《未来资源研究所(RFF)：气候洞察2024：美国气候政策观点报告（英文版）（21页）.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《未来资源研究所(RFF)：气候洞察2024：美国气候政策观点报告（英文版）（21页）.pdf（21页珍藏版）》请在三个皮匠报告上搜索。

1、Climate Insights 2024|American Climate Policy OpinionsAAmerican ClimateJon A.Krosnick and Bo MacInnisReport 24-15Policy OpinionsClimate Insights 2024|American Climate Policy OpinionsiJon A.Krosnick is a social psychologist with a PhD from the University of Michigan who does research on attitude form

2、ation,change,and effects;psychology of political behavior;and survey research methods.He is the Frederic O.Glover Professor in Humanities and Social Sciences and Professor of Communication,Political Science,and Psychology at Stanford University,where he directs the Political Psychology Research Grou

3、p.Krosnick has authored ten books and more than 210 articles and chapters,in addition to op-ed essays.He is the winner of the Nevitt Sanford Award for his work in political psychology and the American Association for Public Opinion Research award for his work on survey research methods and public op

4、inion.He is a university fellow at Resources for the Future.Bo MacInnis is an economist with a PhD from the University of California at Berkeley.Her research focuses on climate change and survey research methods.She is a lecturer in the Department of Communication,and regularly collaborates with Dr.

5、Krosnick on climate change research.About the AuthorsAbout RFFAbout the ProjectResources for the Future(RFF)is an independent,nonprofit research institution in Washington,DC.Its mission is to improve environmental,energy,and natural resource decisions through impartial economic research and policy e

6、ngagement.RFF is committed to being the most widely trusted source of research insights and policy solutions leading to a healthy environment and a thriving economy.The views expressed here are those of the individual authors and may differ from those of other RFF experts,its officers,or its directo

7、rs.Since 1997,Stanford University Professor Jon A.Krosnick has explored American public opinion on these issues through a series of rigorous national surveys of random samples of American adults,often in collaboration with RFF.This latest report is the second in the 2024 Climate Insights report seri

8、es by researchers at Stanford University and RFF examining American public opinion on on issues related to climate change.Stanford University and Resources for the FutureiiFor the 2024 iteration of the Climate Insights survey,1,000 American adults were interviewed during the 130-day period from Octo

9、ber 16,2023,to February 23,2024.This Climate Insights report focuses on Americans public opinion on a range of climate-related policies.Future installments in this series will address American public opinion on environmental justice and areas of partisan agreement and disagreement.This series is acc

10、ompanied by an interactive data tool,which can be used to view specific data from the survey.Please visit https:/www.rff.org/climateinsights or https:/climatepublicopinion.stanford.edu/for more information and to access the data tool,report series,and more.Note:When this research program began in 19

11、97,“global warming”was the term in common parlance.That term was used throughout the surveys over the decades and was always defined for respondents so it was properly understood.The term“climate change”has risen in popularity,so both terms are used in this report interchangeably.When describing sur

12、vey question wordings and results,the term“global warming”is used,to match the term referenced during interviews.Empirical studies have shown that survey respondents interpret the terms“global warming”and“climate change”to have equivalent meanings(Villar and Krosnick 2011).The authors and contributo

13、rs thank Angelique Uglow(ReconMR),Jared McDonald(Mary Washington University),and Ross van der Linde(Mappica).In addition,the authors thank researchers and staff at Resources for the Future(RFF):Kevin Rennert,Kristin Hayes,Billy Pizer,Ray Kopp,Annie McDarris,Donnie Peterson,Caroline Hamilton,Sara Kan

14、gas,and Kristina Gawrgy.Funding for this survey was provided by Stanford University(the Woods Institute for the Environment,the Precourt Institute for Energy,and the Doerr School of Sustainability),RFF,and ReconMR.Our work is available for sharing and adaptation under an Attribution-NonCommercial-No

15、Derivatives 4.0 International(CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)license.You can copy and redistribute our material in any medium or format;you must give appropriate credit,provide a link to the license,and indicate if changes were made,and you may not apply additional restrictions.You may do so in any reasonable mann

16、er,but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.AcknowledgmentsSharing Our WorkClimate Insights 2024|American Climate Policy OpinionsiiiYou may not use the material for commercial purposes.If you remix,transform,or build upon the material,you may not distribute the modified

17、 material.For more information,visit https:/creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.Use of any material in this publication should be credited to the following:Krosnick,Jon A.,and Bo MacInnis.2024.Climate Insights 2024:American Climate Policy Opinions.Washington,DC:Resources for the Future.The da

18、ta included in this report comes from sources with varying sharing policies.Please check the references for more information,and email krosnickstanford.edu with any questions.Stanford University and Resources for the FutureivIntroduction 1Most Popular Policies 3Moderately Popular Policies 7Least Pop

19、ular Policies 9Economic Effects of Mitigation Policies 10Voting in the 2024 Election 12Conclusion 14References 15ContentsClimate Insights 2024|American Climate Policy Opinions1In Climate Insights 2024:American Understanding of Climate Change,we showed that huge majorities of Americans believe that t

20、he earth has been warming,that the warming has been caused by human activity,that warming poses a significant threat to the nation and the worldespecially to future generationsand that governments,businesses,and individuals should be taking steps to address it.In this report,we turn to specific fede

21、ral government opportunities to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions,often referred to as climate change mitigation.Policies to accomplish this goal fall into several categories,including:1.Consumer incentives that reward people for taking steps that reduce their use of fossil fuels and,by extensi

22、on,reduce their carbon footprint2.Carbon pricing policies that require emitters to pay for their carbon emissions,such as a carbon tax(which would require carbon emitters to pay a tax for each ton of carbon they emit),or a cap-and-trade program(which would require businesses to have a permit for eac

23、h ton of carbon they emit)3.Regulations that require manufacturers to increase energy efficiency of their products4.Tax incentives that encourage manufacturers to increase the energy efficiency of their productsThis 2024 survey asked Americans about their opinions on a wide array of such policies,wh

24、ich allows us not only to assess current opinions,but to track changes in those opinions over the past two decades through comparisons with responses to comparable questions asked in earlier national surveys.IntroductionOverall emissions reduction strategiesIn 2024,we asked for the first time whethe

25、r Americans prefer using“carrots”to reduce emissions or“sticks.”The former entails offering incentives to reward companies for achieving desired outcomes,and the latter involves penalizing companies that fail to reach desired goals.59 percent of Americans prefer a carrot approach in which government

26、 lowers taxes for companies that reduce emissions,and 35 percent prefer a stick approach such that government raises taxes on companies that do not reduce emissions(see Figure 1).Figure 1.General climate policy preferences of Americans6%59%35%Prefers using“carrots”to reduce emissionsPrefers using“st

27、icks”to reduce emissionsNo preferenceStanford University and Resources for the Future2Overall emissions reduction principlesOver the past decades,a consistently large majority of Americans has wanted the government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by US businesses.In 2024,74 percent of Americans e

28、ndorse this mitigation policy principle(see Figure 2).This number is not significantly different from the 77 percent seen in 2020 and is about the same as it has been since 1997 when this series of surveys was launched.Figure 2.Percent of Americans who think the government should limit greenhouse ga

29、s emissions by US businesses20002004200820122016202020240%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%74%Climate Insights 2024|American Climate Policy Opinions3Taxing imported emissionsIn 2024,we asked about import taxes tied to emissions;respondents were asked whether they would favor taxing foreign companies f

30、or importing products that put out more greenhouse gases than a comparable US product.A huge majority of Americans,84 percent,favor the special tax(see Figure 3).Assisting with job transitionsIn 2024,we asked whether the federal government should spend money to help people who lose jobs due to a tra

31、nsition from fossil-based electricity generation to electricity generated from renewables.78 percent of Americans favor the government paying those people to learn to do other kinds of work(see Figure 4).Filling abandoned oil wellsIn 2024,we asked whether the federal government should spend money to

32、 close off abandoned oil wells that emit greenhouse gases;76 percent of Americans favor the government spending money to fill these old wells(see Figure 5).Shifting energy generation to renewable powerHuge numbers of Americans favor government effort to shift electricity generation away from fossil

33、fuels and toward renewable energy sources.In 2024,72 percent of Americans believe that the US government should offer tax breaks to utilities in Most Popular Policies(60 percent approval)84%14%2%21%78%1%The government should tax higher-emitting foreign goodsThe government should not tax higher-emitt

34、ing foreign goodsDont knowFigure 3.American public opinion on whether the government should tax foreign companies for imports that put out more greenhouse gases than US productsFigure 4.American public opinion on whether the government should pay for job training for those who lose jobs due to a tra

35、nsition away from fossil fuelsFigure 5.American public opinion on whether the government should spend money to fill abandoned oil wellsThe government should pay for job trainingThe government should not pay for job trainingDont know21%76%3%The government should fill abandoned oil wellsThe government

36、 should not fill abandoned oil wellsDont knowStanford University and Resources for the Future4Figure 6.Percentage of Americans who think that the US government should give utilities tax breaks to produce electricity from water,wind,and solar powerexchange for making more electricity from water,wind,

37、and solar sources.However,this is a statistically significant decline from the 85 percent seen in 2020,and a record low since 2006(see Figure 6).Slight changes to the question wording yielded similar results:76 percent of Americans in 2024 favor either mandates or tax breaks for utilities to reduce

38、greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.This number is not significantly different from the 82 percent seen in 2020 and is about the same as it has been since 2009.Before 2009,this proportion was slightly higher:86 percent and 88 percent in 2006 and 2007,respectively(see Figure 7).Figure 7.Percen

39、tage of Americans who think that the US government should either require or give tax breaks to lower greenhouse gas emissions from power plants2008201020122014201620182020202220240%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%2008 201020122014201620182020 2022 20240%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%72%76%percentage

40、 points fewer Americans believe that the US government should offer tax breaks to utilities in exchange for making more electricity from renewable sources in 2024 than 2020.13Climate Insights 2024|American Climate Policy Opinions5Increasing the energy efficiency of productsAbout two-thirds of Americ

41、ans favor government efforts through tax breaks or mandates to improve the energy efficiency of various consumer products(see Figure 8).Specifically,62 percent of Americans in 2024 favor increasing the fuel efficiency of automobiles,a statistically significant drop from the 72 percent seen in 2020.6

42、8 percent favor increasing the energy efficiency of appliances,similar to the 71 percent observed in 2020.69 percent favor increasing the energy efficiency of new buildings,a statistically significant decline from the 76 percent in 2020.Sequestering carbonIn 2024,63 percent of Americans favor reduci

43、ng emissions by sequestering(i.e.,capturing and storing)carbon released by burning coal.This level of support has been steady over the past 15 years(see Figure 9).Figure 8.Percentage of Americans who think the US government should either require or give tax breaks to construct more energy-efficient

44、cars,appliances,and buildingsFigure 9.Percentage of Americans who favor the US government giving tax breaks to companies to reduce air pollution from burning coalEnergy-efficient cars200820122016202020240%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Energy-efficient appliances200820122016202020240%10%20%30%40%50%

45、60%70%80%90%100%Energy-efficient buildings2008 201020122014201620182020 2022 20240%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%200820122016202020240%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%62%68%69%63%Stanford University,Resources for the Future,and ReconMR6DRAFT VERSION DO NOT DISTRIBUTETatiana Grozetskaya84%of responde

46、nts favor import taxes tied to emissions,making it the most popular policy we surveyed.Climate Insights 2024|American Understanding of Climate Change6Climate Insights 2024|American Climate Policy Opinions7Reducing subsidies for fossil fuelsIn 2024,we asked for the first time whether the federal gove

47、rnment should continue its long-standing practice of offering subsidies to oil and natural gas companies by reducing their taxes.61 percent of Americans favor ending government reduction of oil companies taxes,and 37 percent believe these subsidies should continue.42 percent of Americans favor endin

48、g government reduction of natural gas companies taxes,and 56 percent believe that these subsidies should continue.Taxing greenhouse gasesWhen asked whether companies should be charged a tax for every ton of greenhouse gases they emit,54 percent of respondents were in favor in 2024,a statistically si

49、gnificant decline from the 66 percent observed in 2020(figure 10).Creating a cap-and-trade programAlthough economists generally assert that a carbon tax incentivizes companies to reduce emissions(Baumol and Oates,1971;Climate Leadership Council,2019;Marron and Toder,2014;Montgomery,1972;World Bank,2

50、017),a carbon tax does not guarantee that such emissions reductions will happen.Moderately Popular Policies(5060 percent approval)Figure 10.Percentage of Americans who favor taxing greenhouse gases2014201620182020202220240%20%40%60%80%100%54%Stanford University and Resources for the Future8A cap-and

51、-trade or cap-and-dividend policy,on the other hand,are alternative policies in which a government sets a limit,or cap,on emissions.The cap is imposed by government-issued permits that limit emissions.The government gives,sells,or auctions the permits to companies,creating an opportunity to generate

52、 revenue.A cap-and-dividend program would return this revenue to consumers through a rebate.The logic in asking this question about cap and trade is to assess whether more Americans would favor a greenhouse gas tax if assured that it would result in emissions reductions.However,we show cap-and-trade

53、 and cap-and-dividend policies are not notably more popular than straightforward taxes.In 2024,52 percent of Americans favor a cap-and-dividend policy,a statistically significant decline from the 63 percent observed in 2020(see FIgure 11).Subsidizing solar panelsIn 2024,we asked respondents whether

54、the federal government should spend money to help people install solar panels on houses and apartment buildings.Respondents were randomly assigned to be asked one of four versions of the question.Two versions asked about the government paying all of the installation costs,and the other two versions

55、asked about the government paying some of the costs.For half of each group(chosen randomly),the question was preceded by this introduction:“Solar panels can generate electricity when the sun is shining,and that electricity can be stored in batteries to be used when the sun is not out.However,compani

56、es that make electricity cannot install enough solar panels to make all of the electricity needed in the country.People can put solar panels on the roofs of many houses and apartment buildings so much more of Americas electricity can be made from the sun.But it is expensive to do this,and most peopl

57、e cannot afford to pay that amount of money.”Among people who did not hear the introduction,51 percent favor the government paying some of the cost,and 42 percent favor the government paying all of the costs.Among people who did hear the introduction,77 percent favor the government paying some of th

58、e cost,and 74 percent favor the government paying all of the costs.Permitting reformIn 2024,we asked whether the federal government should expedite the process of granting permits to build new power plants that make electricity from sources other than coal and petroleum.52 percent of Americans favor

59、 expediting this process.Figure 11.Percentage of Americans who favor a cap-and-dividend policy2014201620182020202220240%20%40%60%80%100%52%Climate Insights 2024|American Climate Policy Opinions9Nuclear power tax breaksAlthough nuclear power does not directly emit greenhouse gases,tax breaks for the

60、construction of new nuclear power plants are among the least popular policies asked about in 2024.47 percent of Americans favor this policy;however,it is notable that this is a statistically significant increase from the 37 percent observed in 2020(see FIgure 12).All-electric vehicle tax breaksIn 20

61、24,46 percent of Americansa record lowthink the government should require or give tax breaks to companies to build all-electric vehicles,a statistically significant decline from the 60 percent observed in 2015 when this question was last asked(see Figure 13).Taxes on consumersThe least popular polic

62、ies impose new taxes on consumers to incentivize them to consume less fossil fuel.Few Americans favor increasing taxes on retail gasoline and electricity purchases for this purpose.15 percent approve increasing taxes on electricity,a statistically significant decline from the 28 percent observed in

63、2020.Likewise,28 percent approve increasing taxes on gasoline,a statistically significant decline from the 41 percent observed in 2020(see Figure 14).Least Popular Policies(50 percent approval)Figure 12.Percentage of Americans who favor the US government giving tax breaks to companies to build nucle

64、ar power plants200820122016202020240%20%40%60%80%100%Figure 13.Percentage of Americans who think that the US government should either require or give tax breaks to companies to construct all-electric vehicles200820122016202020240%20%40%60%80%100%Figure 14.Percentage of Americans who believe that the

65、 US government should increase taxes on electricity and gasoline to cause people to use lessElectricityGasoline200820122016202020240%20%40%60%80%100%200820122016202020240%20%40%60%80%100%47%46%15%28%Stanford University and Resources for the Future10Perceived effect on the economyImplementing many po

66、licies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will cost consumers and companies in the short term.Implementing such policies may also increase the cost of American-made goods and services relative to the costs of those goods and services produced elsewhere.This has led some observers to urge caution abo

67、ut implementing greenhouse gas emissions reduction policies(e.g.,Cassidy,2023;Gross,2021),because they may result in undesirable economic side effects.However,this argument does not appear to have taken hold with the majority of Americans.For example,only 36 percent of Americans in 2024 believe that

68、 taking action to address global warming will hurt the US economy,about the same as was observed in 2013(30 percent),though this is a statistically significant increase from the 29 percent observed in 2020(see FIgure 15).Likewise,in 2024,34 percent believed that these efforts would hurt their state

69、economy,a statistically significant increase from the 24 percent observed in 2020.More Americans believe that climate action will help the economy.44 percent of Americans believe this in 2024,about the same as was observed in 2020(48 percent)and 15 years ago(46 percent)(see Figure 15).39 percent of

70、Americans believe that efforts to reduce global warming will help their state economy in 2024,a statistically significant decrease from 46 percent in 2020.Economic Effects of Mitigation PoliciesFigure 15.Percentage of Americans who believe that the US government taking action on global warming will

71、help or hurt the US economy or the respondents state economy0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%2012201620202024Help US EconomyHurt US EconomyHelp State EconomyHurt State Economy44%34%39%36%Climate Insights 2024|American Climate Policy Opinions11Job availabilityA similar picture emerged regarding belie

72、fs about how climate action will affect job availability.Only 27 percent of Americans believe that efforts to reduce emissions will reduce the number of jobs in the nationthe same as was observed in 2020(see Figure 16).And in 2024,35 percent of Americans believe that climate change action will incre

73、ase the number of jobs in the country,similar to the 39 percent observed in 2020.28 percent of Americans believe that climate change action will reduce the number of jobs in their state,similar to the 23 percent observed in 2020(see Figure 16).And 32 percent of Americans in 2024 believe that climate

74、 action will increase the number of jobs in their state,about the same as the 35 percent observed in 2020.Personal economic impactsIn 2024,we asked respondents about the likely impact of mitigation efforts on their own personal economic situation.A majority of Americans believe that they will have t

75、he same amount of money regardless of mitigation efforts(54 percent).36 percent believe their wealth will decrease,a statistically significant increase over the 20 percent observed in 2020(see Figure 17).But 8 percent believe that climate change mitigation will increase their wealth,similar to the 1

76、0 percent observed in 2020.Likewise,a majority(64 percent)believe that mitigation efforts will have no impact on their chance of getting a good-paying job.17 percent believe that mitigation efforts will make them less likely to get a good-paying job,a statistically significant increase from the 12 p

77、ercent observed in 2020(see Figure 17).17 percent believe that mitigation efforts will increase their ability to get a good-paying job,similar to the 16 percent observed in 2020.Figure 16.Percentage of Americans who believe that the government taking action on global warming will decrease the number

78、 of jobs in the United States or the respondents state20122016202020240%20%40%60%80%100%Figure 17.Percentage of Americans who believe that the US government taking action on global warming will affect the amount of money they have or their chances of having a good-paying job202020240%10%20%30%40%50%

79、60%70%80%90%100%of Americans believe that efforts to reduce emissions will reduce the number of jobs in the nation27%Increase US JobsDecrease US JobsIncrease State JobsDecrease State JobsMore moneyLess money35%27%32%28%20%36%10%8%16%17%12%17%More likely to have a good-paying jobLess likely to have a

80、 good-paying jobStanford University and Resources for the Future12Are the many policy preferences outlined in this report just talk,or do they inspire action in the voting booth?We turn to that question next and describe the findings from a test.Respondents were read a statement by a hypothetical ca

81、ndidate running for a seat in the US Senate and were asked whether hearing that statement makes the respondents more likely to vote for the candidate,less likely to vote for the candidate,or has no impact.One statement expressed“green views”that summarized opinions expressed by majorities of America

82、ns:“I believe that global warming has been happening for the past 100 years,mainly because we have been burning fossil fuels and putting out greenhouse gases.Now is the time for us to be using new forms of energy that are made in America and will be renewable forever.We can manufacture better cars t

83、hat use less gasoline and build better appliances that use less electricity.We need to transform the outdated ways of generating energy into new ones that create jobs and entire industries and stop the damage weve been doing to the environment.”The other statement proposed expanding production of en

84、ergy from traditionally used fossil fuels:“The science on global warming is a hoax and is an attempt to perpetrate a fraud on the American people.I dont buy into the whole man-caused global warming mantra.We must spend no effort to deal with something that is not a problem at all.We should not inves

85、t in windmills and solar panels as alternative energy sources.Instead,we should continue to focus on our traditional sources of energy:coal,oil,and natural gas.We should expand energy production in our country,including continuing to mine our coal and doing more drilling for oil here at home.”Hearin

86、g a green view makes 57 percent of Americans more likely to vote for the candidate,a statistically significant decline from the 65 percent observed in 2020(see Figure 18).Democrats are significantly more likely to be attracted to a“green”candidate(83 percent)than are Independents(56 percent)and Repu

87、blicans(23 percent)(see Figure 19).Hearing the green statement makes only 18 percent of Americans less likely to vote for the candidate(see Figure 18).Hearing the candidate make a“not-green”statement makes only 21 percent more likely to vote for the candidate(see Figure 18).43 percent of Republicans

88、 are more likely to support the candidate,compared to 20 percent of Independents and 5 percent of Democrats(see Figure 19).Voting in the 2024 ElectionClimate Insights 2024|American Climate Policy Opinions13Hearing the“not-green”statement makes 63 percent of Americans less likely to vote for the cand

89、idate,similar to the 66 percent observed in 2020(see FIgure 18).This proportion is greatest among Democrats(88 percent),smaller among Independents(62 percent),and still smaller among Republicans(29 percent)(see Figure 19).Because almost all Republican citizens vote for Republican candidates and almo

90、st all Democratic citizens vote for Democratic candidates,the greatest impact of candidate statements in shaping election outcomes is among Independents.Among them,the same pattern appears that appears among all Americans:taking a“green”position helped a candidate and taking a“not-green”position hur

91、t the candidate.Figure 18.Impact on voting from hearing a candidate make a“green”or“not-green”statementFigure 19.Impact on voting from hearing a candidate make a“green”or“not-green”statement,by party(2024)201620182020202220240%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%GreenstatementNot greenstatement0%20%40%60

92、%80%100%GreenstatementNot greenstatementGreenstatementNot greenstatementMorelikelyMorelikelyMorelikelyMorelikelyMorelikelyMorelikelyLesslikelyLesslikelyLesslikelyLesslikelyLesslikelyLesslikelyMore likely to vote for a candidate who made a“green statement”Less likely to vote for a candidate who made

93、a“green statement”More likely to vote for a candidate who made a“not green statement”Less likely to vote for a candidate who made a“not green statement”63%57%21%18%IndependentsDemocratsRepublicansStanford University and Resources for the Future14Taken together,these results point to climate change m

94、itigation policies that may be pursued in the future with widespread public support(such as efforts to reduce emissions from power plants).Furthermore,these results also identify a few policy directions that are well received by few Americans,despite being plausible in theory and in practice(like ta

95、xes on electricity and gasoline).For decades,one school of thought commonly followed by some scholars and policymakers is that economic growth and environmental protection are incompatible,and that any efforts to grow the economy must,of necessity,take resources away from helping the environment.Suc

96、h a presumption creates an“either the economy or the environment”mindset.This mindset has been reinforced by survey questions asking Americans(e.g.,Mildenberger&Leiserowitz,2017),for example:“With which one of these statements about the environment and the economy do you most agree?Protection of the

97、 environment should be given priority,even at the risk of curbing economic growth.Or:Economic growth should be given priority,even if the environment suffers to some extent”(Gallup,2024).If Americans do perceive this trade-off as inevitable,the COVID-19 pandemic and associated economic crisis a few

98、years ago might have tilted them away from environmental protection generally and away from efforts to mitigate climate change;the subsequent recovery might have increased support for such efforts.The present study refutes that notion resoundingly.In fact,we see small changes in the opposite directi

99、on:slightly less public support for some emissions-reducing policies than four years ago.Few people believe that taking steps to reduce emissions will hurt the national economy,their states economy,or their personal finances,and more Americans believe that such policies will improve these economic o

100、utcomes.Finally,we saw that the policy positions candidates take on this issue are likely to influence the votes of many Americans.Thus,policymakers and their challengers have opportunities to use these issues to help assemble the coalitions needed to accomplish electoral victories.By taking“green”p

101、ositions,candidates gain considerably more votes than they lost.ConclusionClimate Insights 2024|American Climate Policy Opinions15Baumol,W.J.&Oates,W.E.1971.The use of standards and prices for protection of the environment.The Swedish Journal of Economics 73(1),42-54.Cassidy,B.2023.Cassidy leads Rep

102、ublican Senate opposition to a carbon tax.Accessed on August 8,2024 at https:/www.cassidy.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cassidy-leads-republican-senate-opposition-to-a-carbon-tax/.Climate Leadership Council(2019).Economists statement on carbon dividends organized by the Climate Leadership Counc

103、il.Accessed on July 7,2024,at https:/www.econstatement.org.Gallup.2024.Environment.Accessed on July 7,2024,at https:/ in Congress are out of step with the American public on climate.Accessed on August 8,2024,at https:/www.brookings.edu/articles/republicans-in-congress-are-out-of-step-with-the-americ

104、an-public-on-climate/.Marron,D.B.&Toder,E.J.2014.Tax policy issues in designing a carbon tax.American Economic Review,104(5),56368.Mildenberger,M.,&Leiserowitz,A.2017.Public opinion on climate change:Is there an economyenvironment tradeoff?Environmental Politics 26(5),801-824.Montgomery,W.1972.Marke

105、ts in licenses and efficient pollution control programs.Journal of Economic Theory 5,395418.Villar,A.and J.A.Krosnick.2010.Global warming vs.climate change,taxes vs.prices:Does word choice matter?Climatic Change 105(12):112.https:/doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9882-x.World Bank(2017).Report on the high-level commission on carbon pricing and competitiveness.Accessed on July 7,2024,at https:/openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/e49473de-ad98-5d26-8add-102687c9dc80/content.ReferencesStanford University and Resources for the Future16