrats largely support clean energy expansion and oppose fossil fuel production, while Republicans support expansion of all energy sources, including solar and wind alongside fossil fuels.
It’s important to note that bipartisan support for clean energy over fossil fuels rose under the first Trump administration, with 65 percent of Republicans and 91 percent of Democrats supporting wind, solar, and hydrogen production over fossil fuels. While Democrats stay consistent on this issue, with around 90 percent consistently in support, Republican support fluctuates, with support for clean energy dropping to 47 percent when Biden took office and down to 38 percent by May of 2024.
In addition, voters overwhelmingly want to keep tax credits and incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) rather than repeal them, once educated on the IRA. Tax credits around energy efficiency in homes were most popular, with over 70 percent of all voters in support, while tax credits for electric vehicles were least popular but still supported by a majority of voters.
Public Opinion Challenges for Climate and Clean Energy
One of the biggest challenges in public opinion on climate is the fact that partisan polarization is greater than ever. In 2000, there was very little difference across parties in support for environmental protection over economic growth; now, there is almost a 60 point gap, with 78 percent of Democrats and only 20 percent of Republicans in support. Providing clean air and water, protecting public lands, and the development of clean energy are less polarized topics under the broad umbrella of climate action.
Americans also have mixed opinions about the economics of the clean energy transition, particularly around concerns that climate action will cause an increase in the cost of living. While it’s more clear that clean energy is better than fossil fuels for health, and increasingly clear that clean energy is better for jobs, Americans are less confident in the financial impacts of clean energy. When asked how the transition to clean energy would impact costs of heating and cooling your home, 42 percent of Americans surveyed responded that costs would increase, compared to 37 percent who believe they would decrease. Additionally, 44 percent of respondents said that prices for everyday goods would increase, compared with 25 percent who believe it would decrease.
EPC’s own research found that the perception that clean energy is more expensive stems from a lack of awareness rather than a lack of belief. When asked to rate the validity of a statement asserting that declining solar and wind costs have led to clean energy being cheaper to produce than fossil fuels, 57 percent of respondents stated it was definitely or probably true, with only a quarter saying that it was definitely or probably false. Continuing to communicate about the cost of the energy transition is extremely important for climate advocates looking to change the minds of these voters.
The most persuasive messaging EPC has seen against attacks on climate progress focuses on tangible impacts for everyday people, such as polluted air and water and a higher cost of living.
Joshua Low, Yale Program on Climate Change Communication
Joshua leads the strategy for Yale Program on Climate Change Communication (YPCCC) around engaging and supporting the climate and clean energy advocacy, media, government, and education communities. He leverages a strong curiosity, evidence-based insights, and 20 years of experience leading social change campaigns to help organizations solve strategic challenges, clarify their goals, and develop capacity for strategic climate communications and transformational organizing.
Tools for Climate Communications
The first rule of communications is to know your audience — and your audience generally will not, and may not need to, think about climate change the way that you do. People get involved in climate action for different reasons and in different ways — to protect their children, to get a job, to save animals — and communication strategies need to respect those reasons and meet folks where they are.
The Yale Climate Opinion Maps visualize polling data on climate change topics down to the local level, and these maps can provide a high-level picture of public opinion in your community. They’ve created fact sheets on beliefs, risk perceptions, support for policies and behaviors, and more, down to the congressional level. These fact sheets are of particular use for policymakers, who often underestimate support for climate action among their constituents.
YPCCC has also put together the Global Warming’s Six Americas framework, which separates Americans into six categories related to their beliefs around climate: Alarmed, Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged, Doubtful, and Dismissive. The Alarmed are those who believe that climate change is real and is happening now, and this group is generally supportive of climate solutions. This Alarmed (28 percent) are more than double the size of the Dismissive (11 percent), who believe global warming is not happening, human-caused, or a threat. While those numbers are on the side of climate, many of the Alarmed are not taking action, and this presents a large opportunity — especially considering there are both Alarmed Democrats and Republicans.
Insights from YPCCC and Partners’ Experience
The broad issue of climate communications can be broken into three main pieces: the message, the messenger, and the reach. All three are important — the “perfect message” is nothing without intentional outreach and engagement with communities. Trusted messengers are also essential — a great example is the Wild Center in a conservative area of upstate New York, which highlights a variety of stories of local people taking action on climate change through their Climate Solutions exhibit. The range of approaches by various types of actors allows their audience to connect with different entry points into the climate conversation.
Communication that responds to what drives people to care about climate change — which is most often protecting the planet for future generations and protecting ourselves against extreme weather events — is also essential. Centering these messages around education on impacts of climate change, rather than alerting to a crisis, are particularly useful to engage audiences, especially conservatives.
In addition, utilizing the power of social norms has proven useful — Americans who perceive greater social consensus are more pro-climate and engaged than those who perceive less consensus. Alliance for Climate Education, now Action for the Climate Emergency, highlighted that 8 in 10 adults believe students should learn about climate change at school — and when showing this advertisement to teachers, it was one of the most effective campaigns they had ever run. Relatedly, messages that build a sense of efficacy and hope are useful — helping people understand that they have the power to make a difference on climate provides an easier entry point into actually engaging in climate action.
Q&A
Q: Does the lack of these additional constituent voices explain the disconnect between voters and their representatives, or is it the influence of special interests and the fossil fuel industry?
Edward Maibach: The answer is multi-faceted but I do think you put your finger on the most important cause: the tyranny of primaries (and the fact that special interests can play such a powerful role in shaping who gets elected in the primaries).
Q: How is FEMA tied to climate change in the American mind, especially given the recent attacks on the program by this administration?
David Gold: We have seen consistently in polling that people like FEMA and don’t want funding for it to be cut. There is more of a partisan split on this now that Trump has attacked the agency, but generally Americans want to make sure we are investing in disaster preparedness whether or not they believe those disasters are related to climate change.
Q: How do people still think of climate change as a distant issue after years of increasingly frequent extreme weather events?
Joshua Low: Some people are connecting the dots between extreme weather and climate change. This group seems to be increasing in size, but many people need help connecting the dots between changes they are witnessing with the concept of climate change. Climate Central does a great job of showing how to connect those dots.
Q: What fraction of Republicans are moderate versus conservative?
Edward Maibach: Moderates are in the minority both in terms of their numbers and in terms of their momentum and influence. However, they are often “friends and family” to conservative Republicans and that gives them the opportunity to influence their more conservative brethren. Activating them is, I believe, the most effective strategy for opening the minds of conservative Republicans.
* The views and opinions expressed by our guest speakers during the webinar and summarized in this article are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of Climate XChange.
