Search Climate Insights Directory

The report finds that 'global warming' and 'climate change' are not synonymous for many Americans, with 'global warming' generally evoking stronger negative emotions, a greater sense of urgency, and higher levels of personal and familial threat. While the terms are largely synonymous for Republicans, the use of 'climate change' appears to reduce engagement among Democrats, Independents, and liberals.

Climate Outreach utilized narrative workshops to refine the Climate Coalition's campaign messaging, ensuring it appeals to a diverse range of the British public, including those with conservative values, rather than just the concerned minority.

The April 2014 survey finds that 64% of Americans believe global warming is occurring, a figure that has remained stable over three years. Notably, certainty among those who believe global warming is happening increased from 54% in May 2011 to 62% in April 2014, while certainty among those who believe it is not happening decreased from 52% to 41% over the same period.

The April 2014 survey 'Climate Change in the American Mind' reveals that while a majority of Americans (64%) believe global warming is happening and are increasingly certain of it, there is a significant gap between public perception and scientific consensus. Only 44% of Americans believe global warming is both happening and human-caused, and only 12% are aware that 90% or more of climate scientists agree on this. Despite these beliefs, few Americans are 'very worried' (15%), often perceiving it as a distant threat that will harm future generations more than themselves. Additionally, the topic is rarely discussed in social circles, with two-thirds of respondents saying they 'rarely' or 'never' discuss it with family and friends.

The April 2014 report 'Climate Change in the American Mind' reveals that while a majority of Americans (64%) believe global warming is happening and are increasingly certain of this fact, there is a significant gap between public perception and scientific consensus. Only 44% of Americans believe global warming is both happening and human-caused, and only 12% are aware that 90% or more of climate scientists agree on this. Furthermore, the report finds that most Americans perceive global warming as a distant threat; only 15% are 'very worried' and only 32% believe people in the U.S. are being harmed 'right now'. Socially, the issue is not widely discussed, with two-thirds of Americans rarely or never discussing it with family and friends, often due to perceived disagreement.

The report analyzes 2013 cable news segments from CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, finding significant disparities in scientific accuracy. MSNBC had the highest accuracy rate (92%), followed by CNN (70%) and Fox News (28%). The authors argue that misleading coverage, particularly the use of 'false debates' on CNN and the disparagement of scientists on Fox News, hinders democratic dialogue on climate policy by conflating established scientific facts with political opinions.

The report argues that climate policy is often contested because it creates winners and losers, necessitating a strategic communication and policy plan. The proposed five-point plan includes: simplifying the narrative through relatable examples and imagery; creating a positive message focused on the transformational benefits of a low-carbon transition; designing policy packages that compensate 'losers' (such as through payments for ecosystem services); building broad, long-term political consensus to avoid policy reversals; and maintaining a relentless focus on implementation. The author emphasizes 'climate compatible development,' where mitigation, adaptation, and development goals are integrated to ensure climate action does not hinder poverty eradication.

The report finds that while global warming is not a top national priority for most Americans, there is broad support for specific clean energy policies, such as renewable energy research and tax rebates for energy-efficient vehicles. However, confidence in government's ability to address the issue remains low, and significant polarization exists between political parties and different psychological segments of the population.

A November 2013 survey of 830 American adults reveals a decline in consumer activism and social discussion regarding global warming since 2011. While a small percentage of the population actively contacts government officials, there is latent potential for civic engagement, particularly if prompted by trusted individuals. The 'Alarmed' segment of the population is significantly more likely to engage in all forms of climate action. Household energy-saving behaviors, such as using compact fluorescent light bulbs, have remained relatively stable over five years.

The April 2013 report 'Extreme Weather and Climate Change in the American Mind' reveals that 58% of Americans believe global warming is affecting U.S. weather. A significant majority (85%) reported experiencing extreme weather in the past year, with 37% stating they suffered moderate or great harm. While over half of Americans believe a natural disaster in their community is likely in the coming year, only 31% have a family emergency plan and 36% have a supply kit. Communication about these events remains primarily face-to-face or via phone, despite some use of social media.

The report finds that most Americans rarely discuss global warming, preferring face-to-face or phone communication over social media, especially after extreme weather events. It highlights that family and friends are the most influential in convincing individuals to take action. The 'Alarmed' segment is the most active in public and political communication, while the 'Dismissive' and 'Disengaged' are the least.

The report finds that most Americans rarely discuss global warming, with only 33% doing so occasionally or often with family and friends. Communication is predominantly private and face-to-face, particularly following extreme weather events, while public engagement via social media or government contact remains low. The 'Alarmed' segment of the population is the most active in public and political communication, whereas all segments identify close personal relationships as the most influential factor in convincing them to take action.

A 2013 survey of Maryland residents reveals high levels of concern about climate change, with 86% believing it is happening and a majority supporting state-level sustainability policies. While residents prefer renewable energy sources like solar and wind, there is significant uncertainty regarding the state's actual energy mix. The report also highlights a gap between public support for climate action and individual behaviors, noting that home energy conservation is more common than transportation-related reductions.

The report finds that a growing majority of Americans (74%) believe global warming is affecting U.S. weather, with many attributing recent extreme heat, drought, and record temperatures to climate change. It details regional variations in perceptions, noting that Midwesterners were particularly sensitive to drought and crop harm in 2012, while Westerners reported higher rates of forest fires. The data shows an increase in the number of Americans reporting personal harm to health, property, or finances from extreme heat and drought.

A September 2012 survey of 1,061 American adults indicates that undecided likely voters share more similarities with likely Obama voters than likely Romney voters regarding climate change. While 80% of undecideds believe global warming is happening and 65% attribute it to human causes, only 45% of likely Romney voters believe it is occurring and 27% see it as human-caused. A majority of undecideds (61%) consider global warming one of several important factors in their voting decision. There is broad agreement across all groups that the U.S. should increase renewable energy use, though views on reducing fossil fuels diverge. Approximately 40% of undecideds and 36% of likely Romney voters report they could "easily change their mind" about global warming.

A survey of 1,127 U.S. residents found that a public health frame is the most effective at eliciting emotional reactions that support climate change mitigation and adaptation across various audience segments. Conversely, a national security frame may cause a 'boomerang' effect, triggering anger among those already doubtful or dismissive of climate change.

The report tracks the stability and shifts of the 'Six Americas' segments, noting a decrease in the 'Disengaged' and an increase in the 'Cautious'. It details varying levels of belief in global warming's impact on US weather, trust in political figures, and support for a revenue-neutral tax swap on fossil fuels across these groups.

A study of U.S. residents found that a public health frame is the most effective at eliciting emotional reactions that support climate change mitigation and adaptation, while a national security frame may cause anger among skeptical audiences.

A March 2012 survey by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication found that 66% of Americans believe global warming is occurring, though belief that it is human-caused dropped to 46%. The public overestimated the level of disbelief in global warming, and trust in political figures varied significantly, with 47% trusting President Obama and 21% trusting Mitt Romney as information sources.

The document details a workshop between social scientists, climate scientists, and various leaders to address why the American public remains divided on climate change despite scientific consensus. It argues that communication must shift from a 'knowledge deficit' model to one based on shared values, targeted messaging for the 'persuadable middle,' and the use of diverse, non-traditional messengers.