Allison Bailey/NurPhoto via AP
Fridays for Future protesters demand that the Biden administration cease investment in fossil fuel infrastructure and instead invest resources in renewable energy, April 22, 2022, in Washington.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized some of the data. In the course of processing the raw survey data by GQR, a programming error led the statement pair results to not be displayed correctly. The underlying data are correct, and the results are now updated.
The Russian invasion of a democratic Ukraine, the disruption of Russian oil and natural gas, and an unimaginable spike in gasoline prices have disrupted both global and domestic energy politics. They have done so in completely surprising but understandable and reassuring ways.
Predictably, Russia is reviled in ways we have not seen since the hottest days of the Cold War. In polling, the proportion of respondents viewing Russia negatively reached 72 percent, including 63 percent who were very negative. That was also matched by the polarized and symmetric embrace of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In June, a plurality of 36 percent had warm feelings toward it, though a fifth was not sure. Not now. A 2-to-1 majority feels warmly about NATO. And people also feel significantly warmer about allies like France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
But the war has also brought a series of dramatic and surprising shifts in public thinking about energy and climate change, according to surveys I conducted in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States for the Climate Policy and Strategy project.
More from Stanley B. Greenberg
After the global COP26 conference in Scotland, the public debate moved to whether China and India were on the program of getting to net-zero carbon emissions, and how one dealt with the high cost of transitioning to renewable energy. Some conservatives in Britain, Germany, and the United States raised those issues. And in our January survey in Germany, the new government elected on a climate agenda was getting the most support for helping consumers with their energy bill when the country’s carbon tax came into force, by removing the climate surcharge and shifting the cost onto the federal government.
But now in the United States, the spike in gas prices has led people to believe fossil fuels are the most expensive option. Every day they stare at figures approaching $5.00 and $6.00 a gallon, the highest price ever at the pump, it deepens the consciousness of this cost equation. A majority in my April survey now believe the cost of the transition will not be unacceptably high.
When we asked which concept is “more fundamental,” the “climate crisis” or “energy crisis,” a plurality of 47 percent said the energy crisis. But nearly as many, 43 percent, chose the climate crisis, a surprisingly large number amid high energy prices.
The constant experience of worsening extreme weather events is also changing the calculation. The proportion giving positive reactions to measures to prevent global warming has jumped from 44 percent to 52 percent since last June.
The desire to prioritize the climate crisis also holds for those most likely to vote in a midterm election and in the battleground states and districts.
Some of these surprising changes are explained by America becoming somewhat less polarized on climate change. A big majority of moderate Republicans now believe climate change requires major action and is worth the cost.
Republican leaders rushed into the energy debate with their usual talking points, without recognizing how much had changed in America. When energy prices spiked after the cutoff of Russian supplies, Republicans relished attacking Democrats for their ill-considered energy policies. Democrats, in their arguments, had canceled the Keystone pipeline, prioritized building the new renewable infrastructure, de-emphasized oil and gas projects, and pushed for the closing of coal-fired plants. During debate, Rep. Daniel Crenshaw (R-TX) said, “This week our president asked Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, asked them to boost their output so American consumers wouldn’t see a spike in gas prices.” He continued, “Surely he knows that we can also boost domestic production right here at home.”
The Republicans in practice are telling companies and government to stop listening to the liberal elites on climate change and get back to Donald Trump’s America First agenda of producing all of America’s energy—coal, oil, natural gas, and renewables—to make up for lost time and bad decisions.
But Republican complaints could not be more out of step with where the public and midterm electorate now stands after the cutoff of Russian energy. An intense majority of 52 percent says, “we should use natural gas as a transition to move quickly to cleaner renewable power that addresses climate change and doesn’t have to be imported from unstable countries.” Only 42 percent say instead, “we should exploit our natural gas, coal and oil, as well as renewables to achieve energy security.”
With those very clear priorities, the public then proceeds to some surprising, reasonable, and reassuring answers.
When I asked the public what should happen with the oil and energy companies, an amazing 39 percent said, “use the profits to invest in clean energy to get faster shift away from high-cost fossil fuels.” Only 27 percent said companies should “use the profits to explore for more oil and natural gas.” Only 18 percent chose an excess profits tax to fund tax credits for consumers, my preference and the likely preference of readers of The American Prospect.
When asked what industries the government should support, oil and gas are at the top with 42 percent. But now, in second place is “low-carbon energy technologies, including wind, solar and green hydrogen.” Fully 37 percent want to support that renewable sector. In the midterm electorate and in battleground states, voters put the two at parity.
The public accepts natural gas as necessary to the transition and ranks their views of different kinds of energy companies in rough correlation to their carbon emissions—very positive about nuclear power and natural gas companies, divided on coal, and very negative on oil companies.
POLITICIANS AND ELITES should not underestimate the public.
With Republicans all in with the U.S. oil giants and fossil fuel industry, they could not be more out of step with the public since the Ukraine War.
But why are the Democrats being so defensive? The public has no doubt heard about the White House’s commitment to raise domestic energy production, to make daily releases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and to push U.S. oil exports to one of its highest levels. And the administration chides the oil companies for not using their leases to raise production.
In fact, the public mostly supports the administration’s priorities and agrees with U.S. climate envoy John Kerry when he says that the war in Ukraine will indeed lead to the United States accelerating the transition to renewables. Because “President Putin has tried to weaponize energy,” Kerry said, “we have to move faster to de-weaponize energy anywhere in the world.”
That means moving with speed to clean energy. In fact, Democrats and Biden have a really impressive record in bringing the changes they promised on combating climate change.
So, when liberal and moderate Democrats hear that President Biden and Democrats are “prioritizing climate change across government, positioning America as a global leader in renewables, new technologies and industries”—they put that among their party’s most important accomplishments. The bipartisan infrastructure law included several major actions on climate change. The public applauds the $110 billion investment in repairing roads and bridges to make them more resilient against the impact of climate change and extreme weather events, and upgrading the power infrastructure by building thousands of miles of transmission lines to facilitate expansion of renewables. And they welcome administrative actions, including ending Russian crude oil imports, restoring fuel economy standards, cutting refrigerant super-pollutants by 85 percent, and dramatically reducing the release of methane.
In fact, those measurable steps by the administration were strong predictors of an improved job approval for President Biden on handling climate change, the environment, and the energy transition. This simulated debate raised Biden’s approval overall and in his handling of the economy.
Republicans have relished seeming to put Democrats on the defensive on climate, energy and gas prices, inflation, and energy policy, but it is Republicans who are exposed politically. They draw their support from the American oil giants who have not followed the lead of BP and Shell, who have committed to changing their business model to dramatically reduce carbon emissions.
The details of how to get to the energy transition will surface significant disagreement within the Democratic coalition: how and when to shift away from fracking, how to deal with not-in-my-backyard complaints about solar and wind energy deployment, whether to bring back the manufacturing supply chain on solar panels and other components from abroad, and other factors. But the biggest obstacle to fighting the climate crisis is getting the public engaged in its importance, and that obstacle is being overcome.
Democrats have embarked on an impressive climate agenda that fits very much the public’s hopes during this energy and climate crisis. They should be the party on the front foot in the coming midterm election.
