To what degree does political affiliation influence individuals' views on

climate change?

Naima van Tyn

Senior Project Advisor: Ashley Carruth

Abstract
Climate change is the most pertinent issue that the global community faces today. Since
the beginning of the Industrial Age, climate scientists have been aware of the growing threat
human activity poses to the environment. Even now, hazardous weather events and rapidly
changing climates around the world show that this is a current crisis. However, the US public
remains starkly divided in opinion on the existence of climate change itself, as well as whether it
is anthropogenic and what the best solutions are. Disagreement around climate change among the
public stems from the intense polarization of US politics. Political affiliation is the strongest
predictor of climate change opinions, and with such different narratives being pushed by each
party, there is no middle ground from which to build solutions. Without the influence of different
ideologies pulling the country apart, parties and partisans alike can find common ground again.
By reversing or eliminating the cycle of political polarization and tension the US is in, there can
finally be some progress towards solving the climate crisis.

12th Grade Humanities

Warning: The contents of this paper include good and bad news about the global climate

crisis. Viewers: continue reading at your own risk of gaining new perspectives on your climate

change opinions.

Whether or not we want to admit it, it has become increasingly obvious that our earth is

compromised. We are in the midst of a climate crisis and increasing amounts of research reveal

just how desperate the situation is. As the surface of the Earth warms due to increasing amounts

of carbon being dumped into our atmosphere by human activity, global climates are changing

drastically. Ice shelves are losing 1089 trillion kilograms of ice per year (Ayeb-Karlsson et al.)

due to the warming of the oceans. This along with seawater expansion leads to sea levels rising:

“Average sea level rise is predicted to be 24–30 cm by 2065 and 40–63 cm by 2100 relative to

the reference period of 1986–2005” (Climate Change). Not only does this affect ocean

ecosystems, but rising sea levels could displace up to 630 million people globally by 2100

(Ayeb-Karlsson et al.). This is coupled with an increasing number of intense droughts, more

frequent and devastating wildfires (Climate Science), and fluctuations in local weather patterns

that have already started to affect the global population. Scientists agree that these climate

change impacts are due predominantly to human activities (Scientific), so much so that they have

named our current era The Anthropocene Epoch. The Anthropocene is an unofficial era in

Earth’s recent history dating back to when human activity began to significantly impact Earth’s

geology, ecosystems, and climate (National). Thus, climate change is referred to as

anthropogenic, meaning human-caused.

Despite 97% (Scientific) of scientific agreement on the anthropogenic nature of climate

change, our political climate has prevented the same level of agreement among the public. As

2
Hamilton et al. observe, “While the scientific consensus has strengthened, public opinion

remains seriously divided without a clear trend” (2). This stagnation in public concern for

climate change is due to the fact that US politics have become increasingly polarized over the

past few decades. Polarization—the extent to which different political parties are opposed and

the process by which the opposition increases over time—inhibits progress on our nation’s most

controversial topic. Democrats and Republicans have respectively swung further left and right in

party ideology, effectively eliminating any opportunity for consensus/agreement between parties.

And top among the list of controversial issues around which the two parties are further from

agreement today than they were thirty years ago: Climate Change. In fact, individual citizens’

political affiliation is directly related to their stance on climate change. As of now, only 72%

(Yale) of all Americans believe in anthropogenic climate change, let alone that climate change is

a current phenomenon. This paper will thus argue that the way in which political affiliation

dictates individuals’ opinions on climate change not only causes increased societal polarization,

but it also impedes our ability to effectively address the climate crisis.

Part 2: Historical Context and Background

History of the US Political Parties

Modern US politics are defined by two main opposing political parties: the Democratic

Party and the Republican Party. Over the course of a few decades, the two parties have changed

dramatically in ideology and values. Both parties were originally founded in the early to

mid-1800s—the Democratic party in 1828 and the Republican party in 1854. After the

Revolutionary War, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams formed the

Federalist party while Thomas Jefferson formed the Democratic-Republican Party. Soon the

3
Democratic-Republican party gained the most popularity and, after the election of John Adams

over Andrew Jackson, split into the Democratic party (under Jackson) and the Whigs (under

Adams). At this point, the Democrats did not support “big government” but instead pushed for

states' rights and minimal government interference. The Whigs supported the National Bank and

directly opposed the Democrats. In the mid 19th century, the Democratic party split again as the

issue of slavery became a national question: partisans in the North supported localized solutions

while those in the South supported the expansion of western slavery. Eventually, the Whigs as

well as other partisans broke off from each party and formed the Republican party based on an

anti-slavery platform led by Abraham Lincoln.

After the American Civil War and the abolition of slavery, the majority of people living

in the North joined the Republican party and those in the south joined the Democratic party. At

this point, the Republican party began to focus on economic and industrial growth—Republicans

became known as the wealthy party up until the economic crash and the beginning of the Great

Depression in 1928. The current president Republican Herbert Hoover was blamed for the upset

and was directly followed by the election of Democratic Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt

introduced the New Deal, a social program meant to provide immediate economic relief to

Americans in order to pull the US out of the Great Depression (“The New Deal”). This shift

towards more progressive policies was a formative moment for the Democratic party and

transformed it into the more liberal party that exists now. The shift continued, marked by the

more conservative Democrats joining the Republican party. In 1969, Republican President

Richard Nixon was elected. As a Republican, he pushed for climate change policy and enacted

the Clean Air Act in 1970; this ideology shifted dramatically less than a decade after Nixon’s

4
presidency with the election of the more “right leaning” Ronald Reagan, marking the beginning

of the highly conservative ideology that characterizes the modern Republican party (History).

This brings the Democratic and Republican parties to their modern state—opposite

ideologies gradually growing apart. The shift of the ideology that political elites push for has

influenced the opinions of the public in a couple of ways. Not too long ago, the average

Democrat and Republican were fairly moderate, agreeing with policies across partisan lines. As

the parties have distanced from one another, the average partisan has become less moderate.

While it used to be publicly palatable for partisans to have opinions that aligned with both

parties, now the main party ideology has condensed into a set of political stances from which

partisans cannot stray. As a result, partisans rarely consider any information that may lead to an

opinion that is opposite of their party's stance. This is what has brought the US to the state of

intense polarization and political tension that it is in today. Now, public opinion is often divided

on political issues, especially those that are complex and abstract; since the mid-1960s, climate

change has become one of the most politically divisive topics in the US.

Evolution of the Climate Change Discussion

In the beginning of the climate change discussion, it was primarily a topic for the

scientific community. Climate scientists began to recognize climate change as a potentially

hazardous issue during the peak of the Industrial Revolution in the late 1800s and early 1900s. In

1896, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius was the first scientist to present mathematical models

for the way human activities would eventually enhance climate change (Global). In 1938 after

the onset of the Second Industrial Revolution, Guy Callendar, an English engineer of the steam

engine, developed a theory linking the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, mainly from the

5
burning of fossil fuels, would raise global temperatures (Guy). During this time, the general

public was still widely unaware of these findings.

The issue of climate change itself was fully brought to the attention of the public in the

60’s, marking the beginning of the environmental movement. In 1962, Rachel Carson, now

regarded as the mother of the environmental movement, wrote the book Silent Spring which

discussed the negative impacts of the environmental crisis and made individuals think about

humans' relationship to the Earth (History of the Environmental). In 1969, the first astronauts

walked on the Moon, showing the Earth as a “pale blue dot”; one fragile whole. The first Earth

Day soon followed as public attentiveness to the environment grew, followed by groundbreaking

environmental legislation like the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Safe

Drinking Water Act; this was all under the administration of President Nixon.

However, public concern about climate change itself dwindled in the next few decades

while the energy industry became dominated by oil and fossil fuels. The shift in public attention

can be partially explained by the actions of fossil fuel companies; they funded scientists to push

doubt of real climate science into the public in order to protect themselves from responsibility

from the environmental costs of their operations (Oreskes). In 1989, fossil fuel and other

industries formed the Global Climate Coalition to persuade both politicians and the US public

that the “climate science [was] too uncertain to justify action” (Global), despite the fact that their

own internal scientific findings pointed to exactly the opposite. This coalition and other think

tanks appealed to the conservative party and the first cracks in the once united public began to

form as people aligned themselves with one of the opposing sides. As the idea that there were

two viable sides to the issue took hold, the ideology surrounding protecting the environment

became solidly associated with the liberal party, while the conservative party turned towards an

6
economics focused ideology. During the Reagan administration in the 80s, this split took full

effect and it became “the economy vs the environment”, and thus the liberals vs the

conservatives (Palm et al. 885, “The Public and Climate Change”). Media began to report on this

“misrepresentation of climate science… [and] the scientific certainty about human contribution

to the problem” (Egan & Mullin 220) as often as the real scientific research; the resulting

skepticism on of Republican partisans began to grow and solidify throughout the 90s and early

2000s. While the Democratic party pushed for government action, the Republican party

renounced the importance of the issue based on the value of free market economics. This was the

launching point for politics to completely overtake the scientific consensus and polarize public

opinion on climate change, turning the once scientific discussion of climate change into the

modern political debate.

Part 3: Research and Analysis

Formation of Opinions

Social Identity and Group Identity

The Social Identity Theory identifies some of the factors that affect the way individuals

form opinions. The Social Identity Theory explains that the portion of one’s identity derived

from one's perceived membership in an “important” social group dictates the ideology that

individuals adhere to. The phenomenon is also commonly referred to as group identity; the

concept is expanded by the idea that group identity/social identity, “...helps inform opinions and

beliefs that are tied directly to a person's psychological attachment or sense of belonging to a

social group” (Ross et al. 2625). Increased polarization in US politics over the recent years has

led to partisanship being viewed as a social identity rather than simply a political identity. When

7
partisanship is seen as a social identity, in-group bias also comes into play. In-group bias

explains how people form positive feelings and senses of kinship with those with the same

political affiliation (Explainer) and therefore form loyalty not only to party leaders, but to their

fellow partisans. Thus, when there are perceived threats to one's political party, those threats are

often met with defensive behavior regardless of the specific issue at hand (Egan & Mullin 217);

this in turn increases the amount to which the individual identifies with their partisan group. The

more attached one feels to their fellow partisans and the ideology they collectively hold, the

more likely they are to strengthen their place in their partisan group.

When faced with controversial issues, or conflicting data, individuals “look to trusted

ideological media and partisan elites to make sense of the situation” (Ross et al. 2627) instead of

critically consuming credible research. For example, by “ideological media” Ross et al. means

sources like Fox News for conservatives or MSNBC for liberals. By partisan elites, this would

mean accredited newscasters, like popular Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson or Rachel Maddow

from MSNBC as well as elected party officials like governors, current/former Presidents and

Vice Presidents, and candidates for official positions. As partisans turn to these partisan sources

for guidance on politically salient issues, their trust in the viability of said source increases (Egan

& Mullin 216). Partisans commonly view issues, especially those which they have no personal

connection with, through a lens that is “less about policy outcomes and more about their impact

on the fortunes of one’s own party” (Ross et al. 2626) and therefore more readily defend the

stance of their party. Simply put, partisans effectively let their party officials or leaders form their

opinions for them on politically-salient issues. When in the context of politics, social identity

theory and in-group bias lead to increased division among people with opposite party affiliations.

It informs the opinions that people form on certain issues, as well as how they think about people

8
on the opposite side of the spectrum. Other factors like motivated reasoning and the

psychological effects of echo chambers build upon this and solidify the polarization between

partisans.

Motivated Reasoning and Echo Chambers

The Theory of Motivated Reasoning explains how people's opinions become segmented

and relatively unchangeable. Motivated reasoning is the tendency of individuals to seek out and

readily accept information that reinforces preexisting beliefs and reject opposing information

(Ross et al. 2626). When applied to politics, it is when partisans accept information from their

political party and dismiss all information that does not corroborate similar views. Similar to the

described effects of social identity theory and in-group bias, motivated reasoning lends itself to

increased division between partisans of opposite political affiliation. Additionally, it shows why

people’s beliefs become so cemented once they are formed. This in part has to do with how

individuals’ motivated reasoning tendencies coincide with echo chambers. An echo chamber is

an environment where individuals only encounter beliefs and opinions that reinforce their own,

while alternative ideas are not considered (Digital; Political). Political echo chambers, also

dubbed ideological silos, are almost unavoidable for partisans in the US and their prevalence is

one of the main ways that we lose political middle ground. In a political echo chamber, one is

constantly getting affirmation of their views based on their political party’s ideology and rarely

take in contradicting information that could change those views. Echo chambers can be

geographical, social, or through the internet (Political); each have slightly different factors at

play, but still have relatively the same result in terms of people’s behaviors and formation of

opinions.

9
 Before the rise of the internet, the few TV channels available at the time were the primary

sources of news along with print newspapers and the radio. Since there were few ways to get

news, almost everyone got the same information. Therefore, the public was more united in their

understanding of different issues and based their opinions off of the same facts. Nowadays, the

accessibility of the internet to anyone makes it so that anyone can propagate information under

the guise of fact without any credibility or accountability. The diversity of news avenues that are

now available means that not everyone is getting the same information, and therefore online echo

chambers are very common and can have a large effect on one's opinions.

On social media, individuals divide themselves, sometimes unwittingly, as they curate

their feed through following, unfollowing, liking, reposting, etc. (Political), effectively

narrowing the contents of their feed to subject matter that they agree with. Online algorithms

increase this by connecting people with similar ideologies and weeding out content that would

contradict their ideas. When one is always surrounded by the same messaging based on party

ideology, they become even more convinced of their party’s position (Ross et al. 2626) and

readily discount all contradicting opinions. Additionally, the more one interacts with their

respective echo chambers and politics in general, the more prone they are to use motivated

reasoning, thus having more polarized views without any input from contradicting sources

(Political). Moving forward into the discussion of the climate crisis, social identity theory,

in-group bias, and motivated reasoning all play major roles in the formation and solidification of

individuals beliefs about climate change. Before this is addressed, however, it is imperative that

how climate change becomes a political issue is discussed as well as where different parties stand

on the issue.

10
Individual-level Predictors of Climate Change Opinion

Political Affiliation

The nature of the fact that climate change has become a politically charged topic means

that individuals' political affiliation—and thus the party ideology they subscribe to—dictates the

opinions they hold about climate change. As discussed previously, social identity and motivated

reasoning theories explain how US citizens form opinions on complex politically charged issues.

Climate change has become increasingly political thus, people stick to the main ideology of their

political party and only change those opinions to further align them with political elites and other

partisans of the same political affiliation. Generally speaking, the Democratic/Liberal party’s

ideology accepts the idea of human caused climate change and pushes for climate change action

in many forms, one of which being the introduction of the clean energy sector by the

government. On the other hand, the Republican/Conservative party rejects the idea of

anthropogenic climate change and pushes for market-run solutions rather than government

funded (History).

Generally, more than half of the US public believe that human caused climate change is

happening now, about 30% “concede the fact of climate change” but believe in

non-anthropogenic causes, and about 10% do not believe in climate change at all (Hamilton et al.

1). When put in the terms of political affiliation, the Pew Research Center found that, as of 2016,

79% of Democrats vs 15% of Republicans believe in anthropogenic climate change (Palm et al.

883). This divide has tracked with the polarization of ideology along party lines—while

Democrats have become more concerned with climate change, Republicans’ concern has

decreased over time (Ross et al. 2627). These statistics reflect the ideology of each respective

11
party and further show the link between individual opinion and political affiliation and lead to

disagreement not only about the anthropogenic aspect of climate change, but of the issue itself. It

also illustrates how the parties have diverged on the issue of climate change over time; the

changes in party ideology that these opinions mirror are outlined and discussed above.

To understand this divide further, it is necessary to look at the ways individuals receive

partisan messaging. It has been shown that increased attentiveness to political news and public

affairs strengthens one's adherence to their party’s ideology, consistent with the logic of

motivated reasoning (Palm et al. 884). Much of the messaging that is put out through news sites

and social media is shaped by opinion leaders and political elites. The more attentive one is to

news through social media and online reporting sites, the more subject one is to the effects of

echo chambers and thus more likely to narrow their opinions on climate change. Conversely,

those who are less attentive to the “messages being promulgated by the elites'' (Palm et al. 884)

are less likely to accept those messages and the opinions they are pushing.

Another detail that factors into the influence of media on partisans' opinions is political

issue framing. Issue framing refers to how specific phrasing is used to elicit agreement on an

issue from a population; it is additionally used to frame an issue in a way that aligns with a

certain political ideology. As Schuldt et al. explains, “In American politics, partisans routinely

use the power of terms to frame political issues in ways that promote ideologically consistent

attitudes and beliefs” (116). Over the decades, climate change has been referred to as ‘the

greenhouse effect’ and ‘global warming’ as well as climate change. While these terms are often

used interchangeably, it is shown that “these terms may influence beliefs by drawing attention to

certain aspects of the issue at the expense of others” (Schuldt 116). The term ‘global warming’

focuses the attention on temperature increasing, for which skeptics provide rebuttal through

12
evidence of cold winters or storms. The term ‘climate change’ is attached to more general

associations of temperature changes, and can therefore accommodate unusually cold or stormy

weather. However, ‘global warming’ can evoke strong connotations of human causation while

‘climate change’ evokes stronger associations with natural causation (Schuldt et al. 116,

Whitemarsh).

Through a series of surveys and studies, Schuldt et al. discovered that the frame ‘global

warming’ elicits less belief in the existence of anthropogenic climate change than the term

‘climate change’; this is especially prominent for Republicans and much less so for Democrats

and Independents. For example, the results of the study show that 74% of Republicans endorse

the idea that climate change is real when it is referred to as ‘climate change’, while only 67.7%

did so when it was referred to as ‘global warming’ (Schuldt et al. 120). This is relevant because

of how conservative and liberal media sources and think tanks have employed the use of these

terms in order to frame the issue differently. Overall, conservative media and news sources use

the term ‘global warming’ much more than the term ‘climate change’, opposite of liberal media.

This means that the messaging that conservatives are receiving is not only pushing the idea that

anthropogenic climate change is a hoax, but the issue framing is further promoting disbelief and

skepticism.

The influence of general media and news intake is the basis for one of the many ways

that partisans take in political information and biases. When echo chambers are taken into

account, it is clear that the more media a partisan takes in, the more the information is narrowed

into a few ideological messages being repeated. The addition of deliberate issue framing to

further promote skepticism of the existence of anthropogenic climate change for Republicans and

the opposite for Democrats shows how divisive these media messages are. Therefore,

13
attentiveness of partisans to political news sites greatly impacts their opinions and beliefs about

anthropogenic climate change. Without the pervasiveness of these partisan media sources, echo

chambers would be less prevalent and partisans would have more access to unbiased news.

While political affiliation strongly affects partisans’ opinions on climate change through

political officials and elites' influence on news and media, public opinion can also further

polarize their party’s stance. The relationship between public opinion and party stance can be

reciprocal, complicating the idea that individuals simply adhere to party ideology. This returns to

how individuals tend to conform their opinions not only to the ideas pushed by party elites, but

also to their fellow partisans. While this consolidates the majority of partisans’ opinions,

individuals can also push each other to hold more radical ideologies. In turn, elected officials

push policies away from the more moderate ideals in order to gain support from the increasingly

unified and radical public base. In turn more conservative or liberal policies dictate what the

public accepts and believes, encouraging them to then elect more “radical” officials. The article

“Political Polarization and Its Echo Chambers: Surprising New, Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives

from Princeton” gives a clear example of the interaction of public opinion and political officials:

The researchers found that over time, conservative swings in public opinion — which are

typically slightly larger and more prolonged than liberal swings — exacerbate the

self-reinforcement processes for Republican lawmakers, wherein legislators respond to

favorable public opinion by further bolstering their own positions.

It becomes a cycle that increases polarization continually on both sides of the political spectrum.

Meanwhile, antipathy increases between partisans across the political aisle, further erasing any

opportunity for agreement or middle ground.

14
 Studies show that, while political affiliation dictates peoples’ opinions on climate change,

certain demographic factors have lesser but still important implications and effects. The

demographic characteristics that “most strongly and consistently predict climate change

attitudes” are gender, age, and education, as well as race, risk perception, and personal

experiences with natural disasters (Egan & Mullin 215).

Gender

Many studies have shown that women express more belief and concern about climate

change than men do, partially explained by the “well-established findings that women are more

risk averse than men” (Egan & Mullin 215). As Hamilton et al. conclude based on the analysis of

35 US nationwide public opinion surveys, “The CERA/CAFOR odds ratio, 1.213, tells us that

odds favoring now/human response are about 21% higher for women than for men, other things

[i.e. political affiliation, race, age, etc.] being equal” (9). Essentially, women are more likely to

be worried about the risks of climate change than men are and thus exhibit higher belief in the

issue.

Exposure to Climate Change Effects

Other studies have found that individuals who have higher exposure to natural disasters

are more likely to be concerned about climate change (Palm et al. 885, Egan 216). This includes

personal experience with hazardous storms, floods, droughts, or dramatic temperature changes.

This is not necessarily correlated with geographical location because, for example, some coastal

regions experience more storms than others. Additionally, even individuals who live in equally

hazardous areas do not always have the same concern or belief about climate change because

15
prior experience with hazards is what most directly affects an individual's perceived risk

(Elrick-Barr et al.).

Risk Perception

Risk perception has to do with an individual's assessment of the personal risks involved

in a certain situation, in this case worsening of climate change. While exposure to hazardous

circumstances because of climate change is a substantial indicator of individual belief or

concern, not all hazardous natural phenomena are connected to climate change. This, in part, has

to do with how the media portrays natural disasters and how often weather events are connected

directly to climate change. If increasing natural disasters are not continually linked to climate

change, it is difficult for individuals to make the connections between the short and long term,

especially if they do not already believe in climate change (Egan & Mullin 215). This can

explain the effect that daily weather has on individuals' perceptions of climate change. It has

been shown that exposure to warmer temperatures increase belief in climate change/global

warming (while used synonymously here, these are different terms as described above)

substantially, but only for a short duration and therefore not a very robust indicator compared to

other factors (Hamilton et al. 9). The long term and abstract nature of climate change (Egan &

Mullin 214) makes it so that short term changes in belief do not last if they are not connected to

the bigger picture.

Race

High risk perception coincides with race, specifically that specific racial groups,

including Latinx and African Americans tend to perceive themselves at greater risk of climate

16
change disaster than White Americans. This is largely due to climate racism. Climate racism

encompases the idea that lower income communities are disproportionately at risk of

experiencing climate disasters and hazardous side effects of climate change compared to the

amount of emissions and waste that they create (Leiserowitz et al. 4). In the US, the majority of

low income communities consist of Latinx, African Americans, and other people of color;

because racism is so built into US systems, it has become tightly linked with socioeconomic

status as white people are continuously put at an advantage above people of color. This combined

with the fact that those who have more personal experience with hazardous weather are more

likely to believe in climate change, it has been shown that people of color are slightly more likely

to believe in climate change than White Americans (Ballew et al.). Conversely, this means that

those with a higher socioeconomic status, who in the US majority are white, create more waste

and consume more by being involved in the economy, but deal with less of the costs which are

dumped on lower income families. As stated in the article “Which racial/ethnic groups care most

about climate change?”:

Research suggests that people of color may be more concerned than Whites about climate

change because they are often more exposed and vulnerable to environmental hazards

and extreme weather events. One particularly important example is that people of color

are more likely than Whites to be exposed to air pollution. (Ballew et al.)

The film The Human Element, directed by Matthew Testa and starring celebrated environmental

photographer James Balog, gives an example of a low income family of color being exposed to

immense amounts of air pollution and being unable to escape it due to their family’s economic

status. People who are exposed to similar amounts of evidence pointing to human causation of

climate change or hazardous weather events like, “heat waves, extreme weather events, [and]

17
environmental degradation” (Leiserowitz 4) are thus more likely to believe in anthropogenic

climate change and support policy action. Overall, while race has been shown to have a tenuous

direct relationship to climate change opinion, it is still a viable factor when looking at all

individual demographics that could have an effect.

Education x Political Affiliation

While gender, race, risk perception, and personal experience with natural disasters and

pollution have been shown to be semi-reliable indicators of individual climate change opinion,

age and education have been shown to be more closely linked to climate change opinion when

political affiliation is controlled for. When studies are conducted to identify what individual

characteristics impact the opinions people form on climate change, they can control for certain

factors in order to let others come to light. Many studies control for political identity because it

“dominates other background characteristics in predicting individual climate change beliefs”

(Hamilton et al. 10).

In this circumstance, education/knowledge is measured as general education attainment

rather than familiarity with climate change or science itself. Without the interference of other

factors, education should have a positive effect on climate change belief; individuals with a

college degree or higher tend to believe more in now/human climate change than individuals

with a below elementary level education. Based on this, the least educated people should be the

most polarized in climate change opinion, and the most educated have the most agreement

around the issue. However, when the effects of education are looked at in conjunction with the

effect of politicas/political affiliation as one factor (education x politics), the relationship is no

18
longer positive. Hamilton et al. gives a concise explanation of the relationship between education

x politics and climate change belief among partisans:

Among Democrats and Independents, probability of a now/human [belief] rises with

education. Among Republicans, however, this probability slightly declines with

education. Better-educated Democrats and Republicans thus stand farther apart (9).

Thus, agreement with the scientific consensus rises with higher levels of education among

Democrats (and Independents) but decreases with higher education among Republicans. There

are numerous explanations for this relationship; the most supported is the influence of motivated

reasoning. It is suggested that more educated individuals could be more effective “at seeking out

and retaining information that accords with their prejudices” (Hamilton et al. 10) which is in line

with the theory of motivated reasoning. Consequently, assimilation to political affiliation as a

dominant social identity comes into play, the results being contradictory to what was previously

believed about the effect of education on climate change beliefs. As Ross et al. concludes:

Whereas prior to polarization on the issue [of climate change], educational attainment

was associated with concern for the environment and climate change, greater knowledge

is now associated with heightened allegiance to party stances on this issue (2627).

Once again, the immense impact of politics on climate change belief is illustrated by the effect

that it has on the otherwise positive results of educational attainment. This effectively eliminates

the idea of education as a way to change people’s opinions on climate change. If education x

politics does not have a positive effect on individual opinion, the polarizating aspects of political

affiliation would have to be removed from the issue of climate change in order for education to

work as a separate positive factor.

19
Age and the Millennial Generation

Age is another factor that interacts with politics as well as the factor of education x

politics in a specific way. Most general research on this factor shows that older partisans are less

likely to believe in anthropogenic climate change than younger partisans. Age, when not looked

at in conjunction with education and politics, was not shown to be a very strong predictor of

individual belief or opinion. However, more research being conducted concerning the younger

generations has shown a different trend in the relationship of education and belief. For the

millennial generation, studies conclude that the more educated millennial partisan is more likely

to believe in anthropogenic climate change, regardless of political affiliation (Ross et al. 2631).

The new relationship between the millennial generation and the education x politics factor

complicates previous findings about the affects of education and how age may be involved.

One explanation (Ross et al.) for this is that motivated reasoning and social identity

thinking are both less prevalent in this generation. With older generations, higher education leads

to more adherence to party ideology and increased motivated reasoning, as explained by the

prevalence of motivated reasoning and strong effects of social identity/group identity feelings.

With the millennial generation, higher education means less adherence to party ideology and no

increase in motivated reasoning. Consequently, the more educated Republican and Democrat

millennial are both more likely to believe more in anthropogenic climate change than older

partisans of the same political affiliation; therefore millenials are less likely to sway their own

beliefs to adhere to the shared beliefs of fellow party members and thus less prone to social

identity motivated thinking. Additionally, as education increases among millennials, polarization

on the issue of climate change decreases, in contrast to the opposite effect that takes place with

other partisan generations. Consequently, as of 2018 the millennial generation was “the only

20
generation in which a clear majority (65 pergent) says that there is solid evidence of [climate

change] and attributes this primarily to human activity” (Ross et al. 2629).

The trend of education to directly increase belief in anthropogenic climate change among

all millennials has many implications. The first is that, in order to raise belief among this

demographic, the solution would be to educate them and supply knowledge on the issue of

climate change itself. However, because of the behavior of older generations especially, a more

educated general population does not necessarily lead to less polarization and more belief in

anthropogenic climate change overall. The tendencies of the millennial generation could be

explained by the unique qualities of this generation (Ross et al. 2630). Millenials have

experienced the introduction of the internet and social media, resulting in a heightened awareness

of the global community and the “big picture” than previously possible. Because of this

connection to others across the world, this generation has collectively experienced many

challenging world events (for example 9/11 and the Iraq/Afghanistan War) that likely led to

increased empathy for members of their wider community. While older generations have gone

through many formative world events, they were not nearly as aware of the global community as

the millennials and younger generations are today. This presents another potential avenue for

increasing widespread public belief; increasing awareness of not only the global community, but

the ways in which climate change is affecting fellow humans could lead to increased

attentiveness to the reality of the issue. Additionally, if younger generations—Generation Z and

Generation Alpha—follow the same trends as the Millennial Generation, education may also be a

viable way to increase belief in anthropogenic climate change throughout younger partisans.

However, there has been minimal research done on this, and therefore it is hard to draw concrete

conclusions.

21
Proposed Political Polarization Solutions

As clearly demonstrated in this paper, political polarization has restricted the public into

an intense divide about the presence of anthropogenic climate change and the solutions that it

requires. Therefore, creating solutions to political polarization is the first step in enabling the

public to create solutions for climate change itself. This is no easy solution, but it can be broken

down into different solution sectors: changing individual attitudes, media messaging, and the

actions of politicians.

On an individual level, there are a series of choices one can make in order to pull

themselves out of the loop of polarization. The most important things to do are increase

intergroup contact, trade perspectives, and emphasize truth instead of stereotypes and

misinformation. The increase of intergroup contact is based on the contact hypothesis, which

“...suggests that getting to know each other can reduce prejudice between groups” (De-Wit et

al.). Essentially, one needs to consciously break out of geographical and social echo chambers by

surrounding themselves with members of the opposite political affiliation. By doing this, one can

dismantle their own subconscious biases and stereotypes that stop them from seeing the

abundance of similarities between themselves and other partisans. Intergroup mixing then

encourages more empathy between groups and willingness to see other perspectives. One also

has to consciously differentiate between truth and stereotypes; in US politics, the ‘other side’ is

often dehumanized and even demonized based on exaggerated stereotypes. These stereotypes do

not fairly represent the actual population of either political party and breaking through them

allows for more truthful representations of people across the political aisle.

22
 Solutions starting at the news and social media level involve highlighting median

opinions rather than fringe ideologies and emphasizing opinion variation within political parties.

As political polarization worsens, partisans unify their opinions and move away from the

median. In reality, partisans have opinions that range across political boundaries regardless of

affiliation; while polarization has discouraged partisans to vary from the main party ideology, it

is important that people do so. Media representation of the more moderate ideologies as well as

messaging that encourages people to not agree with their party simply out of principle would

diversify the information that partisans are taking in. The less that partisans are exposed to the

idea that they must conform all of their beliefs to a single ideology, the less those individuals will

push the party ideology further away from moderate views. Eventually, this will lead to a

rediscovery of the political middle ground between parties.

Larger solutions starting at the levels of political officials and policies are more complex,

yet still rooted in attainable concepts. Creating systems for voting based on policies rather than

parties, highlighting superordinate identities in the voting base, and re-norming one's own party

through the dismantling of stereotypes and aggressive practices. While our country functions on

the basis of democracy, political polarization has skewed the voting process. Nowadays, people

rarely vote based on policy and more often pay attention to party affiliation. In-group bias pushes

people to accept policies that come from people of their own party and immediately reject

policies that are proposed by the opposite party; this is true even if partisans actually agree with

the policy proposed by another party. The creation of systems that put more emphasis on policies

themselves and remove the political ties to parties could cut across polarization lines; a great

example of this would be to employ referendums as a space for the public to discuss complex

topics. In this political climate, political officials and elites have a lot of sway over their parties;

23
this can be used to decrease political polarization in a couple ways. Firstly, political elites should

work to re-norm their own party. Spreading messaging that discourages animosity towards and

stereotyping of the opposite party changes social norms around what is acceptable in that party.

Individuals' tendencies to conform to their social groups will aid in this process as individuals

change their behavior in order to follow their political group.

These smaller solutions all point towards dissipating political polarization in order to

mobilize solutions for anthropogenic climate change. While the issue is infinitely complex, this

gives the public a concrete place to start.

Part 4: Conclusion and Discussion

In the US, political affiliation being viewed as a social identity when in the context of

anthropogenic climate change has led to increased party sorting by partisans and the alignment of

their views to the main party ideology. The division of public opinion is exacerbated by news

and social media echo chambers which in turn can push politicians to hold less moderate

positions in order to gain support from the more polarized public. For Democrats, this means

stricter policies and regulations mandated by the government to cut back human emissions. For

Republicans, this means denying the influence of human activities on the worsening state of the

climate and pushing for fewer government mandates concerning the issue. The cycle of

divisiveness has caused partisans to view people of the opposite political affiliation with

animosity, creating a partisan gap with little room for moderation. For some issues, very

opposing views are not intractable because they provide logical discourse where complexity

borders on ambiguity. Climate change, however, has been misinterpreted as an opinion based

issue when, in reality, it is based on science and the doubt comes from politics. In this case, the

24
immense polarization on all facets of the issue is detrimental to any progress that could be made

on solutions to the issue. Even those who argue against climate change itself, human causation,

or the political biases that are presented as facts, must realize that the issue does not stop just

because we cannot agree.

Climate change is an ongoing crisis that, in due time, will affect every part of the global

community. Already, communities are suffering from the effects of both human pollution and

increased carbon emissions, and the hazardous weather events that are a result of rapidly

changing climates. Without swift and decisive action directed at eliminating the human factor

and reversing climate change, the future is foreboding. But without some way to form solutions

that both parties can agree on, this action will not happen. Therefore, counteracting the

accelerating polarization of US politics is critical to moving towards a solution. By attacking

polarization through the changing the actions of individuals, the media, and political elites,

improvement of our political sphere can be achieved. These smaller solutions go hand in hand

with generally spreading more awareness about climate change as well as the highly influential

role that politics play in individuals' opinions on the issue. The more non-partisan factual

information that is provided about anthropogenic climate change and political polarization, the

more aware all partisans can be aware of the issue and why they hold the opinions they do. If the

use of middle ground is highlighted, the playing field of climate change action could be shifted

and the US could finally resume the climate change action that was started before political

polarization got in the way.

When one looks beyond the scope of themselves and takes in the big picture through

space and time, all global citizens stand as one. One with the power to tip the scales and save our

one and only Earth. “It starts with the people. It starts with facing the reality of the situation as

25
uncomfortable as it may be. It starts with taking action, and it starts now” (Greta Thunberg

Youth4Climate Conference Speech).

26
 Works Cited

Ayeb-Karlsson, Sonja., et al. “The Impact of Rising Sea Levels on Mass Migration.” World

Economic Forum,

www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/migration-rising-sea-levels-climate-change-ocean-en

vironment-poeple-movement/.

Ballew, Matthew et al., “Which Racial/Ethnic Groups Care Most about Climate Change?” Yale

Program on Climate Change Communication, 30 June 2020,

https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/race-and-climate-change/.

“Climate Change.” United Nations, United Nations,

www.un.org/en/global-issues/climate-change.

“Climate Science Special Report: Droughts, Floods, and Wildfire.” Droughts, Floods, and

Wildfire - Climate Science Special Report, www.science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/8/.

De-Wit, Lee, et al. “What Are the Solutions to Political Polarization?” Greater Good,

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/what_are_the_solutions_to_political_polariz

ation.

“Digital Media Literacy: What Is an Echo Chamber?” GCFGlobal.org,

https://edu.gcfglobal.org/en/digital-media-literacy/what-is-an-echo-chamber/1/.

Egan, Patrick J., and Mullin, Megan. “Climate Change: US Public Opinion.” Annual Review of

Political Science, vol. 20, no. 1, 2017, pp. 209–227.,

doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051215-022857.

Elrick-Barr, Carmen E., et al. “Perceptions of Risk among Households in Two Australian Coastal

Communities.” Geographical Research, Wiley, 20 Apr. 2015,

www.osti.gov/pages/servlets/purl/1265516.

27
“Explainer: Political Polarization in the United States.” Facing History and Ourselves,

www.facinghistory.org/educator-resources/current-events/explainer/political-polarization-u

nited-states.

Global Warming Timeline, https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm.

“Guy Callendar, the Man Who Discovered Global Warming in 1938.” Medium, Our Changing

Climate, 6 Oct. 2021,

https://medium.com/our-changing-climate/guy-callendar-the-man-who-discovered-global-

warming-in-1938-a322626c8a74.

Hamilton, Lawrence C., et al. “Tracking Public Beliefs About Anthropogenic Climate Change.”

Plos One, vol. 10, no. 9, 2015, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138208, 30 Sept. 2015.

“History of the Democratic and Republican Parties .” USA i Skolen, 20 Jan. 2021,

https://dk.usembassy.gov/da/youth-education-da/the-american-political-system/history-of-t

he-democratic-and-republican-parties/.

“History of the Environmental Movement.” American Archive of Public Broadcasting,

https://americanarchive.org/exhibits/climate-change/history.

Leiserowitz, Anthony & Akerlof, Karen. (2010) “Race, Ethnicity and Public Responses to

Climate Change” Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale

Project on Climate Change.

https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2010_04_Race-Ethn

icity-and-Public-Responses-to-Climate-Change.pdf

National Geographic Society. “Anthropocene.” National Geographic Society, 5 June 2019,

www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/anthropocene/.

Oreskes, Naomi, and Erik M. Conway. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists

28
 Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoking to Global Warming. Bloomsbury,

2010.

Palm, Risa, et al. “What Causes People to Change Their Opinion about Climate Change?”

Annals of the American Association of Geographers, vol. 107, no. 4, 2017, pp. 883–896.,

doi:10.1080/24694452.2016.1270193, Oct. 2016.

“Political Polarization and Its Echo Chambers: Surprising New, Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives

from Princeton.” Princeton University, The Trustees of Princeton University,

www.princeton.edu/news/2021/12/09/political-polarization-and-its-echo-chambers-surprisi

ng-new-cross-disciplinary.

Ross, Ashley D., et al. “Polarization of Climate Change Beliefs: The Role of the Millennial

Generation Identity.” Social Science Quarterly, vol. 100, no. 7, 2019, pp. 2625–2640.,

doi:10.1111/ssqu.12640, Dec. 2019.

“Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate Is Warming.” NASA, NASA, 18 Jan. 2022,

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/.

The Human Element. Directed by Matthew Testa, Earth Vision Film Production, 2018.

“The New Deal.” Social Welfare History Project, 14 Sept. 2020,

https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/great-depression/the-new-deal/.

The Public and Climate, Cont., https://history.aip.org/climate/public2.htm.

Whitemarch, Lorraine. “What’s in a name? Commonalities and differences in public

understanding of ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’.” Public Understanding of

Science.

“Yale Climate Opinion Maps 2021.” Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, 23 Feb.

2022, www.climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us/.

29