Executive Summary · Renewable Energy

Last updated: October 2026
Seven studies, 2020–2025

Renewable energy: who supports it, why, and what moves them

The essential findings from XandY's work and our co-founders' academic research on this topic, condensed to one page for communicators, advocates, and policymakers.

All renewable energy research Data gallery

The numbers that matter

86% vs 40%Democrats vs. Republicans who call "reduce global warming" a very or extremely important reason to switch to renewables ≈ ½of the cost-savings message's effect on beliefs was still there three weeks later, for both parties (44% D, 57% R) 54% → 15%positive views of the same fuel when it is called "natural gas" vs. "methane" 64% → 21%conservative Republicans' support for 100% renewable electricity by 2050, 2018 to 2023 4×social-norm interventions moved sustainable behavior four times as much as education alone (d = 0.37 vs. 0.09), across 430 field studies ≈ $20realistic average Americans would pay per month for renewable electricity, after adjusting for the half who say $0

Three charts to remember

Which message moved beliefs most? 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.76 0.68 Cost savings 0.50 0.44 Economy & jobs 0.43 0.17 Global warming Democrats Republicans Nature Energy 2022 Same fuel, six names: % with a positive view 0% 20% 40% 60% "natural gas" 54% "natural methane gas" 25% "fossil gas" 24% "fracked gas" 22% "methane" 15% "methane gas" 14% J. Env. Psychology 2021 Persuasion decays like a hockey stick 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.76 0.68 0.38 0.33 Right away ~11 days ~3 weeks Democrats Republicans Cost-savings frame, Nature Energy 2022

What the public thinks

  • Broad support, widening gap. Large majorities of both parties favor more wind and solar, but Republican support has slipped and the split is sharpest on ambitious mandates. Read more →
  • Same goal, different reasons. Republicans' support runs on energy costs and sources that never run out; Democrats' runs on climate. Both parties rate clean air and water highly. Read more →
  • Half would pay more. About half of Americans say they would pay extra for renewable electricity; half say $0. Education and politics predict willingness better than income. Read more →

What moves them

  • Lead with cost savings. It was the largest and most durable message for Democrats and Republicans alike. Jobs came second; climate was weakest, and near zero for Republicans. Read more →
  • Words carry the frame. "Methane" cools feelings about natural gas for both parties. "Fossil gas" and "fracked gas" polarize: use them only with a known audience. Read more →
  • Norms beat information. Showing what others do moves behavior far more than facts or feedback. The easiest behaviors to change (littering, recycling) matter least for the climate. Read more →

What lasts, and what doesn't

  • Expect the hockey stick. Roughly half of a message's effect fades in the first ten days, then plateaus. Plan for repeated exposure, not one perfect message. Read more →
  • Moral language adds nothing, costs nothing. Saying "this is wrong" did not strengthen or extend persuasion, but it did not polarize either. Read more →
  • Avoid the three traps. Distant imagery (polar bears), partisan cues, and fear without a way out all backfire. Pair threat with efficacy and shared values. Read more →

Sources: Gustafson et al. (2020) Energy Policy · Lacroix et al. (2021) J. Environmental Psychology · Gustafson et al. (2022) Nature Energy · Bergquist et al. (2023) PNAS · Gustafson et al. (2025) Science Communication · XandY Insights (2023): What Americans think about renewables, Persuading sustainable choices, Polar bears, politics, and apocalypse. Peer-reviewed studies were conducted through the authors' academic positions at the University of Cincinnati, the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, and collaborating universities. Contact: xandyanalytics.com/contact · XandY — the science of social momentum.