Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images
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 United States has been hit by four simultaneous global crises that have totally upended our politics, energy policies, and strategic worldview.
Democratic and Republican leaders here have barely accommodated their politics to these changes, but they will not be amused long by the chaos in the United Kingdom. It is very much part of the destructive waves hitting both our shores.
The first crisis was the spike in prices from the disrupted supply chains when countries came out of the pandemic. Second, an energy crisis produced by the war in Ukraine suddenly reduced Russian oil and natural gas supplied to the West. That spiked global oil and natural gas prices. In each country, this has produced spikes in utility bills, electricity, natural gas, home heating, air-conditioning, transport, food, and more.
The third crisis was the climate crisis—the unrelenting extreme weather that started with the out-of-control fires in forest areas in Europe and California. Heat waves and droughts raged across Europe, the United Kingdom, and the Horn of Africa, which faced the worst drought in 70 years. Guatemala and Honduras saw heavy rains and flooding. In China, 360 million people witnessed 104-degree heat, and the Yangtze River Basin experienced the worst drought on record. And Hurricane Ian devastated parts of Florida. Those are just a sampling of the damage of the past few years.
More from Stanley B. Greenberg
Lest you think those are just the observations and experience of climate scientists and liberal Democrats, consider this result in a survey we just completed in the United States last month for the Climate Policy and Strategy Project with 2,000 respondents. We asked them to choose whether “the climate crisis” or “the energy crisis” represents “the more fundamental problem.” In April and now, more people said the climate crisis. That got my attention.
And that new consciousness of the crisis pervades surveys in the United States. An intense majority now says, “climate change is a threat and we need major action to combat it,” and only a small bloc says, “the threat of climate change is exaggerated and the high cost of fixing it may not be worth it.” The majority is even bigger and more intense in today’s likely electorate.
By an almost 20-point margin, people respond positively to the phrase “measures to prevent climate change,” and again, this momentum for government action is even stronger among engaged, likely voters and electoral battlegrounds.
Most observers feel that this new consciousness will stop at the edge of America’s deep partisan polarization. But that is no longer true. Obviously, there are big differences across the partisan and ideological landscape in prioritizing climate change and what policies to pursue, but the climate and energy crises have changed that. Pluralities of conservative Republicans agree that “climate change is a major threat” that needs “major action,” and not something “exaggerated” and “not worth the cost” to address.
Democratic or Republican, these crises have concentrated minds around the fourth crisis, the cost-of-living crisis that hit all countries in the world. Not surprisingly, that is the very top problem voters want government to address.
I will trust the economists and central banks that they have to raise interest rates to keep inflation from becoming embedded, but that is little solace for the great majority of Americans who lived through these successive crises and are being slammed by an 8.2 percent rise in prices and fall in real income this year.
Everywhere else in the developed world, governments are providing dramatic support to deal with rising energy prices in particular. Parties, regardless of ideology, are competing over how much support they will deliver for families, to regulate prices and tax away windfall profits of the energy companies. The disastrous U.K. proposal that cost Liz Truss her prime minister position included a freeze on energy bills.
The United States, by contrast, has barely responded to the cost-of-living crisis. The Republicans argue that inflation was caused by government overspending, particularly the $1,400 each person received in Biden’s American Rescue Plan. Those popular payments, which President Trump enacted too, helped account for the election of two Georgia senators. That may be why Republicans have not yet in our polls gained a significant advantage on which party is better on the cost of living.
The Biden White House has tried to push oil prices down with various measures and welcomed Congress enacting measures to contain health care costs. It has mostly tried to convince people that the economy is stronger than you think. Fortunately, both the White House and House Democrats have chosen to close the midterm election under the banner “Democrats fight to lower the cost of living.”
But both parties have been just deeply out of touch with a country being shaken by these multiple crises.
It means they also missed how these crises mutated the public’s views on energy policy and America’s strategic position in the world.
On the energy side, addressing “climate change, the environment, and energy transition” (at 26 percent) are priorities on the same level with “health care” (28 percent) and “immigration” (28 percent).
You know the debate has been transformed when you ask this question: “Which of these industries would you most want the government to support and champion?” The public now puts “low carbon energy technologies, including wind, solar and green hydrogen” in the same to top bloc along with “oil and gas” and “pharmaceuticals and medical products.” In the United Kingdom and Germany, the low-carbon sector is now the top choice for industrial policy.
Critically, with the high price for a gallon of gas, fossil fuels are now seen as a high-cost option produced by companies reviled by the country. So, when we ask, “which one is the right approach to oil and energy companies during the energy crisis?” the dominant response by far (40 percent) was “use the profits to invest in clean energy to get faster shift away from higher-cost fossil fuels.” Only a quarter said, “use the profits to explore for more oil and natural gas,” and only 15 percent chose an excess profits tax. The public may be unrealistic, but a majority believes the cost of the transformation to clean energy will be affordable or acceptable.
When people survey the landscape of organizations, industries, and countries impacting them, they respond most negatively to oil companies and CEOs of major companies. Only a third respond with warm responses, while almost half view them coolly. The oil companies have emerged as one of the bad actors in this disruptive time. “Excessive profit-taking by energy and oil companies” ranks just below “high global oil and gas prices” and “disruption to supply chains due to pandemic” as reasons for the increased cost of living.
The public gives comparably positive ratings to the Environmental Protection Agency and environmental groups, but also to natural gas companies and nuclear power. If their responses were shaped mainly by their utility bills, natural gas would hardly be seen so favorably. People must be evaluating them in the context of the changing energy picture.
The public is conflicted in its reaction to coal and fracking.
The public gets its most intense response in reaction to Russia. Three-quarters react coolly, 62 percent giving them most intense negative responses. On the other side of the chart is NATO, where reactions are 2-to-1 positive.
The visceral hatred of Russia is a reaction to the war, but also, to the stopping of energy imports. Given how much financial pressure people are under, it is stunning how determined people are to address the climate crisis and how strategic they remain. A firm half of the public says we should use natural gas as a transition and “move quickly to cleaner renewable power that addresses climate change and doesn’t have to be imported from unstable countries.” Only a minority support moving to all energy sources and making climate change a lower priority.
When you look at the results by partisanship and ideology for what America should do after the end of Russian oil and natural gas imports, then you see profound strategic differences. Liberal and moderate Democrats want to “greatly expand investment in wind and solar energy, electric infrastructure and electrification of autos, bus and transport.” Independents do too, though many of them are not sure about what to do.
Moderate Republicans are of many minds, with implications for the years ahead. One in 5 want to greatly expand investments in cleaner energy. One in 10 focus on increasing LNG explicitly for Europe. The biggest bloc—1 in 4—want to “expand U.S. fracking and oil production to reduce gas prices and export more to Europe to replace Russian fuels.” A quarter agree with the dominant response of conservative Republicans. Four in 10 want America to be the world leader in fossil fuels and replace “Saudi Arabia as the biggest energy supplier.”
The Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act that included $369 billion in investments in clean energy. That is meant to reduce carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030. Its most popular elements helped families with those high costs. It gave households tax credits to make their homes more energy-efficient and the transition affordable. And the law gave low- and moderate-income households a $4,000 credit to buy used and up to $7,500 to buy new clean-energy vehicles.
No message was more popular than the one that starts with acknowledging that America faces a cost-of-living crisis, and closes with the following: “It shifts energy use to low-cost renewables and to greater electricity and more energy efficient homes to lower bills for homes.” Yet few Democrats have talked about the cost-of-living crisis, and even fewer have featured this cut in energy bills they passed into law.
It is time for our politics and politicians to catch up with a citizenry that has been shaken by these four crises. They see only greater uncertainty and stress, and worsened financial prospects. And they are looking for leaders and governments who understand all these intersecting crises and act to fundamentally change the direction of the country.
That means an America that is providing families with fundamental supports like those they received during the pandemic and under Biden’s American Rescue Plan. That includes dependable health care subsidies and lower drug costs, the expanded Child Tax Credit and support for child care and home care. The citizenry wants greatly increased investment in the transition to low-carbon energy and oil giants having much less influence. The country wants America to use its unique energy resources and strategic strength to support Ukraine, aid Europe, and defeat Russia.
That would say we are beginning to get on the right path.
