DFP at the DNC: Harris Should Draw a Strong Contrast to Trump on Climate

Welcome back to Data for Climate Progress — your one-stop shop for all things climate at Data for Progress.

and

Aug 28, 2024

Welcome back to Data for Climate Progress — your one-stop shop for all things climate at Data for Progress. Catch us here every month for our latest climate polling, juicy insights, and can’t-miss reading lists.

As always, we’d love to hear from you — drop us (Grace Adcox and Catherine Fraser) a line at gracea@dataforprogress.org and catherine@dataforprogress.org. Forwarded this email? You can subscribe below.

Psst! Stay tuned for a special edition of Data for Climate Progress coming soon! 👀

Danielle at the DNC: Harris Should Draw a Strong Contrast to Trump on Climate

Earlier this month, DFP Executive Director Danielle Deiseroth shared new polling at the Environmental and Climate Crisis Council meeting at the Democratic National Convention. Her message for Democrats as they prepare for the election this fall was clear: Vice President Kamala Harris can go big on climate and draw a strong contrast to Donald Trump.

DNC Environmental and Climate Council meeting full group poses for a photo — *DNC Environmental and Climate Council meeting full group photo. DFP’s Danielle Deiseroth is second from the right in the back row. Credit: DNC Environmental and Climate Council.*

Our polling finds that voters’ awareness of and concern around climate change only continues to grow, and voters are bringing that concern to the ballot box. In 2020, both Biden voters and young voters reported that climate change was a key issue for them, and ahead of this year’s election, climate remains a crucial issue for these constituencies.

About a third (32%) of voters — including half (52%) of Democrats — say climate change is more important to their vote choice in 2024 than it was in 2020. Pluralities of young voters (39%) and Latino voters (41%) also say that climate change is a more important factor to their vote choice this year.

Vice President Harris can and should build a drumbeat around her plans for climate. Voters like Harris’ approach on climate — especially if they’ve heard about it — and as we found with our partners at Climate Power, a majority (62%) want Harris to continue advancing ambitious climate action if elected, including 92% of Democrats, 55% of Independents, and 64% of voters age 18 to 34. Importantly, key Democratic constituencies report having heard at least “some” about her climate plans, including young voters (57%), Black voters (75%), and Latino voters (60%), have particularly positive views of her climate plans.

As the 2024 election heats up, Harris has a tremendous opportunity to define herself as the climate candidate. She’s the candidate taking bold climate action to deliver lower costs for working families, not record profits for Big Oil CEOs and their shareholders. She’s the candidate for clean air and water, not unlimited oil drilling and polluting. She’s the candidate for ensuring a sustainable future for generations, not just the wealthy few.

With just 68 days to go until election day, Harris must make the choice clear: A vote for Harris-Walz is a vote not just for the people, but for a secure climate future.

Read Danielle’s full piece on the findings presented at the DNC here.

We Stand With the Uncommitted Movement at the DNC

We also want to acknowledge the Uncommitted Movement, after the DNC denied its request for a speaking slot. We stand in solidarity with Palestinian advocates like Georgia State Rep. Ruwa Romman, whose speech you should read, given she wasn’t allowed to deliver it at the DNC. Rep. Romman would have ended her speech with these unifying and clear-eyed words:

Let’s commit to each other, to electing Vice President Harris and defeating Donald Trump who uses my identity as a Palestinian as a slur. Let’s fight for the policies long overdue — from restoring access to abortions to ensuring a living wage, to demanding an end to reckless war and a ceasefire in Gaza. To those who doubt us, to the cynics and the naysayers, I say, yes we can — yes we can be a Democratic Party that prioritizes funding our schools and hospitals, not for endless wars. That fights for an America that belongs to all of us—Black, brown, and white, Jews and Palestinians, all of us, like my grandfather taught me, together.

Read Rep. Romman’s full speech here. Follow the Uncommitted Movement here.

One More Time for the People in the Back: Harris > Trump on Climate

While debuting DFP climate polling at the DNC, Danielle also highlighted new polling from Climate Power and Data for Progress that shows a strong majority of voters prefer Harris’ approach to climate policy over Trump’s, want to hold oil and gas companies accountable, and see a strong mandate for Harris to continue building on the progress the Biden-Harris administration has made on clean energy and climate action. When asked to compare Harris’ and Trump’s energy and climate policies, voters say they prefer Harris’ approach — expanding clean energy to lower costs for families and boost American manufacturing while protecting communities’ access to clean air and water from corporate polluters — by a +12-point margin. Harris’ advantage is even larger among Independents (+17 points) and young voters between 18 and 34 (+22 points). Read the full findings here.

Someone Tell Mark Ruffalo: Voters Want the Government to Do More About Forever Chemicals, Too

Thanks to the tireless efforts of advocates and the release of Mark Ruffalo’s Dark Waters, per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as “forever chemicals,” have gained some notoriety over the past few years. Valued for their ability to resist grease, water, oil, and heat, PFAS first came into use during the 1940s and are now found in hundreds of products. However, calling PFAS “forever chemicals” isn’t hyperbole, as these chemicals do not readily break down in the environment and can accumulate in humans and wildlife over time. What's more, exposure to PFAS has been linked to a range of health issues, including multiple types of cancer and reproductive harm. As such, several states have taken measures to limit exposure to PFAS, with Colorado banning everyday products containing PFAS just last month. The federal government has also taken action, with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announcing a new rule in April that establishes legally enforceable limits on six types of PFAS chemicals in municipal drinking water systems.

New polling from Data for Progress finds that, after reading a brief definition of PFAS, a strong bipartisan majority (72%) of voters say that the federal government is not providing enough access to information and resources on PFAS. On top of that, three-quarters (75%) of respondents say they support the EPA’s new PFAS drinking water standards, after having read a description of the rule. This includes 77% of Democrats, 76% of Independents, and 71% of Republicans.

Voters also express support for creating a fund for those impacted by PFAS exposure, like farmers and industrial workers. Scientists project that millions of acres of farmland may be contaminated by PFAS, leading to significant potential financial losses for farmers, as contaminated lands and crops are deemed unsafe for cultivation, use, or consumption. As a result, an increasing number of farmers are testing their farmland for PFAS contamination. Eighty percent of voters report that they would be in favor of creating a fund to offset financial losses related to PFAS exposure for farmers, agricultural workers, industry workers, and other groups that have been negatively affected by PFAS. This includes 84% of Democrats, 82% of Independents, and 74% of Republicans.

Bar chart of polling data from Data For Progress. Title: An Overwhelming Majority of Voters Support Creating a Fund for Groups Negatively Affected by PFAS Exposure. Description: Scientists project that PFAS may be contaminating millions of acres of farmland across the country, with contaminated biosolids widely used as fertilizer across the U.S. for decades. As more farmers have begun to test for PFAS, an increasing number have suffered huge financial losses, as contaminated lands and crops are unsafe for use. Recently, a bipartisan group of senators proposed creating a safety net for farmers whose land has become contaminated by PFAS and other impacted groups to offset financial losses related to exposure. Would you support or oppose creating a fund for groups that have been negatively affected by PFAS exposure, such as farmers, agricultural workers, and industry workers to offset financial losses related to exposure? All likely voters — Support: 80%, Oppose: 10% Democrat — Support: 84%, Oppose: 8% Independent / Third party — Support: 81%, Oppose: 7% Republican — Support: 74%, Oppose: 14% July 26–30, 2024 survey of 1,226 likely voters.

Although PFAS are largely unregulated, with no prohibitions on manufacturers using these chemicals in their products, it’s crucial that we take action to protect public health and address ongoing risks from them. This begins with educating the public and raising awareness about PFAS, as well as offering financial support to those affected by exposure to PFAS and urging policymakers to establish more comprehensive PFAS regulations. Additionally, it will be imperative to invest in the research and development of effective methods to dispose of and destroy PFAS to ultimately reduce and eliminate exposure risk. You can read our full brief on PFAS here.

A huge shoutout goes to our summer Climate and Energy Program intern, Margo Kenyon, who put this project together! We already miss you and know you’ll be advancing community climate solutions anywhere you go in the future!