This post includes climate and environment headlines, data points, and key takeaways from recent public polls - including new polling on the climate-related provisions in the White House budget proposal, new polling on environmentally responsible investing, and new polling on the EPA’s proposed soot standards.
HEADLINES
- Morning Consult - Voters support all of the major climate-related provisions in President Biden’s budget proposal (Article, Crosstabs)
- Climate Power - Voters aren’t familiar with ESG, but respond positively to the ideas of “responsible investing” and the “freedom to invest” in ways that consider environmental factors (Release, Crosstabs)
- American Lung Association - Voters want to see stronger clean air standards from the EPA, with annual and daily soot limits that meet the recommendations of the EPA’s scientific advisors; voters reject the argument that stricter standards would hurt the economy and drive up energy prices (Release, Memo)
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Health is a winning argument against the costs of air pollution standards. The American Lung Association finds that voters want stricter limits on soot and reject the kinds of arguments that industrial polluters have used to delay upgrading soot standards in the past. By a wide margin, voters are more inclined to agree with a health-based argument in favor of stronger soot standards (that we need stronger soot standards “because they will prevent thousands of premature deaths and over 1 million asthma attacks every year”) than an economic argument against stronger soot standards (that we shouldn’t adopt stricter limits because “they will drive up energy prices and kill American jobs”).
- ESG could use a re-brand, but the idea has clear appeal. Climate Power finds that voters are largely unfamiliar with ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) as a term and have mixed reactions to the concept when that terminology is used. However, voters have overwhelmingly positive reactions to the terms “freedom to invest” and “responsible investing.” Additionally, while voters don’t particularly like “ESG” as a descriptor, they tend to support the idea behind it - that retirement fund managers should take environmental factors into account in their investment decisions.
- Voters want to see the government invest in climate mitigation and resilience. Morning Consult finds that majorities of voters support both climate mitigation and climate resilience investments as part of the White House’s proposed budget plan. While Republican voters prefer to invest in resilience over mitigation, Democratic voters support mitigation and resilience measures roughly equally. When communicating about the budget to the public, it’s worth emphasizing that the budget helps to fund both mitigation and resilience, as climate resilience is relatively less polarizing than climate mitigation and supporters of climate action want the government to invest in both of these goals at the same time.
GOOD DATA POINTS TO HIGHLIGHT
- [Clean Air / Soot] By a 74%-16% margin, voters support the EPA updating air pollution standards by placing stricter limits on soot [American Lung Association]
- [Clean Air / Soot] After learning that the EPA’s proposed new soot standards are not as strict as the standards recommended by the EPA’s scientific advisors, voters support moving to the stricter standards recommended by the EPA’s scientific advisors by a 65%-20% margin [American Lung Association]
- [Climate / White House Budget] 62% of voters support President Biden’s proposal to invest $24 billion dollars in community climate resilience against floods, wildfires and storms [Morning Consult]
- [Climate / White House Budget] 61% of voters support President Biden’s proposed investments to help address climate change, such as measures to create clean energy jobs, fund climate research and strengthen communities affected by natural disasters related to climate change [Morning Consult]
- [Climate / White House Budget] 53% of voters support President Biden’s proposed investments to help meet the White House goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 50%-52% by 2030 [Morning Consult]
- [Responsible Investing] By a 53%-38% margin, voters support their state investing public retirement funds in assets related to clean energy like wind and solar power [Climate Power]
FULL ROUNDUP
Morning Consult
Voters support all of the major climate-related provisions in President Biden’s budget proposal (Article, Crosstabs)
Morning Consult measured support for 21 different components of the budget proposal released by the White House last week, finding that every major component of Biden’s budget has more support than opposition from voters nationwide.
This includes majority support for each of the major budget components related to climate change and clean energy:
- 62% support investing $24 billion dollars in community climate resilience against floods, wildfires and storms
- 61% support investments to help address climate change, such as measures to create clean energy jobs, fund climate research and strengthen communities affected by natural disasters related to climate change
- 53% support investments to help meet the White House goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50%-52% by 2030
As this poll shows, both measures to invest in climate mitigation by reducing emissions and measures to invest in climate resilience by preparing communities for more extreme weather are popular with the public.
And while Republican partisans show a preference for investments in climate resilience over investments in climate mitigation, Democratic partisans support the climate mitigation and climate resilient investments in the White House budget about equally.
Republicans are 14 points more likely to support investments in community climate resilience (45% support / 41% oppose) than they are to support investments to support the White House’s emissions reductions goals (31% support / 51% oppose).
Meanwhile, Democrats widely and strongly support both investments in community climate resilience (78% support, including 46% who support these investments “strongly”) and investments to help reduce emissions (76% support, including 44% who support these investments “strongly”).
Among Democrats, the most popular climate-related component tested in the survey is the one that invests in both mitigation and resilience (“Investments to help address climate change, such as measures to create clean-energy jobs, fund climate research and strengthen communities affected by natural disasters related to climate change”). More than four in five Democrats support this budget component (83%), including a majority (56%) who support it “strongly.”
While Republicans may have a preference for climate resilience over climate mitigation, the survey indicates that Democrats see both of these goals as important and would prefer to work towards both of them in tandem.
Climate Power
Voters aren’t familiar with ESG, but respond positively to the ideas of “responsible investing” and the “freedom to invest” in ways that consider environmental factors (Release, Crosstabs)
With the collapses of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank this month putting the financial system’s vulnerabilities in the national spotlight, Climate Power has released some timely polling that shows voters want their retirement investments to be able to factor in risks related to climate change and fossil fuels.
The majority of voters (53% support / 38% oppose) support their state investing public retirement funds in assets related to clean energy like wind and solar power. And after learning that Congress recently passed legislation to “ban financial managers from considering environmental factors, such as climate risks or the riskiness of investing in fossil fuels, when deciding how to invest retirement funds,” voters disagree with Congress’s action.
In a split-sample experiment, voters were provided with one of two alternative explanations of the new legislation and then asked whether they believe financial managers should be allowed to consider environmental factors when making investment decisions for retirement funds. This split-sample experiment suggests that the upsides of investing in clean energy may be more compelling than the downsides of investing in fossil fuels.
Voters agreed that financial managers should be allowed to consider environmental factors in retirement funds by a 20-point margin (54%-34%) when they were told that the new legislation would mean that “financial managers could not make strategic investments in the clean energy sector that would provide taxpayers and retirees future economic benefits.”
Meanwhile, voters agreed that financial managers should be allowed to consider environmental factors in retirement funds by a 14-point margin (50%-36%) when they were told that the new legislation would “mandate where retirement funds and pensions would be invested, essentially locking them into investing in risky big oil and gas companies and taking away the flexibility to invest in new clean energy projects like wind and solar power.”
The poll also finds that ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) is a fairly obscure term and not a particularly appealing way to describe investments that consider environmental factors.
Most voters (57%) say they haven’t heard anything about “Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing,” and just 7% say they’ve heard “a lot” about the concept.
And when asked to rate the concept of “Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing,” voters have mixed reactions to it (30% favorable / 22% unfavorable). This indicates that the concept of “ESG” could use a re-brand, which fortunately wouldn’t be much of a re-brand at all since most people aren’t familiar with the term in the first place.
Alternative names for the concept do have broad appeal, as voters have particularly positive reactions to the terms “freedom to invest” (68% favorable / 7% unfavorable) and “responsible investing” (66% favorable / 9% unfavorable).
American Lung Association
Voters want to see stronger clean air standards from the EPA, with annual and daily soot limits that meet the recommendations of the EPA’s scientific advisors; voters reject the argument that stricter standards would hurt the economy and drive up energy prices (Release, Memo)
With the EPA considering tighter restrictions on soot this year, new polling commissioned by the American Lung Association finds that voters across the political spectrum want new soot standards to go further than the initial EPA proposal released in January.
As a baseline, voters want clean air standards to be stronger than they are now: more than seven in ten voters (72%) support “the EPA updating standards with stricter limits on air pollution, generally,” including majorities of Democrats (91%), independents (68%), and Republicans (53%).
And after learning that the EPA is currently considering a proposal to update air pollution standards with stricter annual and daily limits on the soot that power plants, oil refineries, and other industrial facilities can release, nearly three-quarters of voters (74% support / 16% oppose) support the EPA setting stricter limits on soot.
Support for stronger soot standards spans the political spectrum, with Democrats (90% support / 5% oppose), independents (71% support / 15% oppose), and Republicans (57% support / 29% oppose) all supporting stricter limits on soot.
The poll also finds that voters are inclined to support the stronger standards recommended by the EPA’s scientific advisors, which go further in restricting soot pollution than the draft proposal released by the EPA in January.
After learning that the EPA “decided to set new limits on soot that are stricter than current standards but not as strict as the most protective standards recommended by [the EPA’s] scientific advisors,” voters agree by a greater than three-to-one margin (65% agree / 20% disagree) that the EPA should “reconsider its decision and place stricter limits on soot that align with the stronger standards that were recommended by the scientific advisors.”
Democrats (81% agree / 9% disagree), independents (62% agree / 19% disagree), and Republicans (48% agree / 32% disagree) are all more inclined to agree than disagree that the EPA should strengthen its proposed soot limits so that they align with the soot limits recommended by the agency’s scientific advisors.
Importantly, voters side with arguments about the health benefits of stricter soot limits over the kinds of economic arguments that industrial polluters have typically used to push back against soot standards.
When asked to choose which side’s arguments they agree with more, between a statement in favor of stricter soot limits for health reasons and an argument against stricter soot limits for economic reasons, voters side more with the argument in favor of stronger soot standards by a 65%-35% margin.
- 65% agree more that “We need stricter limits on the fine particles also called ‘soot’ because they will prevent thousands of premature deaths and over 1 million asthma attacks every year.”
- 35% agree more that “We can’t afford stricter limits on the fine particles also called ‘soot’ because they will drive up energy prices and kill American jobs.”
Voters also reject the argument that stronger soot standards give government scientists too much power. When presented with the two competing arguments below, voters agree more with the argument in favor of listening to scientists and health experts by a 65%-35% margin.
- 65% agree more that “The EPA should listen to scientists and health experts who say that we need even stronger limits on the fine particles also called ‘soot.’”
- 35% agree more that “The EPA shouldn’t let government scientists dictate a policy that will drive up energy prices and kill American jobs.”
The Environmental Polling Consortium (EPC) is a collaborative hub for the environmental community to share and discover public opinion research.
If you’d like to learn more about the EPC or are interested in becoming a member with access to non-public polling, visit our website or contact EPC Partnerships Manager Leah Zamesnik at lzamesnik@partnershipproject.org