Trump voters who reported experiencing an extreme weather event were more likely to vote in favor of a clean energy referendum than Trump voters who had not experienced such events. "Despite people's beliefs about climate change being human-caused, despite people's political affiliation—both of which we know have really strong impacts on how people think about climate change—we find that when people have experienced extreme events, they are more likely to support climate mitigation policy, even if it costs more money," says study co-author Rachelle Gould of University of Vermont (UVM). For the study, researchers from UVM and University of Colorado examined survey data from nearly 6,000 residents of the U.S. northeast, southeast and West about their experiences of extreme climate events in the past five years. Respondents were asked if they would support a clean energy policy and if they would pay a utility bill increase—a random number between $5 and $265—which allowed the researchers to study how willingness to pay differed among respondents who reported different climate change beliefs and different experiences with extreme climate events. In addition to the survey data, the team independently verified the occurrence of the reported climate events using a variety of data sources. The findings, published in the journal Global Environmental Change, suggest that when respondents have truly felt the impacts of climate change, regardless of their stated stances on the issue, they are willing to pay more for a means of mitigating climate change—about $100 more per year than people with similar beliefs and attributes who hadn't experienced an extreme event. "When climate change is a distant concept, we've had a hard time getting people to be willing to actually pay more money for a mitigation policy," study co-author Trisha Shrum of UVM says. "There's something that clicks when climate change comes to your... |