Despite the presidential candidate’s history of climate change denial, a majority of Donald Trump voters actually believe global warming is real and man-made.
The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.— Donald J. Trump (@Donald J. Trump)1352229352.0
The survey, conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, found that 56 percent of people supporting Trump in the 2016 race think global warming is real. On the Democrat side, more than 90 percent of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton supporters believe in climate change.
- With the exception of Ted Cruz voters, most supporters of the Democratic and Republican candidates think global warming is happening (Sanders: 93 percent, Clinton: 92 percent, Kasich: 71 percent, Trump: 56 percent). By contrast, fewer than half of Ted Cruz supporters—38 percent—think global warming is happening.
- Supporters of the Democratic candidates are much more likely to think global warming is caused mostly by human activities (79 percent of Sanders supporters and 76 percent of Clinton supporters). Supporters of the Republican candidates are more likely to think it is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment (60 percent of Cruz supporters and 55 percent of Trump supporters) or are divided on the issue—49 percent of Kasich supporters think global warming is mostly caused by humans, 46 percent think it is mostly caused by natural changes.
- Fewer than half of any candidate’s supporters are aware that virtually all climate scientists have concluded human-caused global warming is happening. However, supporters of the Democratic candidates are the most likely to think at least 90 percent of climate scientists are convinced (Sanders: 38 percent, Clinton: 27 percent). Far fewer supporters of the Republican candidates understand the scientific consensus (Kasich: 11 percent, Trump: 3 percent, Cruz: 2 percent).
- When asked how worried they are about global warming, a majority of Clinton (83 percent) and Sanders supporters (80 percent) say they are very or somewhat worried about it. Fewer than half of the Republican candidates’ supporters are very or somewhat worried about global warming. Kasich supporters are the most likely to say they are worried (nearly half—44 percent), followed by about one in three Trump supporters (35 percent) and about one in six Cruz supporters (17 percent).
- Supporters of all Democratic and Republican candidates—except Cruz—are more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who strongly supports taking action to reduce global warming.
- Conversely, supporters of all Democratic and Republican candidates—except Cruz—are less likely to vote for a presidential candidate who strongly opposes taking action to reduce global warming.
- While very few voters say global warming will be the most important issue to them when picking a candidate to vote for this year (2 percent), about half (49 percent) say it will be among several important issues. Supporters of the Democratic candidates are most likely to say it will be among several important issues (Sanders: 74 percent, Clinton: 70 percent). By contrast, fewer than half of the Republican candidate supporters say the same (Kasich: 42 percent, Cruz: 33 percent, Trump: 30 percent).
- Among the issues voters say will influence their vote for President in 2016, global warming ranked 5th in importance of the 23 issues asked about among Sanders voters (59 percent say it is “very important”) and 11th highest for Clinton supporters (51 percent say it is “very important”).
- By contrast, supporters of the Republican candidates are least likely to say global warming is very important to them among the 23 issues (Trump: 18 percent, Kasich: 13 percent, Cruz: 13 percent).
- About half of Sanders and Clinton supporters would be willing to join—or are currently participating in—a campaign to convince elected officials to take action to reduce global warming (51 percent and 47 percent, respectively). By contrast, fewer than one in five supporters of the Republican candidates would be willing to do so (Kasich: 17 percent, Trump: 16 percent, Cruz: 11 percent).
- Registered voters support a broad array of energy policies, including many designed to reduce carbon pollution and dependence on fossil fuels and to promote clean energy. The Democratic candidates’ supporters are the most likely to strongly or somewhat support such policies, but supporters of the Republican candidates do as well, including: Funding more research into renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power (Sanders: 93 percent, Clinton: 91 percent, Kasich: 86 percent, Trump: 76 percent, Cruz: 64 percent); providing tax rebates to people who purchase energy-efficient vehicles or solar panels (Sanders: 94 percent, Clinton: 92 percent, Kasich: 80 percent, Trump: 70 percent, Cruz: 59 percent).
- At least half of supporters of all candidates except Cruz also would support: Regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant (Clinton: 91 percent, Sanders: 87 percent, Kasich: 74 percent, Trump: 62 percent, Cruz: 47 percent); requiring fossil fuel companies to pay a carbon tax and using the money to reduce other taxes such as income taxes by an equal amount (Sanders: 88 percent, Clinton: 85 percent, Kasich: 53 percent, Trump: 51 percent, Cruz: 27 percent).
- Most Sanders and Clinton supporters (90 percent and 87 percent, respectively) and over half of Kasich voters (61 percent) support setting strict carbon dioxide emission limits on existing coal-fired power plants to reduce global warming and improve public health, even if the cost of electricity to consumers and companies would likely increase. Half of Trump supporters do as well (50 percent). By contrast, only 36 percent of Cruz supporters agree.
- Most Sanders and Clinton supporters (90 percent and 76 percent, respectively) and over half of Kasich voters (61 percent) think the U.S. should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of what other countries do. About half of Trump supporters agree (49 percent), but only four in 10 Cruz supporters (40 percent) do.
For a deeper dive: Huffington Post, Grist
For more climate change and clean energy news, you can follow Climate Nexus on Twitter and Facebook, and sign up for daily Hot News.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Bill McKibben: It’s Time to Turn Up the Heat on Those Who Are Wrecking Planet Earth
Koch Brothers Struggle to Block Climate Action in State Legislatures
An Open Letter to Charles Koch: Join Us in the Push Toward a Clean Energy Economy
Watch Jimmy Kimmel Slam Sarah Palin for Her Part in Climate Hustle
In a new study, my colleagues Anisha Patel, Francesca Weaks and I estimate that approximately 61.4 million people in the U.S. did not drink their tap water as of 2017-2018. Our research, which was released in preprint format on April 8, 2021, and has not yet been peer reviewed, found that this number has grown sharply in the past several years.
Other research has shown that about 2 million Americans don't have access to clean water. Taking that into account, our findings suggest that about 59 million people have tap water access from either their municipality or private wells or cisterns, but don't drink it. While some may have contaminated water, others may be avoiding water that's actually safe.
Water insecurity is an underrecognized but growing problem in the U.S. Tap water distrust is part of the problem. And it's critical to understand what drives it, because people who don't trust their tap water shift to more expensive and often less healthy options, like bottled water or sugary drinks.
I'm a human biologist and have studied water and health for the past decade in places as diverse as Lowland Bolivia and northern Kenya. Now I run the Water, Health, and Nutrition Laboratory at Pennsylvania State University. To understand water issues, I talk to people and use large datasets to see whether a problem is unique or widespread, and stable or growing.
An Epidemic of Distrust
According to our research, there's a growing epidemic of tap water distrust and disuse in the U.S. In a 2020 study, anthropologist Sera Young and I found that tap water avoidance was declining before the Flint water crisis that began in 2014. In 2015-2016, however, it started to increase again for children.
Our new study found that in 2017-2018, the number of Americans who didn't drink tap water increased at an alarmingly high rate, particularly for Black and Hispanic adults and children. Since 2013-2014 – just before the Flint water crisis began – the prevalence of adults who do not drink their tap water has increased by 40%. Among children, not consuming tap has risen by 63%.
To calculate this change, we used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a nationally representative survey that releases data in two-year cycles. Sampling weights that use demographic characteristics ensure that the people being sampled are representative of the broader U.S. population.
Racial Disparities in Tap Water Consumption
Communities of color have long experienced environmental injustice across the U.S. Black, Hispanic and Native American residents are more likely to live in environmentally disadvantaged neighborhoods, with exposure to water that violates quality standards.
Our findings reflect these experiences. We calculated that Black and Hispanic children and adults are two to three times more likely to report not drinking their tap water than members of white households. In 2017-2018, roughly 3 out of 10 Black adults and children and nearly 4 of 10 Hispanic adults and children didn't drink their tap water. Approximately 2 of 10 Asian Americans didn't drink from their tap, while only 1 of 10 white Americans didn't drink their tap water.
When children don't drink any water on a given day, research shows that they consume twice as many calories from sugary drinks as children who drink water. Higher sugary drink consumption increases risk of cavities, obesity and cardiometabolic diseases. Drinking tap water provides fluoride, which lowers the risk of cavities. Relying on water alternatives is also much more expensive than drinking tap water.
A4: Choosing to drink fluoridated tap water over sugar-sweetened beverages to quench thirst is vital to protecting… https://t.co/3tm8wuWjeZ— Oral Health Watch (@Oral Health Watch)1600795750.0
What Erodes Trust
News reports – particularly high-visibility events like advisories to boil water – lead people to distrust their tap water even after the problem is fixed. For example, a 2019 study showed that water quality violations across the U.S. between 2006 and 2015 led to increases in bottled water purchases in affected counties as a way to avoid tap water, and purchase rates remained elevated after the violation.
The Flint water crisis drew national attention to water insecurity, even though state and federal regulators were slow to respond to residents' complaints there. Soon afterward, lead contamination was found in the water supply of Newark, New Jersey; the city is currently replacing all lead service lines under a legal settlement. Elsewhere, media outlets and advocacy groups have reported finding tap water samples contaminated with industrial chemicals, lead, arsenic and other contaminants.
Many other factors can cause people to distrust their water supply, including smell, taste and appearance, as well as lower income levels. Location is also an issue: Older U.S. cities with aging infrastructure are more prone to water shutoffs and water quality problems.
It's important not to blame people for distrusting what comes out of their tap, because those fears are rooted in history. In my view, addressing water insecurity requires a two-part strategy: ensuring that everyone has access to clean water, and increasing trust so people who have safe water will use it.
Chart: The Conversation / CC BY-ND. Source: AWWA / Morning Consult. Get the data
Building Confidence
As part of his proposed infrastructure plan, President Joe Biden is asking Congress for $111 billion to improve water delivery systems, replace lead pipelines and tackle other contaminants. The plan also proposes improvements for small water systems and underserved communities.
These are critical steps to rebuild trust. Yet, in my view, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should also provide better public education about water quality testing and targeted interventions for vulnerable populations, such as children and underserved communities. Initiatives to simplify and improve water quality reports can help people understand what's in their water and what they can do if they think something is wrong with it.
Chart: The Conversation / CC BY-ND. Source: AWWA / Morning Consult. Get the data
Who delivers those messages is important. In areas like Flint, where former government officials have been indicted on charges including negligence and perjury in connection with the water crisis, the government's word alone won't rebuild trust. Instead, community members can fill this critical role.
Another priority is the 13%-15% of Americans who rely on private well water, which is not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. These households are responsible for their own water quality testing. Public funding would help them test it regularly and address any problems.
Public distrust of tap water in the U.S. reflects decades of policies that have reduced access to reliable, safe drinking water in communities of color. Fixing water lines is important, but so is giving people confidence to turn on the tap.
Asher Rosinger is an assistant professor of biobehavioral health, anthropology, and demography and director of the Water, Health, and Nutrition Laboratory at Penn State University.
Disclosure statement: Asher Rosinger receives funding from the National Science Foundation on an unrelated project. This work was supported by the Ann Atherton Hertzler Early Career Professorship funds, and the Penn State Population Research Institute (NICHD P2CHD041025). The funders had no role in the research or interpretation of results.
Reposted with permission from The Conversation.
- Life-Saving Drinking Water Disinfectants Have a 'Dark Side ... ›
- Tap Water Safety: There's Good News and Bad News - EcoWatch ›
- How Healthy Is America's Public Health Infrastructure? - EcoWatch ›
- 170 Million Americans Drink Radioactive Tap Water - EcoWatch ›
- Report: 64% of Bottled Water Is Tap Water, Costs 2000x More ... ›