Americans Just Voted Against the Climate – What Happened?

Photo by Adam Clark

Some tools from a sociologist (and dinosaurs) to help us understand 

Many of us who worry about current and pending impacts from climate change held our breaths knowing the US Presidential election result could either propel us forward – or backward – on climate policy. Now, we are reeling in the wake of the second election of Donald Trump, a politician who has made very clear his stance on addressing impacts of climate change… “who the hell cares”?

Well, who does care? According to a decade of opinion polling from the Yale Center for Climate Change Communication, 58% of Americans believe climate change is happening and is caused by human activity. Further, 55% of Americans stated they thought global warming should be a priority of the next President and Congress. While this represents a majority, that leaves a good portion of the country that either isn’t concerned about global warming or they think many other issues rank higher on the priority list. So on climate alone it’s not necessarily surprising.

How did we get to a place where Americans are so divided on climate? How can communities and people across the nation have such polarized views on something that is not only well established as a scientific fact, but that also has such great consequences for all of humanity? 

There are many answers to these questions, and many smart people have tried to make sense of 1) why Trump won (see here and here and here), and 2) why more Americans don’t care about or vote for the climate (see here and here). Certainly we cannot overlook the role of inflation, media distortion, declining trust in experts, and the rise of populism … but there’s more to it. I’m here to offer, in addition, some tools from social theory and from my research on public perceptions of energy, climate, and decarbonization.

First, I want to discuss the human tendency called motivated reasoning, which shapes how we form attitudes on issues like climate change. This is a cognitive and social process where we seek out information to fit our preferred conclusions, called confirmation bias. As a result, the same information can be presented to two different individuals, but lead to vastly different conclusions.

We favor conclusions that align with our existing beliefs to avoid being wrong and to maintain social belonging. Humans are wired to prioritize group identity, so we often adopt views that match our social circles, even if it means ignoring conflicting evidence. Some scholars also discuss how we live in our own self-made ‘bubble’ and create media ‘echo chambers’ for ourselves.

This highlights why the information deficit model is often seen as an inadequate explanation for American polarization over climate change. It’s not that people don’t have enough information about climate change – we have oodles of information, more than ever before. It’s that we perceive this information differently. 

Back in 2016 I was conducting my dissertation fieldwork in rural Utah, this consisted partly of interviewing residents and workers in declining fossil fuels communities. In one such community, I found myself 1,200 feet underground in a coal mining tunnel, talking to coal miners about their perceptions of climate change and decarbonization. As they gave me a tour of the tunnels, one miner pointed at the ceiling. At first I didn’t know what I was looking for, then my headlamp found it – a footprint, large and obvious, with three forward pointing toes, like a gigantic chicken foot – it was a fossilized footprint left by a dinosaur. The fossil struck me as a dire reminder – a warning – of how precarious life is and how big the consequences can be if big Earth systems are thrown out of whack.

Later, sitting in a miner’s living room (where fossilized footprints adorned his garden), I asked what these ancient traces of extinct species meant to them in the context of climate change. He said, “It tells me climate change has been happening for a long time….it’s a natural part of living on our planet. And, sometimes, species go extinct.” 

This was a person who spent a lifetime outdoors, weekends hunting, snowmobiling in winter – he told me that winters were cooler and summers were hotter and dryer now. But he didn’t believe we needed to stop burning fossil fuels. He had all sorts of reasons why climate scientists shouldn’t be trusted and environmentalists wanted to shut down the coal mines – and these reasons had nothing to do with climate change.

I can imagine this miner’s identity was also a factor in his views. He identified as a coal miner – a profession that spanned generations in his family and formed the economic backbone of his community. Through my research, I learned that there is also a level of cultural dependence on fossil fuels that go beyond just economic dependence. This is known as community economic identity and is thought to be a strong force underlying individuals’ views about energy and climate. I’ve found strong quantitative associations across the country between having high economic dependence on fossil fuels and lower support for decarbonization policies because they threaten the very identity of many individuals – individuals who had been told their whole lives that their community was important for providing the reliable, cheap electricity that built America.

Community economic identity is useful in understanding climate change attitudes in the context of mining, timber, and other extractive communities, but these professions alone don’t fully account for broader political trends, such as Trump’s reelection or opposition to climate policies. So next we turn to the role of values.

Values are the enduring beliefs that shape our actions and opinions on issues like climate change, abortion, and taxes. The value of these issues vary across individuals and groups—for instance, altruistic values focus on others’ well-being, while traditional values prioritize social order, stability, and authority.

One thinker I like a lot —Thomas Heberlein, uses a river metaphor to explain how values are at play and where leverage points lie in promoting more public action on climate and environment. He says values and attitudes are like the rocks in the rapid, and “Trying to solve environmental problems by changing attitudes is a little like packing dynamite on a canoe trip and trying to blow up every rock in your way.” Instead, you have to learn to read the rapids so you don’t flip your boat. And then if you can change the flow of the water— in this case, social norms, policies, and incentives— the rapid is more manageable making progress achievable.

Last, I want to point out that scientists suggest we have a ‘finite pool of attention’ for threats. Even if we value climate action, stress from more immediate concerns often pushes climate change to the back burner. And unfortunately, while over half of Americans agree it’s a problem, it continuously ranks much lower in priority than other national issues. This suggests until Americans’ primary needs are met, climate change may not get the attention—and action—it deserves.

In conclusion, to bridge this divide, we must first recognize the intricate ways individuals shape their beliefs and the broader social frameworks influencing these perspectives. This means truly listening to our neighbors and family by fostering empathy, and valuing questions as much as answers. At the same time, we shouldn’t shy away from sharing our own truths, including our concerns about climate change. By engaging in thoughtful dialogue we can build human connections beyond politics, allowing us to find common ground, cultivate trust, and work together toward a unified response to the climate crisis.

Education is a powerful starting point for meaningful climate conversations. POW’s Climate Advocate’s Guidebook offers a wealth of resources—including books, podcasts, and films—that not only deepen your understanding of climate science but also equip you with practical strategies for discussing these critical issues. The guidebook will empower you to have these important conversations, build connections, and find common ground with others.

Author: Shawn Hazboun

Shawn Hazboun is an Assistant Professor in the School of Public Policy at Oregon State University. She is an environmental and natural resource sociologist whose research examines community impacts and public perceptions of energy systems, fuel extraction, and transition to a carbon-free future.