Why candidates should take a stand to limit global warming

As they debate in auditoriums around the country this month, candidates for public office are trying to figure out what, if anything, they should be saying about global warming. 

We have good news for them: taking a stand to limit climate change is an electoral winner. 

{mosads}This spring, we polled a national sample of registered voters to determine how candidates’ views on climate change might influence their vote.  The results were surprising: more than two and a half times as many American voters (45 percent) said they would be more likely to vote for a congressional candidate who strongly supports action to reduce global warming than said they would be less likely to do so (17 percent). 

What’s more, voters are three times more likely to vote against a political candidate who strongly opposes action to reduce global warming (44 percent) than to vote for that candidate (15 percent).

Not surprisingly, we found that political party matters. Democrats are more likely to express these views than Republicans.

Yet what we learned about Republicans andIndependents may be of particular interest to candidates as the midterm elections draw near. To swing the middle, talking about climate change might provide an electoral edge.

Independents, as well as self-described liberal and moderate Republicans, are more closely aligned with Democrats on global warming than with self-described conservative Republicans.

A solid majority of liberal and moderate Republicans (65 percent) and nearly half of Independents (48 percent) support setting strict carbon dioxide emissions limits on existing coal-fired power plants as a way to reduce global warming and improve public health, even when told such limits would likely increase electricity costs. Furthermore, majorities of these groups say the U.S. should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions regardless of what other countries do.

In other words, unless you’re trying to reach only the most conservative voters, taking a positive stance on climate change action could help win an election.  

Politicians that continue to publicly doubt or claim ignorance on the science of climate change are out of step with the majority of the electorate. Campaign strategists looking for an edge for their candidate would be wise to heed these results, because the electorate is primed for leaders who will talk about the problem and its solutions.

Over the past year, Americans have watched as major scientific assessments like the National Climate Assessment and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have warned that climate change is affecting us right here, right now. Just a few weeks ago, hundreds of thousands of people marched in New York City in support of action on climate change, and it was recently reported that, worldwide, this year is on track to be the warmest year on record.

When voters go to the polls next month, expect that global warming will be on their minds.  Candidates who rise to the challenge of climate change and propose solutions are more likely to win elections.

Leiserowitz is the director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication at Yale University and Edward Maibach is the director of Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University.