Global Warming’s Six Americas in September 2012

The report identifies a shift in public opinion between 2010 and 2012, with the 'Alarmed' segment growing from 10 percent to 16 percent and the 'Dismissive' segment shrinking from 16 percent to 8 percent. Across most segments, improved public health, reduced foreign oil dependence, and green job creation are viewed as top benefits of reducing fossil fuel use, while increased government regulation and higher energy prices are seen as the primary drawbacks. While majorities across all six groups support increasing renewable energy use, support for a carbon tax varies based on the proposal's specific benefits. Additionally, most segments believe that campaign contributors and the fossil fuel industry exert more influence over elected officials than citizens with shared views.

• Between 2010 and 2012, the proportion of the American adult population identifying as 'Alarmed' increased from 10 percent to 16 percent, while the 'Dismissive' group decreased from 16 percent to 8 percent.
• Public health, reduced dependence on foreign oil, green job creation, and economic improvement are among the top five perceived benefits of reducing fossil fuel use and global warming for all six segments. Conversely, increased government regulation and higher energy prices are the top two cited drawbacks for every segment.
• While all six segments support increasing renewable energy use, preferences for fossil fuel use vary: only the Dismissive prefer to increase fossil fuel use, and all other segments prefer to reduce it. Furthermore, half or more in every segment except the Dismissive favor eliminating fossil fuel industry subsidies while opposing the elimination of renewable energy subsidies.
• Support for a carbon tax among the Alarmed, Concerned, and Cautious segments is highest when the tax is designed to create renewable energy and energy efficiency jobs, decrease pollution, or reduce federal income tax. The least popular version is one providing an average tax refund of $180 per household.
• There is a widespread belief across all six segments that people sharing their views have less political influence than campaign contributors, the media, and fossil fuel companies. Five of the six segments specifically identify large campaign contributors as having the strongest influence on elected officials.

APA

Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G., & Howe, P. (2012). Global Warming’s Six Americas in September 2012. Center for Climate Change Communication. https://climatecommunication.gmu.edu/all/climate-change-in-the-american-mind-global-warmings-six-americas-in-september-2012/

Chicago

Leiserowitz, A., E. Maibach, C. Roser-Renouf, G. Feinberg, and P. Howe. Global Warming’s Six Americas in September 2012. Center for Climate Change Communication, 2012. https://climatecommunication.gmu.edu/all/climate-change-in-the-american-mind-global-warmings-six-americas-in-september-2012/.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Leiserowitz |first1=A. |last2=Maibach |first2=E. |last3=Roser-Renouf |first3=C. |last4=Feinberg |first4=G. |last5=Howe |first5=P. |title=Global Warming’s Six Americas in September 2012 |publisher=Center for Climate Change Communication |date=1 September 2012 |url=https://climatecommunication.gmu.edu/all/climate-change-in-the-american-mind-global-warmings-six-americas-in-september-2012/ |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{leiserowitz2012global, author = {Leiserowitz, A. and Maibach, E. and Roser-Renouf, C. and Feinberg, G. and Howe, P.}, title = {{Global Warming’s Six Americas in September 2012}}, institution = {Center for Climate Change Communication}, year = {2012}, month = sep, url = {https://climatecommunication.gmu.edu/all/climate-change-in-the-american-mind-global-warmings-six-americas-in-september-2012/}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }