Do voters care about climate change? How going green divides this election

(WASHINGTON) — As voters prepare to head to the polls in November, inflation, foreign policy and reproductive rights have dominated the national conversation, with environmental policy failing to emerge as a major ballot issue.

But with climate change fueling more damaging and deadly weather events, experts question if the effects of global warming have fallen victim to over-politicization on the national stage.

“There’s no innate reason that addressing climate change should be a partisan issue, but unfortunately, it has become one,” Gregory Dotson, former chief counsel of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and current environmental law professor at the University of Oregon, told ABC News.

“This is an extremely consequential election with regard to climate change,” Dotson added.

National polls from the Pew Research Center released in Feb. 2024, found that Americans on both sides of the political aisle rank climate change initiatives as a far lower policy priority than other ballot issues.

Between party lines, however, Democrats are substantially more likely than Republicans to prioritize protecting the environment (63% vs. 23%) and dealing with climate change (59% vs. 12%), according to the survey.

Still, these findings may underestimate the public’s support for climate initiatives despite not being a top voting priority.

“The large majority of Americans would prefer government action on climate change, but that doesn’t mean that they prioritize the issue when they’re going into their polling place and voting,” Nathaniel Stinnett, executive director of the Environmental Voter Project, told ABC News.

Stinnett referred to the general public’s concern over environmental issues as “a mile wide and an inch deep,” meaning there is general awareness, but it’s not pushing the needle one way or the other politically.

The campaign for the White House this election sees Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz on the Democratic ticket and former President Donald Trump and Ohio Sen. JD Vance as the Republican nominees.

Among the several issues that contrast the parties is their approach to climate.

Trump and Vance have been vocal about domestic oil production on the campaign trail, vowing to reverse clean energy projects “on day one” and denouncing the Green New Deal as a “scam.”

Trump claimed at the Republican National Convention in July that an increased domestic production of oil and gas would lead to a “large-scale decline in prices,” for Americans at the gas pump.

The U.S. averaged a record-breaking 12.9 million barrels of crude oil production per day in 2023 under President Joe Biden’s tenure, breaking the previous global record set in 2019 under Trump’s leadership, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

“We can look at what the previous administration did on environmental policy, and they did not think this is something that was important and worth addressing,” Dotson said of Trump’s administration.

Trump has said his motivation behind withdrawing from climate initiatives, such as the Paris Climate Accord, is driven by economic needs and the push for energy independence.

“If Vice President Harris wins, I don’t think you would anticipate major changes, major reversals to address climate change,” Dotson added, specifically referencing the Inflation Reduction Act, which offers funding, programs and incentives to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy.

Harris and her newly announced running mate, Walz, bring a history of progressive environmental measures to the race, with nonprofit climate groups dubbing the Democratic nominees a “winning ticket on climate.”

As a U.S. senator, Harris was an early co-sponsor of the Green New Deal and in 2019, as a candidate for president, Harris unveiled a plan to spend $10 trillion to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with a goal of getting to a zero-emissions economy by 2045.

As governor, Walz has pushed for climate action and growth in renewable energy. In 2019, he signed an executive order calling climate change an “existential threat,” and in 2023, he championed a budget bill requiring Minnesota to reach 100% of electricity from carbon-free resources by 2040.

In the countdown to the election, wildfires are raging across the West, tropical storms have threatened the East and unprecedented temperatures are affecting much of the nation.

The frequency and severity of these weather events are increased by the rise in greenhouse gas emissions, primarily through the burning of coal, natural gas and oil. The U.S. is the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases after China.

“There is nothing that’s going to affect people’s health, livelihood and safety more than environmental issues,” Paul Anastas, a professor in Yale University’s School of the Environment and former chief scientist in the Environmental Protection Agency, told ABC News.

“That is not the way it’s being addressed publicly, but I think it needs to be,” Anastas added, maintaining that if climate change were characterized as a health and safety issue, it wouldn’t be as divisive among party lines.

Anastas, who co-founded the Green Chemistry Institute and has won the Nobel Prize for his work in sustainability, fears that the conversation surrounding climate change is missing an integral piece – the solutions.

If the country is going to transition to clean energy, Anastas believes the existing oil and gas infrastructure is the best fit to make that a reality.

His work includes research on producing green hydrogen and alternate, nonpolluting ways to produce sustainable aviation fuels with carbon dioxide.

“No one has the infrastructure today better to make and transport that hydrogen than the oil and gas industry,” Anastas said. “The people who are making money off causing the problem are probably going to need to make money off advancing the solution,” he added.