Red states support climate legislation, too, analysts find

Nov 15, 2013
Polls analyzed by Jon Krosnick of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment show significant engagement among Americans on issues of global warming.

While politicians often assume that people in "red" and "blue" states have very different ideologies regarding climate change, an analysis of surveys measuring Americans' opinions tells a different story.

Jon Krosnick, a senior fellow with the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, presented the findings today in Washington to the congressional Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change.

Majorities of residents in every state surveyed said the government should limit by businesses and, in particular, by power plants, Krosnick said. Majorities also favored a cap-and-trade system to limit emissions; tax breaks to encourage the production of energy from the sun, wind and water; carbon sequestration; and government regulations or tax breaks to require or encourage improvements in the energy efficiency of automobiles, appliances and buildings. No state had a majority of residents opposed to any of those policies.

"The consistency of findings across states was surprising to me," said Krosnick, a professor of communication and of political science, who worked with Woods Institute Visiting Scholar Bo MacInnis on the project. "I have often heard legislators in Washington express the belief that there is considerable variation in opinions about across parts of the country, and that most of the people living in their state or district are skeptical about global warming.

"When I ask about the polling they have done that led them to this belief, I have routinely been told that they had not done polling and, instead, base their impressions on phone calls, emails and conversations with and from constituents on the issue. Our findings suggest that the balance of those direct communications from constituents to elected representatives may have created a misimpression of the public's opinions on the issue."

Krosnick reached these conclusions by conducting what social scientists call a "secondary analysis" of existing data from national surveys that measured public opinion in nearly every state on various issues related to global warming. He added data collected in surveys of representative samples of residents in a collection of states. The 21 surveys analyzed (mostly by Stanford) were primarily conducted between 2006 and 2013. Data from 19,751 respondents were analyzed. Four states had insufficient data: Alaska, Hawaii, North Dakota and Wyoming.

The statistical modeling procedure estimated differences in opinions between states while taking into account the effects of each survey mode (e.g., telephone interviewing vs. self-completion of Internet questionnaires) on expressed opinions, differences between results obtained by different data collection firms and sponsored by different organizations, the effects of the season when the survey took place, and other factors. The results of the statistical modeling were measurements of opinions in each state in 2012-13 gauged via random-digit-dialed telephone surveys sponsored by Stanford.

Findings from Krosnick's analysis include:

  • In the states examined, majorities consistently said the United States should take action to limit its emissions regardless of what other nations do.
  • Majorities in nearly all states endorsed having the federal government do more than it is doing now to deal with global warming. Exceptions were Idaho (45 percent endorsed doing more), Montana (48 percent), Nevada (47 percent) and Utah (46 percent).
  • In no state did even a near-majority endorse increasing consumption taxes levied on gasoline or electricity use.
  • In only one state did a clear majority endorse giving government tax breaks to encourage building of more nuclear plants: South Carolina, where 64 percent favored that action. Bare majorities endorsed tax breaks to encourage construction of nuclear plants in Connecticut (52 percent), Minnesota (53 percent) and Louisiana (50 percent).
  • Support for government efforts to encourage building of all-electric cars was notably lower than other policy approaches. The largest endorsement came from the states of Washington, New Jersey, Iowa and Kansas, which all favored the proposal by 68 percent.
  • Engagement with global warming issues was consistent across states. In most states, between 50 and 70 percent of those surveyed said they were highly knowledgeable about the issue. The lowest self-reported knowledge levels were observed in Alabama (38 percent) and West Virginia (29 percent).

Explore further: Five anthropogenic factors that will radically alter northern forests in 50 years

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Support for climate change action drops, poll finds

May 08, 2012

Americans' support for government action on global warming remains high but has dropped during the past two years, according to a new survey by Stanford researchers in collaboration with Ipsos Public Affairs. Political rhetoric ...

Poll: Science doubters say world is warming

Dec 14, 2012

Nearly 4 out of 5 Americans now think temperatures are rising and that global warming will be a serious problem for the United States if nothing is done about it, a new Associated Press-GfK poll finds.

Recommended for you

More, bigger wildfires burning western US, study shows

6 hours ago

Wildfires across the western United States have been getting bigger and more frequent over the last 30 years – a trend that could continue as climate change causes temperatures to rise and drought to become ...

User comments : 29

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Agomemnon
1.5 / 5 (20) Nov 15, 2013
as usual the governmental statists don't look at themselves as the problem to solve.
The Largest user, and waster, of energy in the United States is the Federal and State Governments.

The Federal Government should take the lead and reduce its energy usage by 50% in two year. This reduction in usage will achieve the objective of reduced emmissions, as well as reduced spending, without requiring the most incompetant people around making rules and regulations.
States should then follow suit. The reduction in emissions due to their reduction in usage would be astounding.
Howhot
2.9 / 5 (12) Nov 16, 2013
With regard to; the United States should take action to limit its emissions regardless of what other nations do. Do it, Vote republicans out of office.

It will work.
jfreed27
5 / 5 (4) Nov 16, 2013
I would like to see the public's reaction to a carbon fee and dividend proposal. It could lower taxes. All sources of carbon emissions are charged a fee, such as $25 ton.

In this legislation, all fees on carbon are returned to citizens as, for example lower taxes. Or, fees might be used to lower the deficit by an estimated $1.08 Trillion in 10 years.

The point is to lower emissions, period. By putting a price on carbon, we would see the free market shift to low carbon choices.

Of courses, taxes are unpopular. But what about charging coal/oil for using the air as a sewer?
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (22) Nov 16, 2013
If liberal evironMentalist had their way, they would tank capitalist based economies across the globe, and replace them wih totalitarian socialist state. Everyone understands that capitalism increases standard of living and that socialism and planned economies does the opposite and has a history of mass deaths.

Most countries understand that the dangers of alarmism of progressive liberal environMentalists for economies are to be avoided with more priority than AGW itself. It transiton off of Co2 requires strong economies. Leftist gov can't supply that, only capitalism.

It is why Japan and Australia have been cautious, and "no major countries have announced more ambitious goals to cut emissions, despite [increased alarmism] from scientists".
kochevnik
1.7 / 5 (14) Nov 16, 2013
If liberal evironMentalist had their way, they would tank capitalist based economies across the globe, and replace them wih totalitarian socialist state.
USA kleptocracy does that by itself. No third parties/scapegoats required
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (23) Nov 16, 2013
If liberal evironMentalist had their way, they would tank capitalist based economies across the globe, and replace them wih totalitarian socialist state.
USA kleptocracy does that by itself. No third parties/scapegoats required


Even in a recession the USA economy dominates, and is why people from around the world clamour to get in. "kleptocracy"? The USA does not steal from anyone, in fact it enriches other countries in its wake.
kochevnik
1.6 / 5 (18) Nov 16, 2013
If liberal evironMentalist had their way, they would tank capitalist based economies across the globe, and replace them wih totalitarian socialist state.
USA kleptocracy does that by itself. No third parties/scapegoats required


Even in a recession the USA economy dominates, and is why people from around the world clamour to get in. "kleptocracy"? The USA does not steal from anyone, in fact it enriches other countries in its wake.
By dominates you mean "steals?" USA is s kleptomaniac teenager stealing it's parents credit cards buying fancy cars and courting women. Being in debt is no way to build wealth. Why do new immigrants in America not bother to learn English? Perhaps they understand it is better to carve USA up like a Thanksgiving turkey!

USD is working it's way to the next crash. All your words are nothing. Traders exchanging trillions knew instantly the USA was crumbling after Clintion left office and the USD has never recovered
kochevnik
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 16, 2013
Wrong thread. My bad
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 17, 2013
"Even in a recession the USA economy dominates" - NumenTard

Due to trillions in money borrowed from China and other nations for the purpose of purchasing cheap Chinese Trinkets.

And the sale of those Chinese made trinkets is counted as part of the U.S. economy by U.S. Economists.

Tardieboy takes such numbers seriously.
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 17, 2013
"If liberal evironMentalist had their way, they would tank capitalist based economies across the globe, and replace them wih totalitarian socialist state." - NumenTard

So, according to NumenTard, Capitalism is incompatible with having a sustainable environment.

I agree. And since sustainability is the only way mankind will survive, it is self evident that Capitalism has to go.

NumenTard can't understand that because his sick capitalist ideology refuses to accept the fact that it is the cancer that is destroying the world, and his own nation.

The faster America dies as a result of that cancer the better off the world will be.

Every moral person should work to that goal.

VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (15) Nov 17, 2013
Interesting that the Majority of Americans in every state support what the denialists call the "Socialist agenda"

Just shows you how out of touch with reality the Denialists are.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (18) Nov 17, 2013
[Noumenon] can't understand that because his sick capitalist ideology refuses to accept the fact that it is the cancer that is destroying the world, and his own nation.


Your "denialism" that capitalism was and is a force for good for mankind is a few orders of a magnitude more absurd than AGW "denialism".
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2013
Socialist nations rule the world NumenTard. Capitalist America - a find negative example for all nations - is, on the other hand is morally, ethically, intellectually and fiscally bankrupt. A direct result of American Capitalism.

The only people on earth who deny that fact are American Conservative Kooks, who believe in perpetual motion, infinite exponential growth, that guns prevent crimes, and that being gay is a lifestyle choice that can be cured by praying to their God.

Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (19) Nov 17, 2013
"There's no doubt that for us to take on climate change in a serious way would involve making some tough political choices and understandably, you know, I think right now the American people have been so focused and will continue to be focused on our economy and jobs and growth if the message somehow is that we're going to ignore jobs and growth SIMPLY to address climate change, I don't think anyone's going to go for that. I won't go for that." - B.H. Obama

"I believe deeply that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history." - B.H. Obama

And Obama is not a conservative. In fact if you weren't a gross Cuban, you would have voted for him.
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2013
NumenTard is full of idiot assumptions.

Today he assumes that I am Cuban, and then Assumes that I am an Obama Supporter.

He only assumes that I support Obama because i defend the man against the never ending stream of lies told about him by American Conservatives.

They are truly the scum of the earth.

Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 18, 2013
NumenTard is full of idiot assumptions.

Today he assumes that I am Cuban,


From a previous thread,.....

Is that why people from your disgusting country risk their life to come to America on a floating door? - Noumenon


It is a pity that you are not free enough to visit Cuba. How sad for you that America wasn't able to destroy the Cuban nation. - VendicarE


..... The problem for you is that I never mentioned Cuba prior to that exchange. I did not assume, you either misled then or are lying now.

and then Assumes that I am an Obama Supporter.

He only assumes that I support Obama because i defend the man against the never ending stream of lies told about him by American Conservatives.



Defending him means that you support him, especially counter to conservatives, so again no assumptions made.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2013
@Pastello. If you look at its design and purpose, a carbon tax is designed to discourage the the use of products that add to the atmospheric CO2 levels. This means to put a tax burden on industries that consume fossil fuels making producers of alternative fuel more economically competitive. It really is only a temporary 100 yr measure, because it's assumed that solar energy will be so cheap, oil will only be used in specialized lubrication products.

It's a global problem created by the industrial power house countries. They need to man-up and regulate their industries into compliance.

.
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2013
NumenTard is full of idiot ideas.

Now he is trying to claim that the following sentence...

It is a pity that you are not free enough to visit Cuba. How sad for you that America wasn't able to destroy the Cuban nation. - VendicarE

Claims that I am from Cuba.

Pure delusion....

VendicarE
4 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2013
"Defending him means that you support him" - NumenTard

More stupidity from NumenTard.

Ayn Rand should have died in a cold, painful death, alone and in a ditch, since this is where she wanted others to die.

But instead she died a reasonably painless death with some dignity and without financial burden that would have put her in a ditch, because she was a closet welfare queen.

Just because I support that her medical bills be paid by society doesn't in any way mean that I support her loathsome, corrupt, and fundamentally immoral Political ideology.

She was filth when she lived, and she was hypocritical filth when she died.

But I still grant her a fundamental right to the health care she would have denied others, even though she was the best example of human refuse that I know.

VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2013
"The problem for you is that I never mentioned Cuba prior to that exchange." - NumenTard

So, you assumed I was from Cuba.

Idiocy.
goracle
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 19, 2013
"The problem for you is that I never mentioned Cuba prior to that exchange." - NumenTard

So, you assumed I was from Cuba.

Idiocy.
Similarly, Nik suggested in another thread that he knows who I am and would sue me. Not likely, as he can't even guess if I'm in a blue state or red state.
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2013
Maybe Nikkie Tard thinks you are Al Gore, just like the thinks that his life living in University subsidized housing gives him a degree.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2013
"The problem for you is that I never mentioned Cuba prior to that exchange." - NumenTard

So, you assumed I was from Cuba.

Idiocy.


It is clear from the exchange above that I said "your [..] country", to which your mentioned Cuba. Any reasonable person would take that as indication that you're from Cuba. Why would you speak about Cuba for the first time in the thread as a response to me making reference to "your [..] country" without then knowing what that country was.

I've asked you many times what country someone like you, who goes off on anti-USA tirades, is from, out of curiosity. You must have been embarrassed to have answered the question, or are now embarrassed for having answered it. Which is it?

Is that why people from your disgusting country risk their life to come to America on a floating door? - Noumenon


It is a pity that you are not free enough to visit Cuba. How sad for you that America wasn't able to destroy the Cuban nation. - VendicarE
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Nov 21, 2013
"Any reasonable person would take that as indication that you're from Cuba." - NumenTard

NumenTard is so easily manipulated.

Once he foolishly concluded that I was Cuban, he began posting all manner of comments he thought would be insulting to Cubans.

Pathetic.
goracle
1 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2013
NumenTard is full of idiot assumptions.

Today he assumes that I am Cuban, and then Assumes that I am an Obama Supporter.

He only assumes that I support Obama because i defend the man against the never ending stream of lies told about him by American Conservatives.

They are truly the scum of the earth.


But without American Consevatives, the echo chamber would be unoccupied!
goracle
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2013
NumenTard is full of idiot assumptions.

Today he assumes that I am Cuban,


From a previous thread,.....

Is that why people from your disgusting country risk their life to come to America on a floating door? - Noumenon


It is a pity that you are not free enough to visit Cuba. How sad for you that America wasn't able to destroy the Cuban nation. - VendicarE


..... The problem for you is that I never mentioned Cuba prior to that exchange. I did not assume, you either misled then or are lying now.

and then Assumes that I am an Obama Supporter.

He only assumes that I support Obama because i defend the man against the never ending stream of lies told about him by American Conservatives.



Defending him means that you support him, especially counter to conservatives, so again no assumptions made.

One does not have to live in Cuba to know about the history with the USA. Redefining 'support' to include exposing lies is also bogus.
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2013
Socialist nations rule the world NumenTard.


I guess we all have our notions of "rule the world". I find it difficult to square this with actual objective reality, but I can't deny anyone their own opinion or definition. I can deny them their own facts however...

http://www.econom...my-guide
http://en.wikiped...c_growth

−0.3 growth rate for the EU...hmmm. Is there another set of socialist countries or criteria that you're using when you say "rule the world"? Should "ruling the world" even be a goal to begin with? A bit ominous....
goracle
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 21, 2013
as usual the governmental statists don't look at themselves as the problem to solve.
The Largest user, and waster, of energy in the United States is the Federal and State Governments.

The Federal Government should take the lead and reduce its energy usage by 50% in two year. This reduction in usage will achieve the objective of reduced emmissions, as well as reduced spending, without requiring the most incompetant people around making rules and regulations.
States should then follow suit. The reduction in emissions due to their reduction in usage would be astounding.

That would be the federal government that includes the military. Who started that war over the non-existent WMD? A Republican administration, who you presumably would not describe as "governmental statists". Why are you lumping federal and state governments together, but treating other classifications differently? Why not municipal?
Howhot
1 / 5 (1) Nov 25, 2013
If liberal evironMentalist had their way, they would tank capitalist based economies across the globe, and replace them wih totalitarian socialist state.


Really? I think most environMentalist would be happy just to see people be good stewards of their environment. You don't need to be a totalitarian state to be considerate of others and considerate of environment.

More news stories

There's something ancient in the icebox

Glaciers are commonly thought to work like a belt sander. As they move over the land they scrape off everything—vegetation, soil, and even the top layer of bedrock. So scientists were greatly surprised ...

Clean air: Fewer sources for self-cleaning

Up to now, HONO, also known as nitrous acid, was considered one of the most important sources of hydroxyl radicals (OH), which are regarded as the detergent of the atmosphere, allowing the air to clean itself. ...

China says massive area of its soil polluted

A huge area of China's soil covering more than twice the size of Spain is estimated to be polluted, the government said Thursday, announcing findings of a survey previously kept secret.

Better thermal-imaging lens from waste sulfur

Sulfur left over from refining fossil fuels can be transformed into cheap, lightweight, plastic lenses for infrared devices, including night-vision goggles, a University of Arizona-led international team ...

Hackathon team's GoogolPlex gives Siri extra powers

(Phys.org) —Four freshmen at the University of Pennsylvania have taken Apple's personal assistant Siri to behave as a graduate-level executive assistant which, when asked, is capable of adjusting the temperature ...