Adaptation, Mitigation, and Geoengineering: 10 Years of Climate Action in the NSEE

Page 1

A Report from

National Surveys on Energy and Environment Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy

Number 42 | December 2018

Adaptation, Mitigation, and Geoengineering: 10 Years of Climate Action in the NSEE Introduction In October 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published a new assessment of the consequences of rising temperatures, and assessed actions that could prevent these increases.1 This report emphasized the importance and urgency of action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Responses to climate change are commonly presented as falling into one of two strategies—adaptation to the current and future climate, or mitigating further change by trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Options for mitigation include reducing the use of fossil fuels2 and increasing the use of renewable energy.3 A third potential strategy is geoengineering (sometimes referred to as climate engineering). Geoengineering can include large-scale interventions to reduce global temperatures, as well as the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This report examines American attitudes on how to respond to climate change. We look at preferences for focusing on adaptation or mitigation efforts, and at Americans’ beliefs on whether efforts to prevent further climate change can actually be effective. We also consider attitudes toward technological solutions to global warming, including American opinions on the effectiveness and safety of geoengineering. Finally, we look more closely at support for carbon dioxide removal.

Authors

NSEE @10 Since 2008, the University of Michigan and Muhlenberg College have conducted the National Surveys on Energy and Environment (NSEE), a biannual national opinion survey on energy and climate policy. To celebrate the tenth anniversary of the survey, throughout 2018 NSEE will be releasing a series of reports highlighting the breadth of topics we have covered over the past decade. These reports present time-series data on how American attitudes about energy policy and climate change have changed from 2008 to 2017, as well as comparisons to Canadian opinion, collected through a parallel survey conducted by researchers at the University of Montreal. You can find previous reports in this series at: www.closup.umich.edu/nsee

Natalie B. Fitzpatrick • Sarah B. Mills • Christopher Borick

University of Michigan


National Surveys on Energy and Environment

A Large Majority of Americans Consistently Prefer to Focus on Climate Change Mitigation, not Adaptation While adaptation, mitigation, and geoengineering may each have a role in addressing climate change, in a resource- and attentionconstrained policy environment, it is helpful to understand where people think the focus ought to be, so the NSEE has asked whether we should focus on adapting to a warmer climate, instead of trying to stop global warming from occurring. On each of the five times the question has been asked, more Americans have disagreed than agreed that we should focus on adaptation, and by a wide margin (see Figure 1). On the first four fieldings of the question, twice as many Americans disagreed that we should focus on adaptation than agreed with the statement. On the latest fielding, it appears that preferences for focusing on adaptation may have decreased even further, with those who agree we should adapt outnumbered 3-to-1 (22% agree vs. 73% who disagree in Fall 2017). Figure 1. Agreement/disagreement that instead of trying to stop global warming, we should focus on adapting to a warmer climatea 10% 20%

9% 20%

10%

8%

24%

28%

Strongly agree

6% 23%

10%

5% 30%

18%

6% 16%

Somewhat agree

6% 27%

5% 18%

Not sure Somewhat disagree

36%

Fall 2009 (n=977)

55% 35%

36%

40%

Fall 2010 (n=911)

Fall 2011 (n=883)

Fall 2016 (n=938)

Strongly disagree

Fall 2017 (n=926)

Source: Fall 2009-Fall 2017 NSEE waves. Survey data tables for all NSEE waves are available at http://closup.umich.edu/national-surveys-on-energy-and-environment/

Even when looking at specific segments of the population, over time, there has generally been more disagreement than agreement. For example, Figure 2a divides respondents based on their attitude toward global warming, showing net agreement with the statement that we should focus on adapting to climate change—that is, the percentage of each group who agrees with the statement minus the percentage who disagrees. While the 2009 and 2010 surveys found significant differences between those who attribute climate change at least partially to human causes and those who do not, the three surveys since have found net disagreement even among those who say climate change is caused by natural patterns as well as those who do not believe there is evidence that the climate is changing. This is particularly surprising as one might expect that those who do not believe climate change is caused by humans to believe that mitigation efforts would have no effect on climate change.

a Question text: “Please identify your level of agreement with the following statements. For each statement please indicate if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree: Instead of trying to stop global warming from occurring we should focus on adapting to a warmer climate.� 2

www.closup.umich.edu/nsee


Adaptation, Mitigation, and Geoengineering: 10 Years of Climate Action in the NSEE

Figure 2a. Net agreement that we should focus on adapting, by stance toward climate changea,b&c 20%

10%

0

-10%

-20%

Climate change caused by human activity

-30%

Climate change caused by a combination of human activity and natural patterns Climate change caused by natural patterns

-40%

Climate is NOT changing

-50%

-60%

-70% -80% Fall 2009

Fall 2010

Fall 2011

Fall 2016

Fall 2017

Source: Fall 2009 – Fall 2017 NSEE waves Note: see Note 4 on page 12 for the sample size for each of the groups shown in the figure

Similarly, when looking at agreement based on political party, Democrats and Independents have been most likely to disagree that we should focus on adapting to a warmer climate instead of focusing on preventing climate change, but in every year this question has been asked, more Republicans disagreed than agreed (see Figure 2b). The partisan gap widened significantly between Fall 2016 and Fall 2017, which may reflect increased political polarization in attitudes toward climate change.5 Figure 2b. Net agreement that we should focus on adapting, by political affiliationa 0

-10%

-20%

Democrat

-30% Independent -40% Republican

-50%

-60%

-70% Fall 2009

Fall 2010

Fall 2011

Fall 2016

Fall 2017

Source: Fall 2009 – Fall 2017 NSEE waves Note: See Note 6 on page 12 for the sample size for each of the groups shown in the figure

b Question text (belief in climate change): “From what you’ve read and heard, is there solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past four decades?” c Question text (cause of climate change): “Is the earth getting warmer because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, or mostly because of natural patterns in the earth’s environment?” While asked as a two-option close-ended question (i.e., human activity or natural patterns), interviewers record when respondents volunteer that climate change is a “combination of human activity and natural patterns.” 3


National Surveys on Energy and Environment

Most Americans Think Further Climate Change Can Be Prevented The NSEE has found a clear preference for attempting to prevent further climate change instead of adapting to warmer temperatures. However, new research published in the IPCC report has shown that efforts to-date to prevent additional warming have been insufficient and urgent action is needed to prevent dangerous increases in temperature.7 In Fall 2016, the NSEE found that 75% of Americans who said there is solid evidence of global warming believed that with our best efforts, humans can prevent further climate change from happening (see Figure 3). Among those who say humans are responsible for climate change, 88% believed further warming could still be prevented. However, even among those who say global warming is caused by natural patterns, 50% still believe that humans can prevent further climate change. It is unclear what those respondents were thinking about in terms of prevention of natural warming. Figure 3. Percentage who believe humans can prevent further climate change, by primary cause of global warmingd,c 88% 75%

75%

50%

With our best efforts, humans can prevent further climate change from happening

4% 21%

1% 11%

7% 18%

35%

36%

40%

Overall (n=659)

Climate change caused by human activity (n=271)

Climate change caused by a combination of human activity and natural patterns (n=204)

5% 44%

Not sure There is nothing humans can do to prevent further climate change from happening

Climate change caused by natural patterns (n=147)

Source: Fall 2016 NSEE Note: this question was only asked of those who said there is solid evidence of global warming

Looking by partisan identification, Democrats (83%) are more optimistic than Independents (72%) or Republicans (61%) that further climate change can be prevented. However, the partisan difference appears to be largely due to differences in the primary cause to which respondents attribute global warming. The difference is smaller when looking only at those who say global warming is caused at least partly by human activity, and goes away when looking only at those who say global warming is caused primarily by human activity.8 High confidence that we can prevent warming might be one of the reasons the NSEE finds a preference for mitigation over adaptation. The NSEE finds that among those who say we can prevent climate change, a large majority (72%) do say we should try. But there still are some—13% of the US population—that believe in climate change and think we can prevent it, but who say we should instead focus on adaptation.9

d Question text: “Some people say that, with our best efforts, humans can prevent further climate change from happening. Others say that there is nothing humans can do to prevent further climate change from happening. Which comes closest to your view?” 4

www.closup.umich.edu/nsee


Adaptation, Mitigation, and Geoengineering: 10 Years of Climate Action in the NSEE

In contrast to this optimism about preventing further climate change, there is not similar optimism about adaptation to warmer temperatures. In Fall 2011, just 30% believed that it would be easy to adapt to warmer temperatures, while 65% disagreed (see Figure 4). These numbers are consistent with the overall agreement and disagreement that we should focus on adapting (recall the data from the same Fall 2011 wave shown in Figure 1). Figure 4. Agreement/disagreement that it will be easy to adapt to climate change, by stance toward climate changee,b&c 6% 24% 4%

5% 23%

11%

23%

26%

3%

2% 25%

4%

22%

4%

9% 24% 4%

26%

22%

46%

38%

30%

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Not sure Somewhat disagree

40%

Overall (n=886)

47%

Climate change caused by human activity (n=220)

Climate change caused by a combination of human activity and natural patterns (n=191)

33%

Climate change caused by natural patterns (n=114)

Strongly disagree

Climate is NOT changing (n=227)

Source: Fall 2011 NSEE

e Question text: “Please identify your level of agreement with the following statements. For each statement please indicate if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree: Humans will be able to adapt to a hotter climate without making significant changes to their lifestyles.� 5


National Surveys on Energy and Environment

Most Americans Believe Technological Innovations Can Address Climate Change In Fall 2016, a majority of Americans (57%) overall agreed that technological innovations would solve climate change (see Figure 5a). Those who say global warming is caused by human activity are more likely to agree that technology will solve the problem, while more disagree than agree among those who say global warming is caused by natural patterns and those who do not believe there is evidence that the climate is changing. Among those who say global warming is caused by human activity, 70% agree that technology will solve the climate problem, along with 63% of those who say global warming is caused by a combination of human activity and natural patterns. Additionally, 43% of those who say climate change is caused by natural patterns still believe the problem can be solved by technological innovations. Figure 5a. Agreement/disagreement that technology will solve climate problem, by stance toward climate change f,b&c 34%

19%

22%

44%

21%

14%

36%

35%

29%

10%

9%

17%

14%

8% 17%

7%

17%

Strongly agree

23%

Somewhat agree

5% 17%

8% 24%

Not sure Somewhat disagree

34%

13% 25%

Climate change caused by human activity (n=270)

Overall (n=940)

Climate change caused by a combination of human activity and natural patterns (n=203)

Strongly disagree

Climate change caused by natural patterns (n=147)

Climate is NOT changing (n=156)

Source: Fall 2016 NSEE

There appear to be some differences based on partisan identification, with Republicans more likely to disagree that technology will solve the climate change problem. Overall, while about two-thirds of Democrats (61%) and Independents (64%) agree that technology will solve the climate problem, only 46% of Republicans agree (see Figure 5b). Most of this appears to be driven by stance on climate change, with the differences between Republicans and Democrats narrowing when considering only those who say there is solid evidence of global warming. Figure 5b. Agreement/disagreement that technology will solve climate problem, by political affiliation and belief in global warming f, b 22%

28%

39%

36%

23%

29%

37%

37%

17%

17% 29%

35%

Strongly agree Somewhat agree

9%

9%

8%

10%

21%

12%

15%

22%

15%

32%

9%

Democrat (n=310)

Independent (n=294) Overall

Republican (n=214)

8% 11% 14%

8%

Democrat (n=252)

6% 17% 24%

Not sure Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree

Independent (n=221)

Republican (n=111)

Climate is changing

Source: Fall 2016 NSEE

f Question text: “Please identify your level of agreement with the following statements. For each statement please indicate if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree. Technological innovations are going to solve the climate problem.� 6

www.closup.umich.edu/nsee


Adaptation, Mitigation, and Geoengineering: 10 Years of Climate Action in the NSEE

More than Half of Americans Now Believe Geoengineering Can Reduce Global Temperatures Technological solutions to global warming include improved renewable energy technology to reduce emissions, geoengineering technology to address climate change that has already occurred, and removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. While most geoengineering techniques are still theoretical, ongoing research may have increased the visibility of the strategy, and influenced public assessment of the viability of geoengineering as a strategy for addressing climate change. In Fall 2011, the NSEE found that just 38% of respondents believed that humans will be able to find ways to reduce temperatures on the planet through atmospheric engineering methods (see Figure 6a). However, in Fall 2017, that had risen 13 percentage points to an outright majority (51%) who say atmospheric engineering will allow us to reduce the impacts of global warming. Figure 6a. Agreement/disagreement that geoengineering will be able to reduce global temperaturesg 20% 9% 29%

31%

Strongly agree Somewhat agree

17%

22%

Not sure

18%

8%

Somewhat disagree

19% 27%

Fall 2011 (n=885)

Strongly disagree

Fall 2017 (n=924)

Source: Fall 2011 and Fall 2017 NSEE waves

Looking by stance on climate change, in Fall 2017 63% of those who believe global warming is caused primarily by human activity agree that humans will be able to reduce temperatures through atmospheric engineering, and 53% of those who believe global warming is caused by natural patterns say the same (see Figure 6b). Since the question text asks respondents to proceed from the premise that human activity leads to global warming, the relatively similar answers among those who say there is solid evidence of global warming regardless of opinion on cause is less surprising here. Figure 6b. Agreement/disagreement that geoengineering will be able to reduce global temperatures, by stance toward climate changeg,b&c 25% 8% 38%

7% 32%

36%

14%

15%

18%

16%

22%

20%

24%

38%

Climate change caused by a combination of human activity and natural patterns (n=191)

29%

5%

15%

17%

22%

7%

41%

Climate change caused by natural patterns (n=113)

Climate is NOT changing (n=226)

17% 20%

26%

30%

Fall 2011

35%

9% 14%

13%

Climate change caused by human activity (n=221)

21%

14%

27%

23%

7% 10%

12% 12%

15% 8% 40%

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Not sure Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree

Climate change caused by human activity (n=326)

Climate change caused by a combination of human activity and natural patterns (n=164)

Climate change caused by natural patterns (n=106)

Climate is NOT changing (n=168)

Fall 2017

Source: Fall 2011 and Fall 2017 NSEE waves g Question text: “Please identify your level of agreement with the following statements. For each statement please indicate if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree: If human activity leads to global warming then humans will also be able to find ways to reduce temperatures on the planet through atmospheric engineering methods.� 7


National Surveys on Energy and Environment There are also partisan differences in opinion on effectiveness of geoengineering. In Fall 2017, the NSEE finds that slightly more Republicans overall agree (45%) than disagree (39%) that humans will be able to find ways to reduce temperatures on the planet through atmospheric engineering methods (see Figure 6c). Among Democrats overall, a majority (57%) agree while just 20% disagree. In contrast to public opinion, some Republican elected officials and members of the Trump Administration have endorsed geoengineering as a solution to climate change, while Democratic legislators have expressed concern about the risks of geoengineering.10 When looking only among those who say there is solid evidence of global warming, there is no significant partisan difference in agreement; however, Republicans are more likely to disagree that geoengineering will be effective, while more Democrats say they are unsure. Figure 6c. Agreement/disagreement that geoengineering will be able to reduce global temperatures, by political affiliation and belief in global warmingg,b 21% 36%

22% 17%

21%

31%

36%

17%

28%

37% 26%

24%

Strongly agree Somewhat agree

23% 6% 14%

24% 9% 19%

16%

24%

10%

5% 12%

29%

24%

18%

9%

14%

12%

15%

Not sure Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree

Democrat (n=271)

Independent (n=266) Overall

Republican (n=214)

Democrat (n=228)

Independent (n=191)

Republican (n=101)

Climate is changing

Source: Fall 2017 NSEE

8

www.closup.umich.edu/nsee


Adaptation, Mitigation, and Geoengineering: 10 Years of Climate Action in the NSEE

Most Americans Say Safety Risks of Geoengineering Outweigh Possible Benefits In Fall 2011, while 38% of Americans believed that geoengineering methods would be able to reduce temperatures, 69% said attempts to reduce global warming by adding materials to the atmosphere will cause more harm than good for the environment. Even among those who see benefits of geoengineering, concerns about safety appear to outweigh potential benefits. Among those who strongly agreed that geoengineering would be able to reduce temperatures, 70% believed those attempts will cause more harm than good, along with 65% of those who somewhat agreed that geoengineering would be effective (see Figure 7). This question hasn’t been asked again since 2011. Since there have been changes in belief in effectiveness (and changes in technology, too), there may have also been changes in concern about harm. For example, a recent study found potential for significant problems with solar geoengineering.11 Figure 7. Agreement/disagreement that geoengineering causes more harm than good, by assessment of effectiveness of geoengineeringh,g 73% 41%

56%

32%

22%

43%

39%

Strongly agree geoengineering causes more harm than good

28%

Somewhat agree

14% 14% 11% 6%

Overall (n=887)

10% 6% 14%

Strongly agree humans will be able to reduce temperatures through atmospheric engineering (n=79)

14%

8%

9% 7%

17%

18%

7%

4%

3%

3%

Not sure Somewhat disagree

Somewhat agree (n=256)

Somewhat disagree (n=163)

Strongly disagree geoengineering causes more harm than good Strongly disagree humans will be able to reduce temperatures through atmospheric engineering (n=241)

Source: Fall 2011 NSEE

Trust in Scientists The NSEE has found that a majority of Americans trust scientists as a source of information about global warming, though this varies based on one’s stance toward climate change. In Fall 2015, 69% of Americans overall said they strongly or somewhat trusted scientists as a source of information. Trust was highest among those who said global warming is caused by human activity (88%). By contrast, just one-third (35%) of respondents who do not believe there is evidence of global warming reported trusting scientists as a source of information about global warming. Similar results were found in a prior survey, conducted in Fall 2014.12 However, fewer trust scientists to be able to limit global warming. In Fall 2011, 31% of respondents overall agreed that scientists would be able to alter the climate in a way that limits problems (see note 13). This includes 41% of those who say global warming is caused by human activity, and 44% of those who say global warming is caused by a combination of human activity and natural patterns. Only 26% of those who say global warming is caused primarily by natural patterns believe scientists would be able to alter the climate in a way that would limit problems. Among those who do not believe there is solid evidence of global warming, only 16% think scientists would be able to find ways to alter the climate in a way that limits problems. This may in part reflect their generally lower trust in science. While it might be expected that education level would affect trust in scientists or assessment of scientists’ abilities to address global warming, no significant difference was found. h Question text: “Please identify your level of agreement with the following statements. For each statement please indicate if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree: Attempts to reduce global warming by adding materials to the atmosphere will cause more harm than good for the environment.” 9


National Surveys on Energy and Environment

Most Americans are Unfamiliar with Carbon Dioxide Removal, but Support Increases with Information Another class of activities that has been suggested to reduce global warming is through physically removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Indeed, the 2018 IPCC report says warming can’t be limited sufficiently without removing carbon dioxide from the air.14 Carbon dioxide could be removed from the air using various natural and man-made processes, and stored by plants and trees, in soils, or deep underground, so that it cannot contribute to global warming. In Fall 2017, the NSEE asked respondents about their knowledge of and support for carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Only one-third (34%) of respondents had heard of CDR before the survey. While there was little prior knowledge of the issue, the questions about CDR were conducted as a split sample, where half of respondents were given additional information describing CDR, and the other half were asked about the strategy without any description. When asked about support for CDR, 32% overall say they support CDR. As shown in Figure 8, support is significantly higher among those who were given the description of CDR (41%) compared to those who were not given that additional information (23%). Difference in opposition is within the margin of error. Instead, without more information about CDR, almost half volunteered “not sure” responses compared to 29% who had more information. Figure 8. Support/opposition to carbon dioxide removal, by whether respondent was given extended informationi,j

9%

12%

14%

20%

15%

Strongly support

26%

Somewhat support

21% 20% 4%

5% 39%

Neither support nor oppose

3% 4%

20%

Somewhat oppose

49%

5% 6% 29%

Strongly oppose Not sure

Overall (n=911)

No extended information (n=447)

Extended information (n=466)

Source: Fall 2017 NSEE

i Question text: “Based on what you know, how much do you support or oppose the use of carbon dioxide removal?” j Extended information given to half of respondents: “Scientists have started to discuss a new—but still mostly unproven—strategy for addressing global climate change known as ‘carbon dioxide removal.’ The idea is to remove carbon dioxide from the air using various natural and man-made processes. The carbon dioxide is then stored by plants and trees, in soils, or deep underground so that it cannot contribute to global warming. Carbon dioxide removal strategies could decrease the current concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and potentially reverse some of the temperature and climate changes that have already occurred. Currently, however, the cost of carbon dioxide removal and the need for additional research have limited these strategies.” 10

www.closup.umich.edu/nsee


Adaptation, Mitigation, and Geoengineering: 10 Years of Climate Action in the NSEE

Conclusion Over the last decade, the NSEE has consistently found that most Americans aren’t ready to give up on addressing climate change. When asked to choose, a majority of Americans prefer focusing on climate change mitigation, rather than focusing on adaptation, and most Americans believe further climate change can be prevented. The NSEE has found optimism that technological solutions, and geoengineering in particular, can be effective in addressing rising temperatures; however, there is also a high level of concern about the safety of geoengineering. Looking specifically at carbon dioxide removal, the NSEE finds that while most Americans are unfamiliar with the strategy, support increases significantly when a description is given.

Methods The NSEE is a biannual telephone survey of a random sample of adult (age 18 and over) residents of the United States. The sample size, balance of landline and cell phone numbers, and response rate varies from wave to wave. Methodological details about each of the survey waves are available on the CLOSUP website: www.closup.umich.edu/nsee.

Funding, Financial Disclosure, and Research Transparency Funding for the NSEE surveys to-date has been provided by general revenues of the University of Michigan Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy, and the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion. The authors did not accept any stipend or supplemental income in the completion of the survey or the reports from this survey. The NSEE is committed to transparency in all facets of our work, including timely release and posting of data from each survey wave, including providing online access to NSEE survey instruments, data tables, and downloadable datasets.

Authors Natalie B. Fitzpatrick (nfitzpat@umich.edu) is a Research Area Specialist in the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP) in the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. Sarah B. Mills (sbmills@umich.edu) is a Senior Project Manager in the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP) in the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. Christopher Borick (cborick@muhlenberg.edu) is Professor of Political Science at Muhlenberg College and Director of the Muhlenberg Institute of Public Opinion.

11


National Surveys on Energy and Environment

Notes 1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2018). Global warming of 1.5 °C. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/ 2. Mills, S. B., Fitzpatrick, N. B., Borick, C., Rabe, B. G., & Lachapelle, E. (2018). Coal, natural gas, and pipelines: 10 years of fossil fuels in the NSEE. Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy, 33. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://closup.umich.edu/issues-in-energyand-environmental-policy/33/coal-natural-gas-and-pipelines-10-years-of-fossil-fuels-in-the-nsee/; Fitzpatrick, N. B., Rabe, B. G., Mills, S. B., Borick, C., & Lachapelle, E. (2018). American opinions on carbon taxes and cap-and-trade: 10 years of carbon pricing in the NSEE. Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy, 35. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://closup.umich.edu/issues-in-energy-andenvironmental-policy/35/american-opinions-on-carbon-taxes-and-cap-and-trade-10-years-of-carbon-pricing-in-the-nsee/ 3. Mills, S. B., Fitzpatrick, N. B., & Borick, C. (2018). Solar, wind, and state mandates: 10 years of renewable energy in the NSEE. Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy, 39. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://closup.umich.edu/issues-in-energy-and-environmentalpolicy/39/solar-wind-and-state-mandates-10-years-of-renewable-energy-in-the-nsee/ 4. The sample size for each of the groups shown in Figure 2a is: Fall 2009

Fall 2010

Fall 2011

Fall 2016

Fall 2017

Climate change caused by human activity

240

192

220

271

327

Climate change caused by a combination of human activity and natural patterns

310

215

190

204

165

Climate change caused by natural patterns

79

97

113

148

106

Climate is NOT changing

190

237

225

156

168

5. Borick, C., Rabe, B. G., Fitzpatrick, N. B., & Mills, S. B. (2018). As Americans experienced the warmest May on record their acceptance of global warming reaches a new high. Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy, 37. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://closup.umich. edu/issues-in-energy-and-environmental-policy/37/as-americans-experienced-the-warmest-may-on-record-their-acceptance-ofglobal-warming-reaches-a-new-high/ 6.

The sample size for each of the groups shown in Figure 2b is: Fall 2009

Fall 2010

Fall 2011

Fall 2016

Fall 2017

Democrat

344

372

285

310

271

Independent

309

204

257

294

266

Republican

239

211

182

215

216

7. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2018. 8. Percentage of respondents who say humans can prevent further climate change, by political affiliation (among those who believe there is evidence of climate change)

12

www.closup.umich.edu/nsee


Adaptation, Mitigation, and Geoengineering: 10 Years of Climate Action in the NSEE

Democrats

Republicans

Overall

83%

61%

Climate change caused by human activity OR a combination of human activity and natural patterns

87%

74%

92%

90%

Climate change caused by human activity Source: Fall 2016 NSEE

9. Whether further climate change can and should be prevented, among all respondents Fall 2016 (n=940) Climate IS changing: can prevent, disagree that we should adapt

38%

Climate IS changing: can prevent, agree that we should adapt

13%

Climate IS changing: can’t prevent

15%

Climate IS changing: not sure if can prevent OR if we should adapt

3%

Climate is NOT changing

17%

Not sure if climate is changing

13%

10. Henry, M. (2017, November 16). Geoengineering research receives backing at House Science Committee hearing. FYI: Science Policy News Bulletin, American Institute of Physics. Retrieved from https://www.aip.org/fyi/2017/geoengineering-researchreceives-backing-house-science-committee-hearing 11. Achenbach, J. (2018, August 8). This climate-change hack would reflect more sunlight. Not such a bright idea, study says. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/08/08/this-climatechange-hack-would-reflect-more-sunlight-not-such-a-bright-idea-study-says/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a6e47b517498 12. Trust in scientists as source of information about global warming, by stance toward climate change, Fall 2014

Overall (n=924)

Climate change caused by human activity (n=247)

Climate change caused by a combination of human activity and natural patterns (n=172)

Climate change caused by natural patterns (n=107)

Climate is NOT changing (n=217)

Strongly trust

21%

38%

31%

16%

6%

Somewhat trust

38%

42%

53%

50%

18%

Somewhat distrust

11%

6%

5%

7%

22%

Strongly distrust

19%

10%

7%

9%

45%

11%

4%

5%

17%

9%

Not sure Source: Fall 2014 NSEE

Trust in scientists as source of information about global warming, by stance toward climate change, Fall 2015

13


National Surveys on Energy and Environment Overall (n=909)

Climate change Climate change caused by a caused by combination of human human activity activity and natural (n=249) patterns (n=172)

Climate change caused by natural patterns (n=122)

Climate is NOT changing (n=142)

Strongly trust

25%

48%

24%

20%

9%

Somewhat trust

44%

40%

57%

49%

26%

Somewhat distrust

14%

8%

9%

15%

34%

Strongly distrust

9%

3%

3%

10%

26%

7%

1%

6%

7%

5%

Not sure Source: Fall 2015 NSEE

Question text: “How much do you trust or distrust scientists as a source of information about global warming? Do you strongly trust, somewhat trust, somewhat distrust, or strongly distrust scientists as a source of information about global warming?” 13. Assessment of whether scientists can limit global warming, by stance toward climate change Overall (n=886)

Climate change Climate change caused by a caused by combination of human human activity activity and natural (n=221) patterns (n=190)

Climate change caused by natural patterns (n=113)

Climate is NOT changing (n=227)

Strongly agree

5%

6%

11%

4%

3%

Somewhat agree

26%

35%

33%

22%

13%

Somewhat disagree

25%

23%

23%

31%

27%

Strongly disagree

34%

29%

28%

35%

49%

Not sure Source: Fall 2011 NSEE

10%

7%

5%

9%

8%

Question text: “Please identify your level of agreement with the following statements. For each statement please indicate if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree: If global warming does take place, I have confidence that scientists would be able to find ways to alter the climate in a way that limits problems.” 14. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2018.

14

www.closup.umich.edu/nsee


Adaptation, Mitigation, and Geoengineering: 10 Years of Climate Action in the NSEE

Reports from National Surveys on Energy and Environment Findings from the Fall 2018 NSEE (November 2018) Global Warming and the American Voter in the 2018 Midterms: Perspectives from the Fall 2018 NSEE (October 2018) Solar, Wind, and State Mandates: 10 Years of Renewable Energy in the NSEE (October 2018) Fuel Economy, Electric Vehicle Rebates, and Gas Taxes: 10 Years of Transportation Policies in the NSEE (July 2018) As Americans Experienced the Warmest May on Record Their Acceptance of Global Warming Reaches a New High (July 2018) Federalism and California’s Role in Light-Duty & Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emissions Standards (July 2018) American Opinions on Carbon Taxes and Cap-and-Trade: 10 Years of Carbon Pricing in the NSEE (June 2018) Should State and Local Governments Address Climate Change? 10 Years of Climate Federalism in the NSEE (March 2018) Coal, Natural Gas, and Pipelines: 10 Years of Fossil Fuels in the NSEE (February 2018) A Majority of Americans Support Net Energy Metering (September 2017) Strong Public Support for State-level Policies to Address Climate Change (June 2017) Moving the needle on American support for a carbon tax (March 2017) Fewer Americans Doubt Global Warming is Occurring (August 2016) American Views on Fracking (May 2016) American Attitudes about the Clean Power Plan and Policies for Compliance (December 2015) Acceptance of Global Warming Rising for Americans of all Religious Beliefs (November 2015) Acceptance of Global Warming Among Americans Reaches Highest Level Since 2008 (October 2015) Belief in Global Warming Among Americans Gradually Increases Following the Winter of 2015 (July 2015) Cap-and-Trade Support Linked to Revenue Use (June 2015) Widespread Public Support for Renewable Energy Mandates Despite Proposed Rollbacks (June 2015) Acceptance of Global Warming Among Americans Moderately Increases in Late 2014 (February 2015) Public Support for Regulation of Power Plant Emissions Under the Clean Power Plan (January 2015) Public Opinion on Hydraulic Fracturing in the province of Quebec: A Comparison with Michigan and Pennsylvania (October 2014) Public Perceptions of Shale Gas Extraction and Hydraulic Fracturing in New York and Pennsylvania (September 2014) Public Views on a Carbon Tax Depend on the Proposed Use of Revenue (July 2014) American Acceptance of Global Warming Retreats in Wake of Winter 2014 (June 2014) Public Opinion on Climate Change and Support for Various Policy Instruments in Canada and the US (June 2014) The Decline of Public Support for State Climate Change Policies: 2008-2013 (March 2014) The Chilling Effect of Winter 2013 on American Acceptance of Global Warming (June 2013) Public Opinion on Fracking: Perspectives from Michigan and Pennsylvania (May 2013) NSEE Findings Report for Belief-Related Questions (March 2013) NSEE Public Opinion on Climate Policy Options (December 2012)

All NSEE reports are available online at: http://closup.umich.edu/national-surveys-on-energy-and-environment/

15


National Surveys on Energy and Environment

Regents of the University of Michigan Michael J. Behm University of Michigan

Grand Blanc

Mark J. Bernstein The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP), housed at the University of Michigan’s Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, conducts and supports applied policy research designed to inform state, local, and urban policy issues. Through integrated research, teaching, and outreach involving academic researchers, students, policymakers and practitioners, CLOSUP seeks to foster understanding of today’s state and local policy problems, and to find effective solutions to those problems. web: www.closup.umich.edu email: closup@umich.edu twitter: @closup phone: 734-647-4091

Ann Arbor

Laurence B. Deitch Bloomfield Hills

Shauna Ryder Diggs Grosse Pointe

Denise Illitch Bingham Farms

Andrea Fischer Newman Ann Arbor

Andrew C. Richner Grosse Pointe Park

Katherine E. White Ann Arbor

Mark S. Schlissel (ex officio)

The Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion (MCIPO) was founded in 2001 with a mission to conduct scientific based research related to public opinion at the local, state and national level. Since its founding the MCIPO has focused its attention on measuring the public’s views on electoral and public policy issues with a concentration on environmental and health matters. The MCIPO regularly partners with academic, governmental and non-profit entities with the goal of providing high quality measures of public opinion that can inform the development of public policy and improve the understanding of the attitudes, knowledge and beliefs of Americans. Web: https://www.muhlenberg.edu/main/aboutus/polling/ Email: bayraktar@muhlenberg.edu Phone: 484-664-3066

16

www.closup.umich.edu/nsee


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.