Search Climate Insights Directory

The report finds broad public support across political affiliations for addressing global warming, with a majority of registered voters considering a candidate's position on the issue when voting. There is widespread support for renewable energy research and the regulation of carbon dioxide, while the political viability of a carbon tax depends on how the revenue is utilized.

The report finds that concern about global warming and support for renewable energy are high across Democratic, Independent, and Republican voters, suggesting a political opportunity for candidates to take pro-climate stands. A majority of registered voters consider a candidate's position on global warming when voting, and there is broad support for eliminating fossil fuel subsidies and increasing renewable energy research.

A survey of 2,034 American adults found an average annual willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $79 to $89 to reduce domestic greenhouse-gas emissions by 17 percent by 2020. The study found that mean WTP does not vary significantly between cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, or GHG regulations, although sociodemographic factors and beliefs about global warming influence individual WTP levels.

Between January 2010 and September 2012, American belief in the reality of global warming rose from 57% to 70%, while those denying it fell from 20% to 12%. By September 2012, 54% of Americans attributed global warming mostly to human activities, and 58% expressed being "somewhat" or "very worried" about the issue. Perceptions of global warming as a current and future threat to individuals, families, communities, and nations—both in the United States and globally—showed significant increases since March 2012.

The report finds a growing majority of Americans believe global warming is happening and human-caused, with an increase in perceived personal and community threats. Climate scientists are identified as the most trusted source of information, while a significant portion of the population feels they have sufficient information to form a firm opinion.

The report finds that while many Indians observe unpredictable weather and feel vulnerable to droughts and floods, initial awareness of 'global warming' is low. However, after receiving a definition, a majority believe it is happening and human-caused. There is significant support for national education programs and policies to reduce fuel, water, and energy waste, even at an economic cost, with scientists being the most trusted information source.

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 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 manual provides instruments and scripts to apply the Global Warming’s Six Americas segmentation typology, which categorizes audiences into six groups: Alarmed, Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged, Doubtful, and Dismissive. It includes a 36-item instrument with a 90.6% classification accuracy and a 15-item instrument with 84% accuracy.

A November 2011 national survey reveals that while support for the Occupy Wall Street protests varied significantly by political affiliation, a majority of all surveyed groups expressed anger toward Wall Street bankers.

The document assesses how communication and marketing strategies, framed through an ecologic model of public health, can be used to drive population behavior changes and policy support necessary for climate change mitigation and adaptation. While it concludes that these interventions have significant potential, it emphasizes an urgent need for more translational research to implement them effectively.

The study finds that Fox News employs a more dismissive tone toward climate change and features more doubters than CNN and MSNBC. Survey data indicates a negative association between Fox News viewership and the acceptance of global warming, while viewing CNN and MSNBC correlates with greater acceptance. This effect is more pronounced among Republicans, whose beliefs vary significantly based on the news outlet they watch, whereas Democrats' beliefs remain relatively stable regardless of cable news use.

A nationally representative survey of 1,001 US adults found that 48% believe oil prices are likely to triple and cause harm to human health, while 44% view sharp price increases as "very harmful" to health. Notably, those who are very conservative or strongly dismissive of climate change were the most likely to perceive these severe health consequences.

The report finds a decline in certain energy conservation behaviors, such as thermostat settings and walking or biking, alongside an increase in consumer activism, with 45 percent of Americans rewarding companies that reduce global warming.

The report finds broad American support for prioritizing global warming and clean energy, with a majority favoring action from corporations, government, and citizens. A significant portion of the population believes environmental protection supports economic growth, and there is strong support for renewable energy research and local sustainability policies, though support for nuclear power remains low, especially at the local level.

The study identifies six distinct audience segments among American adults regarding global warming, ranging from highly worried and supportive to completely unconcerned and opposed. The researchers developed two instruments to categorize individuals into these segments with 84% to 91% accuracy.

The study reveals significant gaps in public knowledge regarding climate change in the United States, with a majority of participants failing to demonstrate basic understanding of the greenhouse effect and its causes, despite a general belief that global warming is occurring and a high level of trust in scientific organizations.

The document outlines the context for a survey conducted between December 24, 2009, and January 4, 2010, involving 1,001 American adults. It frames this study against a "perfect storm" of events in late 2009, including the "Climategate" email breach at the University of East Anglia, errors in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, the failure of the Copenhagen treaty negotiations, and the stalling of U.S. climate legislation. The survey aims to measure changes in risk perceptions and policy preferences compared to a baseline survey of 2,164 adults from late 2008.

A June 2010 survey by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication indicates a rebound in American public concern for global warming and increased support for clean energy policies, potentially influenced by economic recovery and the BP oil disaster.