Renewable Energy · Data · Peer-reviewed

Both parties want renewable energy.
They want it for different reasons.

Majorities of Republicans and Democrats support a transition to renewables. But the reasons they give, and the beliefs that actually predict their support, split cleanly along party lines.

Most Americans like renewable energy. That much has been clear for years. What this study asked is why. The research was conducted at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, where XandY's co-founders Abel Gustafson and Matt Goldberg were then based, together with colleagues at Yale and George Mason University. The team surveyed a nationally representative sample of 966 registered voters (Ipsos KnowledgePanel, late 2018) and had them rate 16 possible reasons for moving the country to 100% clean, renewable energy, then pick the single most important one. They then built statistical models to find which beliefs best predict support for renewable energy policy, separately for Republicans and Democrats.

The stated reasons tell one story. For 15 of the 16 reasons, more than half of all voters said the reason was "very" or "extremely" important. But the partisan gaps were large. The widest was "reduce global warming": 86% of Democrats called it very or extremely important, compared with 40% of Republicans. It was the single most important reason for a third of Democrats, and by average rating it was the least important reason for Republicans. Republicans' top reasons were practical: getting energy from sources that never run out, and reducing energy costs. The one reason where Republicans rated higher than Democrats was "protect God's creation."

Sixteen reasons to switch to renewables, by party How important is each reason to transition to 100% clean, renewable energy? Rated on a five-point scale. Republicans Democrats gap (pts) % who said the reason is "very" or "extremely" important 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Reduce global warming 40 86 +46 Protect communities harmed by fossil fuels 37 78 +41 Reduce influence of the fossil fuel industry 39 75 +36 Reduce air pollution 56 88 +32 Save plant and animal species from extinction 49 80 +31 Improve people's health 53 83 +30 A better life for our children 55 84 +29 Reduce water pollution 58 87 +29 Make the U.S. a global clean energy leader 40 68 +28 Reduce military costs of accessing energy 41 64 +23 Energy from sources that never run out 58 80 +22 Make energy costs more stable 52 73 +21 Create jobs and a stronger economy 54 75 +21 Reduce energy costs 58 77 +19 Increase America's energy independence 56 73 +17 Protect God's creation 48 51 +3 GUSTAFSON ET AL. (2020), ENERGY POLICY · U.S. REGISTERED VOTERS, 2018 · N = 966
Figure 1. Share of Republican and Democratic registered voters who rated each reason to transition to 100% clean, renewable energy as "very" or "extremely" important, with the partisan gap in percentage points. Every reason except "protect God's creation" shows a double-digit gap, and the gaps are largest for the reasons tied to climate and the fossil fuel industry.

The predictive models tell a matching story. Among Republicans, the strongest predictors of policy support were the belief that renewables improve the economy and create jobs, and how much effort they think the U.S. should put into reducing global warming once the costs are considered. Among Democrats, worry about global warming and interest in climate solutions did more of the work. A relative weight analysis, which sorts out how much each predictor contributes when they overlap, found that economic beliefs explained about 14% of the variation in Republicans' support but under 5% for Democrats. Interest in climate solutions did the reverse.

What predicts support for renewable energy policy? Republicans Democrats 0% 6% 12% 18% % of variance in policy support explained by each predictor Desired U.S. effort on warming, given costs 15.8% 12.6% Renewables improve the economy and jobs 13.9% 4.5% Interested in global warming solutions 8.3% 13.5% Worried about global warming 8.8% 9.6% Renewables are a good thing 7.1% 7.5% Fossil fuels harm human health 0.5% 3.8% Political ideology 2.7% 1.6% Gender 2.4% 0.1% GUSTAFSON ET AL. (2020), ENERGY POLICY · RELATIVE WEIGHT ANALYSIS, RAW WEIGHTS · N = 966
Figure 2. Relative weights (share of variance explained) for the eight strongest predictors of support for renewable energy policy. Economic beliefs do three times as much work for Republicans as for Democrats; interest in climate solutions and belief that fossil fuels harm health do more for Democrats. General feelings about renewables and the desired level of effort on global warming matter about equally for both.
86% of Democrats and 40% of Republicans said reducing global warming is a very or extremely important reason to switch to renewables. For reducing energy costs the numbers were 77% and 58%.

The takeaway is not that Republicans only care about money or that Democrats only care about climate. Forty percent of Republicans still called reducing global warming very or extremely important, and 77% of Democrats said the same about reducing energy costs. It's a matter of emphasis. For communicators and policymakers, the data point in a clear direction: lead with economic benefits for Republican audiences, and frame renewables as a climate solution for Democrats. Later academic experiments by the same researchers tested exactly that, and found that a message about cost savings worked well for both.

Source. Gustafson, A., Goldberg, M. H., Kotcher, J. E., Rosenthal, S. A., Maibach, E. W., Ballew, M. T., & Leiserowitz, A. (2020). Republicans and Democrats differ in why they support renewable energy. Energy Policy, 141, 111448. doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111448

About this research. This study was carried out through the authors' academic positions at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication. This page is XandY's plain-language summary of the published findings.

Method. Nationally representative probability sample of U.S. adults (Ipsos KnowledgePanel), fielded November 28 to December 11, 2018, N = 1,114; analyses use the 966 registered voters (356 Republicans and 466 Democrats, including leaners), weighted to Census parameters. Predictors were tested with multiple regression (full-information maximum likelihood for missing data) and relative weight analysis. The study is correlational and does not establish causal effects. Funded by the 11th Hour Project, the Endeavor Foundation, the Energy Foundation, the Grantham Foundation, and the MacArthur Foundation.