American Climate Policy Opinions

In Climate Insights 2024: American Understanding of Climate Change, we showed that huge majorities of Americans believe that the earth has been warming, that the warming has been caused by human activity, that warming poses a significant threat to the nation and the world—especially to future generations—and that governments, businesses, and individuals should be taking steps to address it.

In this report, we turn to specific federal government opportunities to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions, often referred to as climate change mitigation. Policies to accomplish this goal fall into several categories, including:

1. Consumer incentives that reward people for taking steps that reduce their use of fossil fuels and, by extension, reduce their carbon footprint
2. Carbon pricing policies that require emitters to pay for their carbon emissions, such as a carbon tax (which would require carbon emitters to pay a tax for each ton of carbon they emit), or a cap-and-trade program (which would require businesses to have a permit for each ton of carbon they emit)
3. Regulations that require manufacturers to increase energy efficiency of their products
4. Tax incentives that encourage manufacturers to increase the energy efficiency of their products

This 2024 survey asked Americans about their opinions on a wide array of such policies, which allows us not only to assess current opinions, but to track changes in those opinions over the past two decades through comparisons with responses to comparable questions asked in earlier national surveys.

Overall emissions reduction strategies

In 2024, we asked for the first time whether Americans prefer using “carrots” to reduce emissions or “sticks.” The former entails offering incentives to reward companies for achieving desired outcomes, and the latter involves penalizing companies that fail to reach desired goals. 59 percent of Americans prefer a carrot approach in which government lowers taxes for companies that reduce emissions, and 35 percent prefer a stick approach such that government raises taxes on companies that do not reduce emissions (see Figure 1).

Overall emissions reduction principles

Over the past decades, a consistently large majority of Americans has wanted the government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by US businesses. In 2024, 74 percent of Americans endorse this mitigation policy principle (see Figure 2). This number is not significantly different from the 77 percent seen in 2020 and is about the same as it has been since 1997 when this series of surveys was launched.

Taxing imported emissions

In 2024, we asked about import taxes tied to emissions; respondents were asked whether they would favor taxing foreign companies for importing products that put out more greenhouse gases than a comparable US product. A huge majority of Americans, 84 percent, favor the special tax (see Figure 3).

Assisting with job transitions

In 2024, we asked whether the federal government should spend money to help people who lose jobs due to a transition from fossil-based electricity generation to electricity generated from renewable sources. 78 percent of Americans favor the government paying those people to learn to do other kinds of work.

Filling abandoned oil wells

In 2024, we asked whether the federal government should spend money to close off abandoned oil wells that emit greenhouse gases; 76 percent of Americans favor the government spending money to fill these old wells.

Shifting energy generation to renewable power

Huge numbers of Americans favor government effort to shift electricity generation away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy sources.

In 2024, 72 percent of Americans believe that the US government should offer tax breaks to utilities in exchange for making more electricity from water, wind, and solar sources. However, this is a statistically significant decline from the 85 percent seen in 2020, and a record low since 2006 (see Figure 6).

Slight changes to the question wording yielded similar results: 76 percent of Americans in 2024 favor either mandates or tax breaks for utilities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. This number is not significantly different from the 82 percent seen in 2020 and is about the same as it has been since 2009. Before 2009, this proportion was slightly higher: 86 percent and 88 percent in 2006 and 2007, respectively (see Figure 7).

Increasing the energy efficiency of products

About two-thirds of Americans favor government efforts through tax breaks or mandates to improve the energy efficiency of various consumer products (see Figure 8).

Specifically, 62 percent of Americans in 2024 favor increasing the fuel efficiency of automobiles, a statistically significant drop from the 72 percent seen in 2020.

68 percent favor increasing the energy efficiency of appliances, similar to the 71 percent observed in 2020.

69 percent favor increasing the energy efficiency of new buildings, a statistically significant decline from the 76 percent in 2020.

Sequestering carbon

In 2024, 63 percent of Americans favor reducing emissions by sequestering (i.e., capturing and storing) carbon released by burning coal. This level of support has been steady over the past 15 years (see Figure 9).

Reducing subsidies for fossil fuels

In 2024, we asked for the first time whether the federal government should continue its long-standing practice of offering subsidies to oil and natural gas companies by reducing their taxes.

61 percent of Americans favor ending government reduction of oil companies’ taxes, and 37 percent believe these subsidies should continue.

42 percent of Americans favor ending government reduction of natural gas companies’ taxes, and 56 percent believe that these subsidies should continue.

Taxing greenhouse gases

When asked whether companies should be charged a tax for every ton of greenhouse gases they emit, 54 percent of respondents were in favor in 2024, a statistically significant decline from the 66 percent observed in 2020 (figure 10).

Creating a cap-and-trade program

Although economists generally assert that a carbon tax incentivizes companies to reduce emissions (Baumol and Oates, 1971; Climate Leadership Council, 2019; Marron and Toder, 2014; Montgomery, 1972; World Bank, 2017), a carbon tax does not guarantee that such emissions reductions will happen.

A cap-and-trade or cap-and-dividend policy, on the other hand, are alternative policies in which a government sets a limit, or ‘cap,’ on emissions. The cap is imposed by government-issued permits that limit emissions. The government gives, sells, or auctions the permits to companies, creating an opportunity to generate revenue. A cap-and-dividend program would return this revenue to consumers through a rebate.

The logic in asking this question about cap and trade is to assess whether more Americans would favor a greenhouse gas tax if assured that it would result in emissions reductions. However, we show cap-and-trade and cap-and-dividend policies are not notably more popular than straightforward taxes.

In 2024, 52 percent of Americans favor a cap-and-dividend policy, a statistically significant decline from the 63 percent observed in 2020 (see FIgure 11).

Subsidizing solar panels

In 2024, we asked respondents whether the federal government should spend money to help people install solar panels on houses and apartment buildings. Respondents were randomly assigned to be asked one of four versions of the question. Two versions asked about the government paying all of the installation costs, and the other two versions asked about the government paying some of the costs.

For half of each group (chosen randomly), the question was preceded by this introduction:

“Solar panels can generate electricity when the sun is shining, and that electricity can be stored in batteries to be used when the sun is not out. However, companies that make electricity cannot install enough solar panels to make all of the electricity needed in the country. People can put solar panels on the roofs of many houses and apartment buildings so much more of America’s electricity can be made from the sun. But it is expensive to do this, and most people cannot afford to pay that amount of money.”

Among people who did not hear the introduction, 51 percent favor the government paying some of the cost, and 42 percent favor the government paying all of the costs.

Among people who did hear the introduction, 77 percent favor the government paying some of the cost, and 74 percent favor the government paying all of the costs.

Permitting reform

In 2024, we asked whether the federal government should expedite the process of granting permits to build new power plants that make electricity from sources other than coal and petroleum. 52 percent of Americans favor expediting this process.

Nuclear power tax breaks

Although nuclear power does not directly emit greenhouse gases, tax breaks for the construction of new nuclear power plants are among the least popular policies asked about in 2024. 47 percent of Americans favor this policy; however, it is notable that this is a statistically significant increase from the 37 percent observed in 2020 (see FIgure 12).

All-electric vehicle tax breaks

In 2024, 46 percent of Americans—a record low—think the government should require or give tax breaks to companies to build all-electric vehicles, a statistically significant decline from the 60 percent observed in 2015 when this question was last asked (see Figure 13).

Taxes on consumers

The least popular policies impose new taxes on consumers to incentivize them to consume less fossil fuel. Few Americans favor increasing taxes on retail gasoline and electricity purchases for this purpose. 15 percent approve increasing taxes on electricity, a statistically significant decline from the 28 percent observed in 2020. Likewise, 28 percent approve increasing taxes on gasoline, a statistically significant decline from the 41 percent observed in 2020 (see Figure 14).

Perceived effect on the economy

Implementing many policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will cost consumers and companies in the short term. Implementing such policies may also increase the cost of American-made goods and services relative to the costs of those goods and services produced elsewhere. This has led some observers to urge caution about implementing greenhouse gas emissions reduction policies (e.g., Cassidy, 2023; Gross, 2021), because they may result in undesirable economic side effects.

However, this argument does not appear to have taken hold with the majority of Americans. For example, only 36 percent of Americans in 2024 believe that taking action to address global warming will hurt the US economy, about the same as was observed in 2013 (30 percent), though this is a statistically significant increase from the 29 percent observed in 2020 (see FIgure 15). Likewise, in 2024, 34 percent believed that these efforts would hurt their state economy, a statistically significant increase from the 24 percent observed in 2020.

More Americans believe that climate action will help the economy. 44 percent of Americans believe this in 2024, about the same as was observed in 2020 (48 percent) and 15 years ago (46 percent) (see Figure 15). 39 percent of Americans believe that efforts to reduce global warming will help their state economy in 2024, a statistically significant decrease from 46 percent in 2020.

Job availability

A similar picture emerged regarding beliefs about how climate action will affect job availability. Only 27 percent of Americans believe that efforts to reduce emissions will reduce the number of jobs in the nation—the same as was observed in 2020 (see Figure 16). And in 2024, 35 percent of Americans believe that climate change action will increase the number of jobs in the country, similar to the 39 percent observed in 2020.

28 percent of Americans believe that climate change action will reduce the number of jobs in their state, similar to the 23 percent observed in 2020 (see Figure 16). And 32 percent of Americans in 2024 believe that climate action will increase the number of jobs in their state, about the same as the 35 percent observed in 2020.

Personal economic impacts

In 2024, we asked respondents about the likely impact of mitigation efforts on their own personal economic situation. A majority of Americans believe that they will have the same amount of money regardless of mitigation efforts (54 percent). 36 percent believe their wealth will decrease, a statistically significant increase over the 20 percent observed in 2020 (see Figure 17). But 8 percent believe that climate change mitigation will increase their wealth, similar to the 10 percent observed in 2020.

Likewise, a majority (64 percent) believe that mitigation efforts will have no impact on their chance of getting a good-paying job. 17 percent believe that mitigation efforts will make them less likely to get a good-paying job, a statistically significant increase from the 12 percent observed in 2020 (see Figure 17). 17 percent believe that mitigation efforts will increase their ability to get a good-paying job, similar to the 16 percent observed in 2020.

Are the many policy preferences outlined in this report just talk, or do they inspire action in the voting booth? We turn to that question next and describe the findings from a test.

Respondents were read a statement by a hypothetical candidate running for a seat in the US Senate and were asked whether hearing that statement makes the respondents more likely to vote for the candidate, less likely to vote for the candidate, or has no impact.

One statement expressed “green views” that summarized opinions expressed by majorities of Americans:

“I believe that global warming has been happening for the past 100 years, mainly because we have been burning fossil fuels and putting out greenhouse gases. Now is the time for us to be using new forms of energy that are made in America and will be renewable forever. We can manufacture better cars that use less gasoline and build better appliances that use less electricity. We need to transform the outdated ways of generating energy into new ones that create jobs and entire industries and stop the damage we’ve been doing to the environment.”

The other statement proposed expanding production of energy from traditionally used fossil fuels:

“The science on global warming is a hoax and is an attempt to perpetrate a fraud on the American people. I don’t buy into the whole man-caused global warming mantra. We must spend no effort to deal with something that is not a problem at all. We should not invest in windmills and solar panels as alternative energy sources. Instead, we should continue to focus on our traditional sources of energy: coal, oil, and natural gas. We should expand energy production in our country, including continuing to mine our coal and doing more drilling for oil here at home.”

Hearing a green view makes 57 percent of Americans more likely to vote for the candidate, a statistically significant decline from the 65 percent observed in 2020 (see Figure 18). Democrats are significantly more likely to be attracted to a “green” candidate (83 percent) than are Independents (56 percent) and Republicans (23 percent) (see Figure 19).

Hearing the green statement makes only 18 percent of Americans less likely to vote for the candidate (see Figure 18).

Hearing the candidate make a “not-green” statement makes only 21 percent more likely to vote for the candidate (see Figure 18). 43 percent of Republicans are more likely to support the candidate, compared to 20 percent of Independents and 5 percent of Democrats (see Figure 19).

Hearing the “not-green” statement makes 63 percent of Americans less likely to vote for the candidate, similar to the 66 percent observed in 2020 (see FIgure 18). This proportion is greatest among Democrats (88 percent), smaller among Independents (62 percent), and still smaller among Republicans (29 percent) (see Figure 19).

Because almost all Republican citizens vote for Republican candidates and almost all Democratic citizens vote for Democratic candidates, the greatest impact of candidate statements in shaping election outcomes is among Independents. Among them, the same pattern appears that appears among all Americans: taking a “green” position helped a candidate and taking a “not-green” position hurt the candidate.

Taken together, these results point to climate change mitigation policies that may be pursued in the future with widespread public support (such as efforts to reduce emissions from power plants). Furthermore, these results also identify a few policy directions that are well received by few Americans, despite being plausible in theory and in practice (like taxes on electricity and gasoline).

For decades, one school of thought commonly followed by some scholars and policymakers is that economic growth and environmental protection are incompatible, and that any efforts to grow the economy must, of necessity, take resources away from helping the environment. Such a presumption creates an “either the economy or the environment” mindset. This mindset has been reinforced by survey questions asking Americans (e.g., Mildenberger & Leiserowitz, 2017), for example: “With which one of these statements about the environment and the economy do you most agree? ‘Protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth.’ Or: ‘Economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent’” (Gallup, 2024).

If Americans do perceive this trade-off as inevitable, the COVID-19 pandemic and associated economic crisis a few years ago might have tilted them away from environmental protection generally and away from efforts to mitigate climate change; the subsequent recovery might have increased support for such efforts. The present study refutes that notion resoundingly. In fact, we see small changes in the opposite direction: slightly less public support for some emissions-reducing policies than four years ago.

Few people believe that taking steps to reduce emissions will hurt the national economy, their state’s economy, or their personal finances, and more Americans believe that such policies will improve these economic outcomes.

Finally, we saw that the policy positions candidates take on this issue are likely to influence the votes of many Americans. Thus, policymakers and their challengers have opportunities to use these issues to help assemble the coalitions needed to accomplish electoral victories. By taking “green” positions, candidates gain considerably more votes than they lost.