Climate Policies that People Actually Want

October 9, 2019


Stop apologizing for acting on climate change.



Voters are more worried about climate change than ever, but they also seem to dislike the Democratic Party’s move to the left. So how do voters feel about this new set of progressive policies?

A new survey finds: They like them. At least five aggressive and leftwing climate policies are supported by most registered voters in the United States. Americans seem particularly fond of large spending packages, as Sanders has advanced, and climate policies with a populist bent, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren’s proposed climate import fee and her “economic patriotism” plan.

The poll was conducted by YouGov Blue and Data for Progress, a liberal think tank. While I try to avoid explicitly ideological surveys, I trust this data because YouGov is a reputable, nonpartisan firm that also conducts polls for CBS News and The Economist.

Leah Stokes, a political scientist at the University of California at Santa Barbara, also told me that the poll’s findings are in line with other research. “Climate policy is very popular,” she said. “If you highlight the cost, it’s less popular. If you highlight new taxes, it’s less popular. But if you highlight job creation or the air-pollution benefits, it’s more popular.”

She added that many climate policies are especially favored now because the public tends to take views opposite those of the sitting president, a concept known as thermostatic public opinion. “With Trump being president, you’re going to find people want more environmental protection now than when Obama was in power,” she said.

These results also align with the results of conservative-leaning surveys. The American Action Network, an advocacy group tied to the House GOP, recently asked Americans in 30 congressional districts—including 12 “battleground” districts and 10 Trump-supporting districts—if they liked the idea of a “Green New Deal” that would move the United States “from an economy built on fossil fuels to one driven by clean energy.”

Shockingly, the idea was more popular than not, with 48 percent of respondents in support and 7 percent undecided. Only when pollsters told people that a Green New Deal could cost $93 trillion did support for the idea collapse. But according to the GOP group’s own math, a Green New Deal that focused only on climate change could cost only $13 trillion.

Results from the new YouGov Blue/Data for Progress poll find majority support for spending along those lines, though the poll never uses the term “Green New Deal.” Here are the five climate policies with the most support:

1. A national recycling program for commodities

During World War II, the federal government encouraged Americans to save and pool commodities—including paper, steel, and rubber—so they could be recycled and turned into new ships, planes, and guns. Sanders proposeslaunching a similar program today for clean energy. It would seek to reduce the cost and blunt the environmental impact of the huge buildout of wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries that he proposes.

The idea is overwhelmingly popular, with 64 percent of registered voters in support and only 16 percent opposed. Americans of every race, age, and religion overwhelmingly support the idea. So do six in ten white men, and a majority of self-described Born-Again Christians.

2. $1.3 trillion to weatherize every home and office building in the United States

At least three different Democratic climate plans—proposed by Senator Amy Klobuchar, Governor Jay Inslee, and Senator Sanders—have promised to boost federal spending on weatherizing homes and buildings. Sanders’s plan calls for more than $2 trillion in grants to help families improve their homes’ energy efficiency.

The idea is very popular. Six in 10 voters support spending more than $1 trillion “to weatherize homes and buildings to make them more energy-efficient and reduce energy bills.” A smaller majority of voters older than 65 also support the proposal.

3. $1.5 trillion for a massive federal buildout of renewable energy

Sanders promises to build out enough wind, solar, and geothermal energy to power every home and business in the United States by 2030. Such a plan would cost $1.5 trillion, he says, and it would be possible to execute under the existing legal powers of the Energy Department.

While the poll didn’t ask Americans if they would support that legal maneuver, a large majority of voters said they were ready to foot the bill for it. Fifty-nine percent of respondents said they would strongly or somewhat support $1.5 trillion in federal spending to build out renewables. Among white voters without a college degree—a group that normally breaks Republican—the idea found 52 percent in support.

4. A climate adjustment fee on environmentally destructive imports

Senator Elizabeth Warren has proposed imposing a “border carbon adjustment” on imports that required high levels of carbon emissions. This policy could help American climate policy from “offshoring” carbon pollution into China and India, supporters say, and it would encourage American cement and steelmakers to invest in greener ways to make their products.

For now, at least, Americans love the idea. Sixty percent of respondents strongly or somewhat supported the idea, while only 23 percent opposed it. (About one in five Americans still aren’t sure what to think.)

But among working-class voters, the idea was one of the most popular proposed. Fifty-five percent of people without a college degree liked the idea, a level of support that did not change across white and non-white respondents. Voters from families making less than $60,000 a year also supported the idea at about that level.

5. “Economic Nationalism for Climate Change”

This summer, Warren announced her plan for “economic patriotism,” a policy agenda that actively aims to boost American jobs and industry. Its first plank is a green manufacturing scheme that pledges $2 trillion over the next 10 years. In short, Warren seeks to revive industrial policy.

This poll asked about “economic nationalism,” which it described as a plan to “aggressively encourage large American manufacturing firms to specialize in solar panels, wind turbines, and other climate-friendly technologies.”

The proposal commands majority support, with 53 percent overall in support and 30 percent in opposition. It also wins a majority of voters who say they live in suburbs and rural areas. Among white voters without college degrees, the idea is above water at 46 percent and an 8-point support gap.

6 Responses to “Climate Policies that People Actually Want”

  1. doldrom Says:

    Before you ask them what they think of spending Tr$1.3 or whatever, you should ask them how they feel about bailing out bankers and bondholders by lending them Tr$27 to bide them by, while letting plumbers and home owners go bust. Or about rescuing the solvency of the rich and the banks at the cost of bankrupting all the pension funds by suppressing the interest rate.

  2. rhymeswithgoalie Says:

    Among white voters without a college degree&mdasha group that normally breaks Republican—the idea found 52 percent in support.

    Hell yeah they support it. Most of renewable energy infrastructure does not require difficult-to-acquire skills to build and maintain, and I don’t think any of it is as nasty as working in coal mines or on oil wells. The rest just haven’t figured it out, yet.

  3. J4Zonian Says:

    From what I’ve seen, renewablizing the US will cost at least $6 trillion. But even when direly needed upgrades to the grid are included, it will still cost considerably less than the real total cost of the Middle East wars the US has fought just since 2000, all over oil. And doing it will cost far less than not doing it, although calculating the monetary cost of allowing civilization to end is quite ridiculous. Doing it will also accomplish all kinds of other good things, especially if we do it right. Germany’s moves to renewablize its energy, for example, have also stabilized its grid, democratized its energy, and saved its citizens money. Where renewables are up, the cost of energy is down.*

    The same is true of the other programs progressives advocate–universal health care, living wage laws, affordable or free college, and all the rest–they will save the vast majority of people money and help ecologically, democratically, and in most other ways that are important.

    The bogus number at the center of the GOP’s Green New Deal attacks
    “The Green New Deal isn’t even a plan yet — at the moment it’s a non-binding resolution that calls for major action to stop greenhouse gas pollution while reducing income inequality and creating “millions of good, high-wage jobs.” ”

    So it’s not just a bogus number, pretending there can be a number at all is bogus.

    *However, in some places, some prices charged reflect the addition of other charges. The same is true, even more so, for new nukes and fossil fuels, and in places where anti-renewable fanatics are in charge, raising fees for distributed solar, for example.

    The Green New Deal Costs Less Than Doing Nothing
    Republicans keep saying Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s plan is too expensive. But their own plan—to ignore the climate crisis—is even more so.

  4. Keith McClary Says:

    FEMA may have to buy millions of US homes, due to climate crisis

    Low-income and rural US areas have received fewer buyouts than expected under FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    “While the FEMA data don’t indicate the identify of homeowners by race, a recent investigation by NPR found that federal post-disaster aid goes disproportionately to white communities.”

  5. dumboldguy Says:

    There are lots of “policies that people actually want”. Democrats at all levels of government have been trying to put them into law for decades. Unfortunately, the bought and paid for Republicans have done the bidding of their corporate owners and stymied almost every one of them for decades.

    Finishing up yet another great book that does an excellent job of tracing out that history of the destruction of the country. THE GREAT SUPPRESSION:VOTING RIGHTS, CORPORATE CASH, AND THE CONSERVATIVE ASSAULT ON DEMOCRACY, by Zachary Roth, Crown Books, 2016.

    Only 180 pages, and very well written. ***** rating

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: