יום שני, 31 בדצמבר 2018

Public views on climate change and climate scientists




There is a host of ways Americans’ opinions about climate issues divide. The divisions start with views about the causes of global climate change. Nearly half of U.S. adults say climate change is due to human activity and a similar share says either that the Earth’s warming stems from natural causes or that there is no evidence of warming. The disputes extend to differing views about the likely impact of climate change and the possible remedies, both at the policy level and the level of personal behavior.

Roughly four-in-ten Americans expect harmful effects from climate change on wildlife, shorelines and weather patterns. At the same time, many are optimistic that both policy and individual efforts to address climate change can have an impact. A narrow majority of Americans anticipate new technological solutions to problems connected with climate change, and some 61% believe people will make major changes to their way of life within the next half century.

On all of these matters there are wide differences along political lines with conservative Republicans much less inclined to anticipate negative effects from climate change or to judge proposed solutions as making much difference in mitigating any effects. Half or more liberal Democrats, by contrast, see negative effects from climate change as very likely and believe an array of policy solutions can make a big difference.

Americans who are more deeply concerned about climate issues, regardless of their partisan orientation, are particularly likely to see negative effects ahead from climate change, and strong majorities among this group think policy solutions can be effective at addressing climate change.

Roughly two-thirds of Americans say climate scientists should have a major role in policy decisions about climate matters, more than say that the public, energy industry leaders, or national and international political leaders should be so involved.

But, overall, majorities of Americans appear skeptical of climate scientists. No more than a third of the public gives climate scientists high marks for their understanding of climate change; even fewer say climate scientists understand the best ways to address climate change. And, while Americans trust information from climate scientists more than they trust that from other groups, fewer than half of Americans have “a lot” of trust in information from climate scientists (39%).

A minority of Americans perceive that the best available scientific evidence is driving climate research findings most of the time. And a roughly equal share says other, more negative, factors influence climate research.

People’s trust and confidence in climate scientists varies widely depending on their political orientation. Liberal Democrats are much more trusting of climate scientists’ understanding of the issue and disclosure of full and accurate information about it. Republicans, particularly conservatives, are highly critical of climate scientists and more likely to ascribe negative rather than positive motives to the influences shaping scientists’ research.

This chapter provides an overview of Americans’ attitudes about climate change and climate scientists. It then details the divides in these views among political groups and among those who are more or less concerned about climate issues. Americans who care more about the issue of climate change, regardless of political orientation, are more trusting of climate scientists, more likely to expect negative effects to occur because of climate change, and more likely to believe that both individual efforts and policy actions can be effective in addressing climate change.
Beliefs about global climate change remain fairly stable

Roughly half of adults (48%) say climate change is mostly due to human activity; roughly three-in-ten say it is due to natural causes (31%) and another fifth say there is no solid evidence of warming (20%).

The share saying human activity is the primary cause of climate change is about the same as Pew Research Center surveys in 2014 (50%) and 2009 (49%). Center surveys from 2006 to 2015 using somewhat different question wording found a similar share expressing this view (45% in the most recent, 2015 survey).
There is a broad public expectation that climate change will have negative effects on animal and plant life, shorelines and weather patterns

Large majorities of Americans think global warming will lead to an array of negative effects for the Earth’s ecosystems. At least three-quarters of Americans say that harm to animal habitats and plant life is very or fairly likely to occur. A similar share expects storms to become more severe and damage to shorelines or more frequent droughts to occur.1

Americans who believe global climate change is the result of human activity are far more likely than other Americans (those who believe climate change results from natural patterns or that there is no evidence of global warming) to say each of these effects is very likely.

A 61% majority of the public expects Americans will make major changes to their ways of life in order to address problems from climate change within the next half century, while 38% do not expect this to occur. The public, as a whole, sides to optimism (55% to 44%) that new technological solutions will arise within the next 50 years that can solve most of the problems from climate change.
Roughly half of U.S. adults say restrictions on power plant emissions, international agreements can bring change; a sizeable minority sees individual efforts as effective too

There are a number of different proposals to address climate change. The Pew Research Center survey explored people’s views about whether each of several policy and individual actions can be effective at addressing climate change.

Americans are largely optimistic that restrictions on power plant emissions (51%) and international agreements to limit carbon emissions (49%) can make a big difference to address climate change. The Obama administration announced stricter limits on power plant emissions in 2015. This year, more than 175 countries, including the U.S., have signed the Paris Agreement, which aims to reduce carbon emissions around the world.

Public assessments of other policy proposals are similar. Some 46% say tougher fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks can make a big difference in addressing climate change; 45% say corporate tax incentives that encourage businesses to reduce carbon emissions caused by their actions can too.

About four-in-ten Americans (41%) say having more hybrid and electric vehicles on the road can have a big effect; 38% think people’s efforts to reduce their own “carbon footprints” as they go about daily living can make a big difference, while another 44% say this can make a small difference.
Who do Americans want most at the policy table? Climate scientists, followed by the public. Fewer say elected officials, international political leaders should have a major role

A majority of Americans say that climate scientists should have a role in policy decisions about climate issues. Two-thirds (67%) of U.S. adults say climate scientists should have a major role and 23% say they should have a minor role. Just 9% say climate scientists should have no role in policy issues regarding global climate change.

Following scientific experts on the list, 56% of adults say the general public should have a major role in policy decisions about climate issues, followed by 53% that name energy industry leaders.

By comparison, fewer Americans believe elected officials should have a major role in climate policy decisions. In all, 44% of U.S. adults say elected officials should have a major role, another four-in-ten (40%) say elected leaders should have a minor role in climate policy-making.

Public views about the role of elected officials in policy decisions on climate issues may tie with deep public cynicism about the federal government, generally. Or, as shown later in this chapter, those beliefs could tie to distrust that elected officials provide full and accurate information about the causes of climate change.

People’s normative views about the place of international leaders in these decisions are similar to that for U.S. leaders.
Minority of public sees consensus among climate scientists over causes of global warming

Scientists first noted the possibility that the burning of greenhouse gases, such as fossil fuels, could increase temperatures back in the 1800s. A report from National Academy of Sciences in 1977 warned that the burning of fossil fuels could result in average temperatures increases of 6 degrees Celsius by the year 2150.2

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which reflects scientific opinion on the topic, stated in the forward to its 2013 report, “the science now shows with 95 percent certainty that human activity is the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century.”3 And, several analyses of scholarly publications suggest widespread consensus among climate scientists on this point.4

Similarly, a Pew Research Center survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) found 93% of members with a Ph.D. in Earth sciences (and 87% of all members) say the Earth is warming mostly because of human behavior.5

But, in the public eye, there is considerably less consensus. Just 27% of Americans say that “almost all” climate scientists hold human behavior responsible for climate change. Another 35% say more than half of climate scientists agree about this, while an equal share says that about fewer than half (20%) or almost no (15%) scientific experts believe that human behavior is the main contributing factor in climate change.

Consistent with previous Pew Research Center studies, people’s perceptions of consensus among climate scientists are closely related to their beliefs about global climate change. Among those who say climate change is due to human activity, many more say scientists are in agreement on the main cause of climate change.
U.S. public is largely skeptical of climate scientists’ understanding of climate change

Americans appear to harbor significant reservations about climate scientists’ expertise and understanding of what is happening to the Earth’s climate. One-in-three adults (33%) say climate scientists understand “very well” whether climate change is occurring, another 39% say scientists understand this “fairly well” and some 27% say scientists don’t understand this “too well” or don’t understand it at all.

Just over a quarter of the public – 28% – says climate scientists have a solid understanding of the causes of climate change. And even fewer, 19%, of adults say the same about climate scientists’ understanding of the best ways to address climate change.
While Americans trust information from climate scientists more than that from other key players, fewer than half have “a lot” of faith that they are getting full and accurate information

Americans hold relatively positive views about climate scientists, compared with other groups, as credible sources of information. Far more Americans say they trust information from climate scientists on the causes of climate change than say they trust either energy industry leaders, the news media or elected officials. But in absolute terms, public trust in information from climate scientists is limited.

Some 39% of Americans say they trust climate scientists a lot when it comes to providing information about the causes of climate change. About a fifth of Americans (22%) hold no trust or not too much trust in information from climate scientists. Another 39% report “some” trust in climate scientists to give a full and accurate portrait of the causes of climate change.

Public trust in information from the news media, energy industry leaders and elected officials is significantly lower, however. A majority of Americans report having not too much or no trust in information from these groups about the causes of climate change.
Few say climate research findings reliably undergirded by the best available evidence; similar shares say other, more negative factors influence climate research

This survey included a series of questions that tapped into Americans’ beliefs of potential influences on climate research, and the findings suggest some skepticism and mixed assessments from the public. A minority of 32% of Americans say climate research is influenced by the best available evidence “most of the time,” 48% say this occurs some of the time and 18% take a decidedly skeptical view that the best evidence rarely or never influences research findings.

A similar share of Americans say that scientists’ career aspirations influence their research most of the time (36%). A smaller share of adults say scientists’ political leanings (27%) or their desires to help related industries (26%) influence climate research findings most of the time. But majorities say these less germane motivations influence results at least some of the time.

While most Americans say the public’s best interest factors into climate change research at least some of the time, only 23% of Americans say climate research is influenced by concern for public interests most of the time. Overall, 28% say this occurs not too often or never and 48% of Americans take a middle position, saying this sometimes influences climate research findings.
Politics is the central factor shaping people’s beliefs about the effects of climate change, ways to address warming, trust in climate scientists

Why we include “leaners” in the Democratic and Republican groups

Throughout this report, Republicans and Democrats include independents and other non-partisans who lean toward the parties. Partisan leaners tend to have attitudes and opinions very similar to those of partisans. On questions about climate change and trust of climate scientists, there are wide differences between those who lean to the Democratic Party and those who lean to the Republican Party. And leaners and partisans of their party have roughly the same positions on these questions.

Political divides are dominant in public views about climate matters. Consistent with past Pew Research Center surveys, most liberal Democrats espouse human-caused climate change, while most conservative Republicans reject it. But this new Center survey finds that political differences over climate issues extend across a host of beliefs about the expected effects of climate change, actions that can address changes to the Earth’s climate, and trust and credibility in the work of climate scientists. People on the ideological ends of either party, that is liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans, see the world through vastly different lenses across all of these judgments.
Political groups differ widely over beliefs about climate and ways to address warming

As with previous Pew Research Center surveys, there are wide differences among political party and ideology groups on whether or not human activity is responsible for warming temperatures. A large majority of liberal Democrats (79%) believe the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity. In contrast, only about one-in-six conservative Republicans (15%) say this, a difference of 64 percentage points. A much larger share of conservative Republicans say there is no solid evidence the Earth is warming (36%) or that warming stems from natural causes (48%).

Pew Research Center surveys have found these kinds of wide political gaps in previous years. In the 2015 Center survey, using somewhat different question wording, there was a 41-percentage-point difference between partisans; 64% of Democrats said climate change was mostly due to human activity, compared with 23% among Republicans.
Most liberal Democrats think negative effects from global climate change are likely

People’s beliefs about the likely effects of climate change are quite uniformly at odds across party and ideological lines. About six-in-ten or more of liberal Democrats say it is very likely that climate change will bring droughts, storms that are more severe, harm to animal and plant life, and damage to shorelines from rising sea levels. By contrast, no more than about two-in-ten conservative Republicans say each of these possibilities is “very likely”; about half consider these possibilities not too or not at all likely.

There are more modest differences when it comes to people’s expectations that technological breakthroughs will solve climate problems in the future or that the American people will make major changes to their way of life as a result of climate change. A majority of Democrats think technological changes will help address climate change within the next 50 years; views among moderate/liberal Republicans are similar. Some 46% of conservative Republicans think this will probably or definitely occur. Similarly, about half of conservative Republicans (49%) expect Americans to make major changes to their way of life to address climate issues within the next five decades, as do majorities of other party and ideology groups.
Most conservative Republicans say each of six actions to address climate change would have small or negligible effects; most liberal Democrats believe each can make a big difference

There is wide gulf between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans when it comes to beliefs about how to effectively address climate change. Liberal Democrats are optimistic that a range of policy actions can make “a big difference” in addressing climate change including: power plant emission limits, international agreements about emissions, tougher fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, and corporate tax incentives to encourage businesses to reduce emissions resulting from their activities. And, at least half of liberal Democrats say that both personal efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of everyday activities and more people driving hybrid and electric vehicles can make a big difference in addressing global warming.

By contrast, conservative Republicans are largely pessimistic about the effectiveness of these options. Most conservative Republicans say each of these actions would make a small difference or have no effect on climate change. About three-in-ten or fewer conservative Republicans say each would make a big difference.
Most support a role for climate scientists in climate policy decisions, though political groups differ in relative priorities for scientists and the public in policy matters

More than three-quarters of Democrats and most Republicans (69% among moderate or liberal Republicans and 48% of conservative Republicans) say climate scientists should have a major role in policy decisions related to climate issues. Few in either party say climate scientists should have no role in these policy decisions.

But there some differences among party and ideology groups in their relative priorities about this. Conservative Republicans give a higher comparative priority to the general public in policy decisions about climate change issues. Democrats and moderate/liberal Republicans prioritize a role for climate scientists.

Relative to other groups rated, fewer Americans think elected officials should have a major say in climate policy. Conservative Republicans stand out as being disinclined to support a major role for elected officials or leaders from other nations in climate policy.
There are wide opinion differences over whether scientists understand climate change

People’s assessments of scientific understanding about climate also ties strongly to their political perspectives. Most liberal Democrats rate climate scientists as understanding “very well” whether climate change is occurring (68%) and about half say scientists understand “very well” the causes of climate change (54%). By contrast, just 11% of conservative Republicans judge climate scientists as understanding very well the sources of climate change. Fully 63% of this group says climate scientists understand the causes of climate change “not too” or “not at well.”

Fewer in either party think climate scientists understand ways to address climate change. Some 36% of liberal Democrats say climate scientists understand this “very well” and 49% say scientists understand this “fairly well.” Conservative Republicans are particularly skeptical of climate scientists’ understanding of ways to address climate change; just 8% say scientists understand how to address climate change “very well,” 28% say “fairly well” and 64% rate scientific understanding of this as “not too well” or “not at all well.”
Liberal Democrats are most likely to see widespread agreement among climate scientists

American’s perceptions of scientific consensus on climate change are also related to political divides, as has also been found in past Pew Research Center surveys.6

Liberal Democrats are far more likely than any other party or ideology group to see strong consensus among climate scientists. Some 55% of liberal Democrats say almost all climate scientists agree that human behavior is mostly responsible for climate change.

Much smaller shares of other groups see widespread consensus among climate scientists. Some 29% of moderate/conservative Democrats say almost all climate scientists agree that human behavior is responsible for climate change, while some 16% of conservative Republicans and 13% of moderate/liberal Republicans say the same.

People’s perceptions of scientific consensus, even among liberal Democrats, are at odds with the near unanimity expressed in climate research publications that human activity is mostly responsible for climate change, however.7
Deep political divide over whether to trust information from climate scientists

Public trust in information from climate scientists about the causes of climate change varies widely among political groups. Seven-in-ten (70%) liberal Democrats trust climate scientists a lot to provide full and accurate information about this, another 24% report some trust in information from climate scientists. In contrast, just 15% of conservative Republicans say they trust climate scientists a lot to give full and accurate information, four-in-ten (40%) report some trust and 45% have not too much or no trust in information from climate scientists. Moderate or liberal Republicans and moderate or conservative Democrats fall in the middle between these two extremes in their level of trust.
Liberal Democrats see the influences and motivations behind climate research findings in a mostly positive light; conservative Republicans are much more negative

American’s judgments about the credibility of climate research findings are also tied with people’s political party and ideological orientations. At least half of liberal Democrats (55%) say climate research is influenced by the best available evidence most of the time, and 39% say this occurs some of the time. By contrast, just 9% of conservative Republicans say the best evidence influences climate research most of the time, though 54% say this occurs some of the time.

Conservative Republicans are particularly skeptical about the factors influencing climate research. Some 57% of conservative Republicans say climate research is influenced by researchers’ career interests most of the time and 54% say the scientists’ own political leanings influence research findings most of the time. A much smaller share of liberal Democrats say either of these factors influence scientific research most of the time, although many say scientists’ career interests or personal political leanings influence the findings some of the time (54% for each).
More than a third of Americans are deeply concerned about climate issues; their views about climate change and scientists differ starkly from the less concerned

The public’s level of concern about climate matters varies. The Pew Research Center survey finds 36% of Americans particularly concerned, saying they care a great deal about the issue of global climate change. An additional 38% express some interest, while 26% say they care not too much or not at all about the issue of climate change.

Not surprisingly, those who care a great deal about global climate change issues are more attentive to climate news. Some 26% of those who care about climate issues a great deal follow climate news reports very closely, compared with just 3% among those less concerned about these issues.
A profile of climate-engaged Americans

Those most concerned about climate issues come from all gender, age, education, race and ethnic groups. Those more concerned about climate issues are slightly more likely to be women than men (55% vs. 45%). And, they are more likely to be Hispanic than the population as whole.

Politically, those who care more deeply about climate issues tend to be Democrats. They include about equal shares of moderate or conservative Democrats (37%) and liberal Democrats (35%). Some 24% are Republicans.
Those most concerned about climate issues hold beliefs that differ starkly from those who are less concerned

Political party affiliation and ideology are not the only factors that shape people’s views about climate issues and climate scientists. People who say they care a great deal about this issue are far more likely to believe the Earth is warming because of human activities, to believe negative effects from climate change are likely, and that proposals to address climate change will be effective. This group also holds more positive views about climate scientists and their research, on average. Differences between those more concerned and less concerned occur among both Republicans and Democrats.

About three-quarters of Americans who care deeply about climate change say the Earth is warming because of human activity (76%), this compares with 48% among those who care some and just 10% among those who do not care at all or not too much about this issue.

Differences between those who care more and less about climate change issues occur among both Republicans and Democrats. Some 44% of Republicans who care a great deal about climate issues believe human behavior is causing temperatures to rise, compared with just 17% of Republicans who care some or less about this issue. Similarly, among Democrats, 87% of those who care a great deal about climate issues believe human activity is mostly responsible for global climate change, compared with 52% among those who care some or less about the issue of climate change.

Large majorities of those who care most about this issue think it is very likely that climate change will hurt the environment. Roughly three-quarters of those deeply concerned about climate issues think climate change will very likely bring harm to animal life (74%), damage to forests and plants life (74%), more droughts (73%), more severe storms (74%), and damage to shorelines from rising sea levels (74%). By contrast, roughly a third of those who care “some” about this issue say each of these possible effects is very likely. Many of those who do not care at all or not too much about the issue of climate change say the evidence of warming is uncertain; this group is particularly skeptical that any of these harms will come to pass. Differences among the more and less concerned about climate issues occur both among Republicans and Democrats alike.

There are smaller differences when it comes to people’s expectations that Americans will make major changes to their way of life in order to address climate change. About two-thirds of those who care a great deal about climate issues (67%) expect this to occur within the next 50 years, as does a similar share of those who care some about this issue (70%) and 42% of those who do not care at all or not too much about the issue of climate change. And, 63% of the more climate-engaged Americans expect new technological solutions to address most problems stemming from climate change. Those who care some about climate issues hold similar views; 62% expect technological solutions. Those who have little personal concern about the issue of climate change are more skeptical; 34% expect technological solutions, 64% do not.
People who are especially concerned about climate issues are optimistic that both policy and personal efforts can be effective at addressing climate change

Majorities of climate-engaged Americans are optimistic that a range of both policy and individual actions can make a big difference in addressing climate change. Those less personally concerned about climate issues are considerably more pessimistic, by comparison.

About eight-in-ten of those more deeply concerned about climate issues say restrictions on power plant emissions (80%) and an international agreement to limit carbon emissions (78%) can make a big difference in addressing climate change. Some 73% of this group says tougher fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks can make a big difference, and seven-in-ten (70%) say the same about corporate tax incentives to encourage businesses to reduce the carbon emissions stemming from their activities. By contrast, no more than two-in-ten American who are not at all or not too personally concerned about climate issues think each of these policy actions can make a big difference, although a sizeable minority among this group says each can make a small difference. Those who care “some” about the issue of climate change fall in between these two extremes; roughly four-in-ten of this group say each of these policy actions can make a big difference; a roughly similar share says each can make a small difference.

The same pattern occurs when it comes to individual efforts to address climate change. Among those who care deeply about climate issues, 63% believe individual efforts to reduce the “carbon footprint” linked with one’s daily activities can make a big difference. Among those who care some about this issue, about half as many say this can make a big difference (33%), and most (58%) say it can make a small difference. Just 12% of those with little personal concern about climate change say individual efforts of this sort can make a big difference, 42% says this can make a small difference, and 43% says this will have almost no effect. Similarly, some 63% of those personally concerned about climate issues say more people driving hybrid and electric vehicles can make a big difference in addressing climate change, compared with 40% among those who care some about climate issues and just 13% among those who do not care at all or not too much about climate issues.
Climate-engaged public is far more likely to trust climate scientists’ information and understanding of climate issues, see climate research findings as rooted in the evidence

People who care more deeply about climate issues are also more likely than others in the general public to see climate scientists’ and their work in a positive light.

Nearly all (90%) Americans who are deeply concerned about climate change issues support a major role for climate scientists in related policy decisions, as do 68% of Americans with some personal concern about climate issues. About a third (34%) of those with not too much or no personal concern about climate issues say climate scientists should have a major role, and 41% say scientists should have a minor role in climate policy.

This pattern holds among both Democrats and Republicans. For example, some 87% of Republicans who care a great deal about climate issues say climate scientists should have a major role in climate policy. This compares with 48% among other Republicans.

Those who care a great deal about climate issues are much more likely than other Americans to say climate scientists understand very well whether change is occurring (64% vs. 23% among those care some and 7% among those do not care at all or not too much about this issue). About half of those deeply concerned about climate issues (52%) say climate scientists understand very well the causes of climate change, compared with just 19% among those with some personal concern and just 8% among those with no or not too much personal concern about this issue.

More Americans who care a great deal about climate issues say scientists understand the best ways to address climate change very well (37%) or fairly well (48%). Many fewer of less climate-concerned adults say the same. Just 13% of those with some personal concern about climate issues say scientists understand very well how to address climate change, while 56% say scientists understand this fairly well. And, just 5% of those with no or little personal concern about climate issues say scientists understand very well how to address climate change, 25% say scientists understand this fairly well and 68% say scientists do not understand this at all or not too well. Differences over climate scientists’ understanding occur among both Democrats and Republicans who are relatively more and less concerned about climate change.

Similarly, people who care more about climate issues are more inclined to see consensus among scientists about the causes of climate change. Some 48% of the climate-concerned public says that almost all climate scientists agree that human activity is responsible for climate change; this compares with just 19% saying almost all scientists agree about this among those who care some about climate issues and 12% among those who do not care at all or not too much about climate issues.
Two-thirds of Americans deeply concerned about climate issues trust information from climate scientists

Those more concerned about global climate issues are far more trusting of information from climate scientists than are those less concerned about these issues. Two-thirds of the public who cares a great deal about climate issues (67%) say they trust climate scientists a lot to provide full and accurate information on the causes of global climate change. In contrast, 33% of those who care some about climate issues trust scientists’ information a lot, while 53% trust it some. Just 9% of those with little or no personal concern about climate issues trust scientists’ information a lot, 36% trust it some and 55% have not too much or no trust in information from climate scientists about this.

Democrats and Republicans who care a great deal about climate issues are more than twice as likely as their fellow partisans to hold a lot of trust in information from climate scientists. Among Republicans who care about climate issues, 46% trust climate scientists’ information a lot compared with 16% among other Republicans. Among Democrats, fully 76% of those who care about climate issues a great deal say they trust climate scientists’ information a lot compared with 34% among other Democrats.
Those deeply concerned about climate issues are more inclined to see research findings as rooted in the best available evidence, fewer say other motives of scientists underlie the research findings

Americans who are more concerned with climate issues are inclined to think research findings on climate are influenced by the best available evidence; about half of this group (51%) says research is influenced by the best evidence most of the time and 39% say this occurs some of the time. In contrast, three-in-ten (30%) of those with some personal concern about climate issues say the best evidence influences climate research findings most of the time, 60% say this occurs some of the time. Just 9% of those with no or not too much personal concern about climate issues say the best evidence influences climate research findings most of the time, 42% say this occurs some of the time and 45% say this occurs not too often or never.

By the same token, there are similar differences in views about negative influences on research between those who care deeply about climate issues and those who do not; the climate-concerned public is less inclined to see such research as influenced by scientists’ personal political leanings, a desire to help their industries or their careers.
Public views of news coverage about global climate change

The news media are a key source of information about climate issues. The Pew Research Center survey finds only a small minority (11%) of Americans follow news about climate matters very closely. Another 44% follow somewhat closely, and an equal share follows news not too (32%) or not at all closely (12%).

Overall, Americans are closely divided in their assessments of media coverage on climate issues. Some 47% say the news media do a very or somewhat good job, while 51% say they do a bad job covering climate issues.

These findings stand in contrast to American’s views about the media overall. As shown elsewhere in this report, just 5% say they have a great deal of confidence in the news media, generally, to act in the public interest. A 2013 Pew Research Center report documents the steep decline in public regard for media accuracy, fairness and independence over the past two decades.

People who say they closely follow climate news tend to give the media somewhat higher marks for coverage in this area as do those who say care a great deal about climate issues.

Public views about media performance also tend to divide along political lines. Conservative Republicans are especially critical of media coverage on climate issues with 71% of this group saying the media do a bad job. Moderate and liberal Republicans are closely divided in their overall evaluations of news coverage on climate (47% say they do a good job and 52% say they do a bad job). The balance of opinion is more positive among moderate and conservative Democrats (64% good to 34% bad) though liberal Democrats are closely divided (48% to 51%) on this issue. This pattern is broadly consistent with other Pew Research Center studies on views of the media.

The public divide over media performance in this area could link to the balance of coverage on climate issues. The Pew Research Center survey included two additional questions exploring people’s views about news coverage.

Overall, some 35% of Americans say the media exaggerate the threat from climate change while a roughly similar share (42%) of adults says the media do not take the threat seriously enough. Two-in-ten (20%) adults says the media are about right in their reporting about climate.

The same pattern occurs on a question about the balance of attention to those skeptical of climate change. Four-in-ten (40%) adults say the media give too little attention to skeptics, while a slightly smaller share (32%) says the media give skeptics too much attention. A quarter of Americans (25%) say the media are about right in their coverage of those skeptical about climate change.

In keeping with the wide political divides on beliefs about climate issues, there are strong political differences in views about media coverage of climate change. A majority of conservative Republicans (72%) say the media exaggerate the threat of climate change, while some 64% of liberal Democrats say the media do not take the threat seriously enough.

Opinions about media coverage of skeptics follow a similar pattern. Some 59% of conservative Republicans say the media give too little attention to skeptics of climate change. In contrast, about half of liberal Democrats (54%) say the media give too much attention to skeptics of climate change.


Public opinion on renewables and other energy sources

Americans’ concerns about climate change have put energy production of fossil fuels and the carbon gases these fuels emit at the center of public discussions about climate and the environment. Those debates coupled with long-standing economic pressures to decrease reliance on other countries for energy needs have raised attention to renewable forms of energy including solar and wind power.

Public opinion about energy issues is widely supportive of expanding both solar and wind power but more closely divided when it comes to expanding fossil fuel energies such as coal mining, offshore oil and gas drilling, and hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas. While there are substantial party and ideological divides over increasing fossil fuel and nuclear energy sources, strong majorities of all party and ideology groups support more solar and wind production.
Most Americans know the U.S. is producing more energy today

Most Americans are aware of America’s ongoing energy boom. The United States is producing more energy from fossil fuels and has ticked up production of renewable sources such as wind and solar. A large majority of Americans (72%) say the United States is producing more energy than it did 20 years ago. Far smaller shares say the U.S. is producing the same level (17%) or less energy (10%) than it did 20 years ago8

Majorities across demographic, educational and political groups say the U.S. is producing more energy today. Awareness of this trend is especially high among those with postgraduate degrees (86% compared with 64% among those with high school degrees or less). Men are more inclined to say the U.S. is producing more energy than women (79% vs. 66%), while Democrats are modestly more likely than Republicans to say this (79% vs. 65%).
Strong public support for more wind and solar, closer divides over nuclear and fossil fuels

Large majorities of Americans favor expanding renewable sources to provide energy, but the public is far less supportive of increasing the production of fossil fuels, such as oil and gas, and nuclear energy.

Fully 89% of Americans favor more solar panel farms, just 9% oppose. A similarly large share supports more wind turbine farms (83% favor, 14% oppose).

By comparison, the public is more divided over expanding the production of nuclear and fossil fuel energy sources. Specifically, 45% favor more offshore oil and gas drilling, while 52% oppose. Similar shares support and oppose expanding hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” for oil and gas (42% favor and 53% oppose). Some 41% favor more coal mining, while a 57% majority opposes this.

And, 43% of Americans support building more nuclear power plants, while 54% oppose. Past Pew Research Center surveys on energy issues, using somewhat different question wording and survey methodology, found opinion broadly in keeping with this new survey. For example, the balance of opinion in a 2014 Pew Research Center survey about building more nuclear power plants was similar (45% favor, 51% oppose), and some 52% of Americans favored and 44% opposed allowing more offshore oil and gas drilling in that survey.
Most Republicans and Democrats favor expanding renewables; there are strong divides over expanding fossil fuels

Across the political spectrum, large majorities support expansion of solar panel and wind turbine farms. Some 83% of conservative Republicans favor more solar panel farms; so, too, do virtually all liberal Democrats (97%). Similarly, there is widespread agreement across party and ideological groups in favor of expanding wind energy.

Consistent with past Pew Research Center surveys, this new survey finds there are deep political divides over expanding fossil fuel energy sources. Conservative Republicans stand out from other party and ideology groups in this regard. At least seven-in-ten conservative Republicans support more coal mining (73%), fracking (70%) and offshore drilling (76%). A majority of Democrats oppose expanding each of these energy sources while moderate/liberal Republicans fall somewhere in the middle on these issues.

The political divide over expanding nuclear energy is smaller. Some 57% of conservative Republicans, and 51% of all Republicans, favor more nuclear power plants. Democrats lean in the opposite direction with 59% opposed and 38% in favor of more nuclear power plants.

As also found in past Pew Research Center surveys, women are less supportive of expanding nuclear power than men, even after controlling for politics and education. Some 34% of women favor and 62% oppose more nuclear plants. Men are more closely divided on this issue: 52% favor and 46% oppose. Men and women hold more similar views on other energy issues.
Many Americans are giving serious thought to having solar panels at home

America’s solar power industry is growing. In 2016, solar is expected to add more electricity generating capacity than any other energy source in the United States. Just 4% of Americans report having home solar panels but many more − 37% − say they are giving it serious thought.

These figures are similar among homeowners. Some 44% of homeowners have already installed (4%) or have given serious thought to installing (40%) solar panels at home.

Western residents and younger adults are especially likely to say are considering, or have installed, solar panels at home. Some 14% of homeowners in the West have installed solar panels at home and another 52% say they are considering doing so. By contrast, 35% of homeowners in the South say they have installed (3%) or given serious thought to installing solar at home (33%).

Some 55% of homeowners under age 50 say they have given serious thought to installing or have already installed solar panels at home. Fewer homeowners ages 50 and older say the same (36%).

The key reasons people cite for considering solar are financial followed by concern for the environment. Among all who have installed or given serious thought to installing solar panels, large majorities say their reasons include cost savings on utilities (92%) or helping the environment (87%). Smaller shares of this group, though still majorities, say improved health (67%) or a solar tax investment credit (59%) are reasons they have or would install home solar panels.

יום חמישי, 27 בדצמבר 2018

America’s wealth gap between middle-income and upper-income families is widest on record


The wealth gap between America’s high income group and everyone else has reached record high levels since the economic recovery from the Great Recession of 2007-09, with a clear trajectory of increasing wealth for the upper-income families and no wealth growth for the middle- and lower-income families.

A new Pew Research Center analysis of wealth finds the gap between America’s upper-income and middle-income families has reached its highest level on record. In 2013, the median wealth of the nation’s upper-income families ($639,400) was nearly seven times the median wealth of middle-income families ($96,500), the widest wealth gap seen in 30 years when the Federal Reserve began collecting these data.

In addition, America’s upper-income families have a median net worth that is nearly 70 times that of the country’s lower-income families, also the widest wealth gap between these families in 30 years.

Wealth is the difference between the value of a family’s assets (such as financial assets as well as home, car and businesses) and debts. It is an important dimension of household well-being because it’s a measure of a family’s “nest egg” and can be used to sustain consumption during emergencies (for example, job layoffs) as well as provide income during retirement. Wealth is different from household income, which measures the annual inflow of wages, interests, profits and other sources of earnings. The data have also shown a growing gap in wealth along racial and ethnic lines since the recession ended.

In our analysis, we categorized families by their household income, after we adjusted their incomes for family size. Middle-income families are families whose size-adjusted income is between two-thirds and twice the median size-adjusted income. Lower-income families have a size-adjusted household income less than two-thirds the median and upper-income families more than twice the median.

This methodology results in 46% of America’s families being classified as middle income in 2013. One-third of families were lower income and 21% were upper income. For a family of three in 2013, a household income of $38,100 qualifies as middle income and $114,300 or greater qualifies as upper income.

The tabulations from the Fed’s data indicate that the upper-income families have begun to regain some of the wealth they lost during the Great Recession, while middle-income families haven’t seen any gains. The median wealth among upper-income families increased from $595,300 in 2010 to $639,400 in 2013 (all dollar amounts in 2013 dollars). The typical wealth of middle-income families was basically unchanged in 2013 — it remained at about $96,500 over the same period.

As a result, the estimated wealth gap between upper-income and middle-income families has increased during the recovery. In 2010, the median wealth of upper-income families was 6.2 times the median wealth of middle-income families. By 2013, that wealth ratio grew to 6.6.

To be sure, the wealth gap between upper-income and middle-income families also widened during the Great Recession. The median wealth of all three income groups declined from 2007 to 2010. But upper-income families were not hit nearly as hard as lower- and middle-income families. Median wealth declined by 17% from 2007 ($718,000) to 2010 ($595,300) among upper-income families. In contrast, middle-income (-39%) and lower-income (-41%) families had larger declines in wealth. The larger losses among middle-income families resulted in the wealth gap between upper- and middle-income families rising from 2007 (4.5) to 2010 (6.2).

The latest data reinforce the larger story of America’s middle class household wealth stagnation over the past three decades. The Great Recession destroyed a significant amount of middle-income and lower-income families’ wealth, and the economic “recovery” has yet to be felt for them. Without any palpable increase in their wealth since 2010, middle- and lower-income families’ wealth levels in 2013 are comparable to where they were in the early 1990s.

It could help explain why, by other measures, the majority of Americans are not feeling the impact of the economic recovery, despite an improvement in the unemployment rate, stock market and housing prices. In October, just one-in-five Americans rated the country’s economic conditions as “excellent” or “good,” an improvement from the 8% who said that four years ago, but far from a cheery assessment. And a new poll released this week found higher-income adults are hearing about better economic news than lower-income adults, with 15 percentage point difference between the two groups on the “good news” they’re hearing about the job situation, for example.

While most American families remain financially stuck, upper-income families have seen their median wealth double from $318,100 in 1983 to $639,400 in 2013. The typical wealth level of these families increased each decade over the past 30 years. The Great Recession did set back the median wealth of upper-income families, but over the past three years these families have recouped some of their losses.

יום שבת, 22 בדצמבר 2018

Most Voters Have Positive Views of Their Midterm Voting Experiences



After record high turnout, most nonvoters wish they had voted

Voters approached the 2018 midterm elections with some trepidation about the voting process and many had concerns that U.S. election systems may be hacked. After the election, however, most say it was “very easy” to vote and confidence in election security has increased.

About three-quarters of those who report casting ballots in the midterm elections (76%) say that voting was “very easy.” In a survey conducted in October, just 44% of those who planned to vote expected that the process would be very easy.

Prior to the election, fewer than half of Americans (45%) were confident that elections across the U.S. would be secure from hacking and other technological threats; 55% said they were not too confident or not at all confident that elections would be secure.

After the election, a majority of Americans (64%) say they are confident that the elections were secure from hacking, though about a third (35%) still have little or no confidence in the security of the elections.

The national survey by Pew Research Center, supported by a grant from the Democracy Fund, was conducted Nov. 7-16 among 10,640 adults, including 8,579 who say they voted in the midterm elections. This survey compares attitudes about the elections and voting process with a survey conducted before the elections (Sept. 24-Oct. 7).

As the pre-election survey found, Americans have more positive views of their local election officials than those who run elections in their states or across the U.S.

Majorities say that poll workers in their community and officials who run elections locally (68% each) did a very good job during the elections.

However, a smaller majority (55%) say the officials who run elections in their state did a very good job, and just 23% give election officials across the United States very high job ratings.

Still, large majorities say both state officials and election officials across the U.S. did at least a somewhat good job. Relatively few (10%) say state officials did not do well, while 18% say the same about officials across the country.

An estimated 50.1% of the voting-eligible population voted in the midterms, according to the United States Election Project, making it the highest turnout congressional election in more than a century. Still, about half of those who were eligible to vote did not do so.

A majority of those who say they did not vote (61%) also say they wish they had voted in the midterms; 38% say they do not wish they had voted.

Asked about some possible reasons why they did not vote, no single factor stands out among nonvoters: 26% say “I don’t like politics” is a major reason they did not vote. Among other major reasons, 21% say they did not think their vote would make a difference; 20% say it was too inconvenient; 19% say they were not registered; 12% say they “didn’t care” who won their local elections for Congress; and 7% say they forgot to vote.
Was voting easy or difficult?

About three-quarters of self-reported voters (76%) say it was “very easy” for them to vote in the November elections. Another 16% say voting was “somewhat easy.” Just 8% say voting was very or somewhat difficult.

Before the election, registered voters who said they planned to vote were somewhat less confident voting would be easy for them personally. In October, just 44% said they expected it to be very easy and 40% said they expected it would be somewhat easy for them to vote.
How voters cast their ballots

The share of the electorate that votes early has increased significantly over the past two decades. This year, the share of voters who report casting their ballots before Election Day (45%) is only 10 percentage points lower than the share that reports voting on Election Day (55%).

Older voters are more likely to report voting early: 54% of those age 65 and older say they voted before Election Day, compared with 44% of those ages 50 to 64 and 38% of those under 50.

White and black voters are more likely to say they turned out to vote on Election Day than beforehand (56% of white voters and 59% of black voters say they voted on Election Day). About half of Hispanic voters report voting on Election Day, while half say they voted early (49% vs. 50%).

A similar share in both parties say they voted early, with 43% of Republicans and Republican leaners and 46% of Democrats and Democratic leaners saying this.

While voting by mail has become more common in recent elections – including in three states where elections are conducted entirely by mail – most voters (73%) still say they cast their ballots in person this fall.

Black voters (85%) are more likely than white (72%) or Hispanic voters (68%) to report having voted in person.

Voters over the age of 65 are the most likely to say they voted by mail, with 35% saying this. Roughly a quarter of those under 65 say they voted by mail.

Three-quarters of Republicans and Republican leaners report having voted in person; a similar share of Democrats (72%) say the same.

There are large differences in how and when Americans vote across regions of the country. Some regions have embraced early voting and voting by mail, while others largely vote in person and on Election Day.

Today, most voters in the Western U.S. (70%) vote before Election Day. By comparison, almost nine-in-ten voters in the Northeast (88%) say they voted on Election Day. In the South, voters are evenly split between voting early or on Election Day, while a majority in the Midwest (68%) voted on Election Day.

Most Americans still vote in person, but in the West that is no longer the norm. About seven-in-ten Western voters (69%) cast their ballots by mail, compared with fewer than two-in-ten in the other regions. (The West contains three states that conduct their elections entirely by mail: Colorado, Oregon and Washington.)

A wide majority of voters say voting was “very easy” for them personally, regardless of how or when they voted.

Overall, 77% of those who voted in person say voting was very easy for them. Slightly fewer of those who report voting by mail say the same (72%). There is little difference between the two groups in the share saying it was difficult.

Voters who cast their vote before Election Day are just as likely as those who voted on Election Day to say the experience was easy: 75% of early voters say it was very easy for them compared with 77% of those who turned out on Election Day.
Many voters said their polling place was not crowded

Most voters who cast ballots in person say that their polling place was not too (28%) or not at all (41%) crowded. About three-in-ten say it was somewhat (24%) or very (6%) crowded.

Younger in-person voters are more likely than others to report that it was crowded when they went to vote. Almost four-in-ten adults under age 30 (37%) say it was crowded, including 13% who say it was very crowded. In contrast, about three-in-ten voters in other age groups say it was crowded.

Though majorities of white, black and Hispanic in-person voters say their polling places were not crowded, Hispanic voters are more likely than white and black voters to report that their polling place was crowded.

Among Hispanic voters, 13% say that when they went to vote it was very crowded. In contrast, 5% of white voters and black voters say their polling place was very crowded.

Roughly half of in-person voters (47%) say they did not have to wait in line to cast their ballots (47%), while a third (33%) say they had a wait of less than 10 minutes. Two-in-ten say they waited in line for 10 minutes or more, including 6% who report having waited for more than a half-hour (1% of in-person voters say their wait exceeded an hour).

Half of whites who voted in person (50%) say they did not have to wait at all to vote. By comparison, black (43%) and Hispanic (39%) in-person voters are less likely to report not having waited at all.

Among black in-person voters, 27% say they waited for at least 10 minutes, including 9% who say they waited over 30 minutes to vote. Hispanic in-person voters report similar wait times (29% say they waited 10 minutes or more, including 9% who waited over a half-hour). A smaller share of white in-person voters report long wait times – 18% say they waited for 10 minutes or more, including only 5% who report waits in excess of 30 minutes.

Similar shares of in-person voters in the Northeast (52%), Midwest (50%) and West (53%) say they did not have to wait in line to vote. Southern voters, however, are somewhat more likely to report having to wait in line. A quarter of Southern in-person voters (26%) say they waited in line at least 10 minutes, including 8% who say they waited over 30 minutes to vote. This is larger than the share of Northeastern (11%), Midwestern (19%) and Western (18%) in-person voters who say they waited in line at least 10 minutes. Within the South, there are no significant differences in reported wait times between white and black in-person voters.

In-person voters in rural areas are more likely than those in suburban and urban areas to say they did not have to wait to vote: 51% say this, compared with 46% of urban and 45% of suburban in-person voters. And while 8% of those in urban areas and 6% in suburban areas say they waited 30 minutes or more; just 4% of those in rural areas say the same.
Few midterm voters say this was their first time voting

Just 3% of self-reported voters in the 2018 election say it was the first time they had ever voted; 97% say they had participated in elections before this year.

However, 27% of midterm voters under age 25 say it was their first time voting. First time voters make up just 5% of voters ages 25 to 29 and 4% of those 30 to 39. Just 1% of those 40 and older say this.

About one-in-ten Hispanic voters (12%) say this was the first election they had participated in; by comparison, just 4% of black voters and 1% of white voters say this.

Among those who cast their ballots for Democratic candidates for the House, 4% were first time voters; 2% of GOP voters say that this was the first time they had voted.
Nonvoters’ reasons for not voting

There are various reasons why nonvoters decide not to vote. Nearly half (49%) say not liking politics was either a major reason (26%) or minor reason (23%) they did not vote.

A similar share (44%) said believing that their vote would not make a difference was at least a minor reason why they did not vote.

About four-in-ten (41%) cite inconvenience as a reason, while 30% say not being registered or eligible to vote was a reason for not voting.

About a third (35%) say not caring who won their district was a major or minor reason for not voting, while 22% cite forgetting to vote as a reason for not casting a ballot.

Among nonvoters who wish they had voted in the midterms, no factors particularly stand out as major reasons for not voting. But nonvoters who do not wish they had voted generally point to disliking politics and skepticism that their vote would matter.

Nonvoters who do not wish they had participated in the congressional elections are significantly more likely than those who wish they had voted to say they did not vote because they do not like politics (45% vs. 14%).

And while a third of nonvoters who do not wish they had voted (33%) say not believing their vote would make a difference was a major reason why they did not vote, only 14% of nonvoters who wish they voted say the same.

However, a little less than a quarter of nonvoters who wish they had voted either say they did not vote due to the inconvenience of voting (23%) or being unregistered or ineligible to vote (22%). In contrast, just 15% of nonvoters who do not wish they voted say the same for each.
Views of election officials

Voters offer highly positive evaluations of election workers – especially those in their local communities – following the midterm elections. Nearly seven-in-ten (68%) say that poll workers in their community and officials who ran elections in their local area did their jobs very well. More than nine-in-ten say they did their jobs at least somewhat well.

While public confidence in local election workers and officials was high in the weeks before the election, voters’ retrospective evaluations are even more positive.

Across the board, voters express more satisfaction with local workers and officials than those at the state and federal level. Still, 89% say their state’s election officials did their jobs at least somewhat well, including 55% who say they performed very well.

And while only 23% say election officials across the country did their jobs very well, an additional 57% say they did at least somewhat well. In contrast to views of local and state officials and workers, evaluations of the performance of election officials across the country are only modestly higher than pre-election confidence levels among the general public.
Confidence in accuracy of the vote count linked to the outcome

Americans are generally confident that votes were counted as voters intended in the November elections. But voters who backed winning congressional candidates in their district are more likely than those who backed losing candidates to express confidence in the accuracy of the vote count.

In districts where GOP candidates for the House prevailed, 65% of Republican voters say they are very confident votes in their community were counted as intended, while 53% of Democratic voters in these districts say the same. And the pattern is reversed among voters in districts where Democratic candidates won: 62% of Democratic voters in these districts say they are very confident in the vote count in their community; 48% of GOP voters in these places say the same.

These differences are not found in voters’ views of the accuracy of the vote count across the nation.
Views of election security

The public expresses considerably higher levels of confidence that the security of the election systems in their state and around the nation were secure from hacking than it did before the election. About three-quarters (77%) say they are very or somewhat confident that their state’s systems were secure from hacking and other technological threats, up 11 percentage points from the share saying this before the election (66%). And while just 45% expressed confidence in the security of systems in the U.S. before the election, more than six-in-ten (64%) now say this.

Confidence has risen among both parties, but the shift is particularly pronounced among Democrats. About three-quarters of Democrats and Democratic leaners (76%) are either very or somewhat confident that systems in their state were secure – a month before the election, just 60% said this. Republicans express even higher levels of confidence in the security of their state’s systems (81% now say this, up from 75% pre-election).

Before the election, just 34% of Democrats said they were at least somewhat confident election systems in the U.S. were secure from hacking and other technological threats. That has risen to 60% following the election.

Among Republicans, 72% say they are confident systems around the country were secure, up from 59% before the election.

Among the 66% of Americans who before the elections said they were very or somewhat confident that state election systems were secure, nearly nine-in-ten (88%) continue to express confidence, while a 60% majority of those who were not too or not at all confident in the security of these systems before the elections now say they are at least somewhat confident they were secure.

Similarly, 86% of those who expressed confidence in election systems across the country in October say they are confident these systems were secure. Among the 54% who were not confident in national election systems before the midterm elections, about half (51%) now say they are confident that election systems in the United States were secure from hacking and other technological threats, while 49% continue to express little confidence in election security around the country.
Democrats more likely than Republicans to see foreign influence in midterm elections

About four-in-ten (38%) Americans say that Russia or other foreign governments definitely (9%) or probably (30%) influenced the congressional elections, while six-in-ten say foreign governments probably (44%) or definitely (16%) did not influence the elections.

In October, about two-thirds (67%) said it was very or somewhat likely that Russia or other foreign governments would attempt to influence the U.S. congressional elections, including roughly a third (32%) who said this was very likely.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say they think there was foreign influence in the congressional elections: 53% say this, compared with 21% of Republicans. This is similar to the partisan divide in expectations before the election, when 80% of Democrats and 53% of Republicans said it was at least somewhat likely that there would be foreign attempts to influence the election.