Politics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
In the United States, conservatives tend to be against climate change regulations more frequently than the rest of the population.
Conservatives in the U.S. tend to hold traditional and Christian values. However, none of these values are directly incompatible with climate change reform, nor with the idea of climate change itself. Moreover, I do not know of any Christian theologies or denominations that are incompatible with it. So, what caused this tendency to emerge in U.S. politics?
Politics (of either mainstream party) in the USA is dependent on money from big business. Many of those big businesses prioritise short term profit over long term environmental preservation, or have bonus systems that promote short term (<5 years) gains over long term (>100 years) gains. Climate change action may reduce short term profits, in particular for businesses heavily invested in fossil fuels. Companies working in the oil and gas industry donate more to Republicans than to Democrats (see Western Refining and ExxonMobil in particular), and presently, the Republican Party is the primary home of conservatives in the USA. On the other hand, there is also a lot of money to be made in climate change action, and many high tech companies donate a lot more to the Democrats than to the Republicans, so one can equally argue that Democrat politicians support climate change action not out of idealism but due to corporate donations (I'm not saying this argument is right or wrong, but it can be made).
Climate change action may be (correctly or not) perceived to affect the short term lifestyle of consumers. Propaganda by big business may stress those aspects of climate change action that have such an impact. Some voters may dislike the idea of a impact on their short term lifestyle, and thus be happy to listen.
Of course, for some people, such as employees in the fossil fuel industry (coal miners), the short term impact on their life may be major, in particular if they do not successfully transition into new industries (with or without government help).
Many proposals for the mitigation of climate change require government action including taxation, and many conservatives are inherently skeptical of any government intervention in the economy in general and of taxation in particular. A tax on CO₂ emissions is a government intervention and a taxation, and even many conservatives who support climate change action in principle may oppose such a taxation because they want to reduce taxation in general, preferring "market based" solutions such as CO₂ trading schemes (although the latter is still a government intervention; I don't know what such a market based solution would look like without any government-organised pricing of externalities in some way)¹.
In the USA (and, perhaps to a lesser degree, in Europe), there still exist mainstream politicians who either deny the science of anthropogenic climate change altogether, or state that the impacts are exaggerated. For the groups mentioned above (at least the first two bullet points), it may be convenient to deny that the problem exists, so that they don't need to answer why they won't support action to resolve the problem. See Fizz' answer for evidence on the partisan divide in accepting scientific findings on climate change. There may be a handful of people who state that God created the Earth and therefore humans cannot change the climate, but that view is probably not held by a large number of people (see also Rogers answer).
Even among those who accept anthropogenic climate change, some may argue that action is useless because other/bigger countries aren't taking action, but I don't know if this view is more prevalent among conservatives than among progressives.
¹I suppose that a libertarian-legalistic answer would be that the inhabitants of Bangladesh in 200 years can simply sue all the world's industry emitting CO₂ between 1850 and 2050 for drowning them, or something like that. You may be able to tell I don't really buy this approach to environmental pollution including climate change. If one takes the "don't cause harm to others" principle to the extreme, that would imply radical environmentalism, as any air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions contributes to harming others at present and in the future.
Proposed solutions to climate change are (almost?) all based on handing greater power to the government, and Conservatives are traditionally for smaller government.
Proposed solutions to climate change come at a cost of increased taxation or economic slowdown, and Conservatives are traditionally in favor of free market and lower taxes.
Big business donors lobby against policies that could hurt them.
They may believe that climate change has been co-opted by Liberals, who are using it to promote their own political agenda, and so it is natural for Conservatives to oppose what the other side is proposing (and vice-versa).
Most importantly, they do not believe in (man-made) climate change, or at least do not believe that solutions proposed are effective and/or reasonable or practical. There have been numerous failed climate change predictions, the temperature data is wrapped up in complicated models, and in the age of fake news, it is easy to disbelieve the establishment narrative, especially when it is used by your political opponents.
To give a somewhat glib answer, Fox News.
In a 2019 poll, 12% of Republicans who watch Fox News believe in man-made climate change; the percentage among Republicans who don't watch Fox News rises to 28%.
Of course, this doesn't explain the profile of Fox News viewers in any further detail.
There's an older academic study (2011) which looked at additional factors. They have two linear regression models, one without and one with some interaction terms between choice of news channel and political-party orientation ("partisanship" as they called it.) (The product terms use mean-centered variables.) Beta(s) in the table below are standardized regression coefficients; the B's are the usual regression coefficients and SE is standard error for those.
There is a perhaps a slight influence of church attendance and/or biblical values but nowhere near as much the choice of media consumed. Good political-values predictors were belief in small government (labeled "individualism") and [rejection of] redistribution etc. (labelled "egalitarianism").
Here's the rundown of the factors in that table, as they were measured:
- Age in years (M = 46.4, SD = 16.8)
- Gender (48.1 percent male)
- Race (69.3 percent white)
- Education (Range = 1 [less than high school] to 5 [post-graduate degree]; Median = 3 [some college])
- Income (Range = 1 [less $25,000] to 5 [$100,000 or more]; Median = 4 [$50,000-$74,999])
Media Use
- Days per week read a printed newspaper (M = 3.6, SD = 2.7)
Days per week read news online (M = 3.7, SD = 2.7)
Cable news use. Using a response scale from (1) “never” to (4) “often,” respondents were asked to report how frequently they watch CNN (M = 2.2, SD = 1.1), MSNBC (M = 2.0, SD = 1.0), and the Fox News cable channel (M = 2.2, SD = 1.1).7 Because the correlation between CNN and MSNBC was substantial (r = .66, p < .001), responses to these two items were averaged to form a combined measure of CNN/MSNBC cable viewing (M = 2.1, SD = 1.0). This was further justified given that the content analysis results indicated similar trends in climate change coverage across these two networks.
Network TV news use (Range = 1 [never] to 5 [often]; Median = 3 [sometimes])
Global warming information-seeking (Mean of three items: “How much attention do you pay to information about global warming?” “In the past 30 days, how much have you actively looked for information about global warming?” and “How closely do you follow news about the environment?” Range = 1 to 4, where 4 indicates higher information seeking; α = .80; M = 2.0, SD = 0.7).
Values and Predispositions
Political partisanship. Respondents were asked to specify their party identification (Democrat, Republican, Independent, other, or no affiliation). Those who identified as Independent or Other were then asked to indicate whether they see themselves as closer to the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, or neither. A 5-point ordinal partisanship measure was constructed from these responses (Democrat, lean Democrat, Independent/other/no affiliation, lean Republican, Republican; M = 2.8, SD = 1.6).
Frequency of religious service attendance (Range = 1 [never] to 6 [more than once a week]; Median = 3 [a few times a year])
Biblical values (Mean agreement with three items: “Human beings, as we know them today, evolved from earlier species of animals” [reverse-coded]; “One must believe in God in order to be moral and have good values”; “Just as the Bible says, the world literally was created in six days.” Range = 1 to 4, where 4 indicates stronger biblical values; α = .77; M = 2.6, SD = 0.9)
Egalitarianism (Mean agreement with four items: “The world would be a more peaceful place if its wealth were divided more equally among nations”; “In my ideal society, all basic needs would be guaranteed by the government for everyone”; “I support government programs to get rid of poverty”; “Discrimination against minorities is still a very serious problem in our society.” Range = 1 to 4, where 4 indicates more egalitarianism; α = .72; M = 2.6, SD = 0.7)
Individualism (Mean agreement with five items: “If the government spent less time trying to fix everyone’s problems, we’d all be a lot better off”; “Our government tries to do too many things for too many people. We should just let people take care of themselves”; “The government interferes too much in our everyday lives”; “Government regulation of business usually does more harm than good”; “People should be allowed to make as much money as they can, even if it means some make millions while others live in poverty.” Range = 1 to 4, where 4 indicates more individualistic attitudes; α = .77; M = 2.6; SD =0.6)
Materialism (Mean agreement with four items: “You can tell if people are successful by the things they own and the way they dress”; “It’s very important to me to have a home as well-equipped and furnished as that of other people I know”; “I follow the latest trends and fashions”; “I prefer brands and products that make me feel accepted by others.” Range = 1 to 4, where 4 indicates greater materialism; α = .67; M = 1.9; SD =0.6)
Approval of modern science (Agreement with statement “Overall, modern science does more harm than good”; Range = 1 to 4, where 4 indicates more disagreement; M = 3.1; SD = 0.8)
Environmentalism (Agreement with statement “I consider myself an environmentalist”; Range = 1 to 4, where 4 indicates more agreement; M = 2.5; SD = 0.8)
As for the dependent variable in that regression, they asked 5 questions about global warming, but the answers were so highly correlated that they combined in to a single index/response.
Five beliefs and perceptions were used as indicators of global warming acceptance: the perception of scientific agreement on global warming, belief in the human causes of global warming, certainty that global warming is happening, concern about the impact of global warming, and the valence of expectations regarding the outcomes of taking action on global warming. For the sake of parsimony, these five variables were combined into a single omnibus index, which served as the dependent variable in our analyses. A principal components factor analysis confirmed that these five variables load on a single factor (eigenvalue = 2.92; all factor loadings > .64), and internal reliability was high (a = .82).
Details for each of these 5 questions omitted by me here.
Research in other countries (Sweden, Brazil) also found that rejection of egalitarianism (as measured by more standardized social dominance orientation questionnaires) is a good predictor of climate change denial. So the (positive) correlation with anti-egalitarianism is hardly a unique US phenomenon.
To speak purely to the Christian theological point -- some theologians have interpreted Genesis 9:11 to be relevant:
And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
U.S. Representative John Shimkus (Republican) made this argument in 2010:
"I believe that's the infallible word of God, and that's the way it's going to be for his creation. The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a Flood. I do believe that God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect."
It is impossible to answer this question for every Conservative; each may have their own reasons for the determination they've come to. So, the following answer is a representation of the reasoning, in the conservative circles I travel, that the prospect of anthroprogenic climate change is questionable, thus doubting the need for regulation. There are four main points, highlighted below with amplifying information. They will be followed by a summary.
This answer is not about the truth of the following claims. Instead, it is an explainer for the "tendency of conservatives" to not support climate change regulations, because many of them don't are skeptical about claims on Anthroprogenic Global Warming. If they hold AGW in doubt, the cost-benefit curve of regulatory actions are less supported.
History of Data Manipulation
There are two significant incidents where it has been revealed after the fact that those developing the AGW narrative have made demonstrated lapses in integrity. First was the Hockey Stick graph, first released in 1999 (Mann, Bradley, and Hughes). It was subsequently weighed down with challenges to the statistical methods it used and a critique questioning the choice to minimize the statistical influence of the Medieval Warming Period, the latter highlighted by the differences in the IPCC reports between 1990 and 2001. The integrity of the work was further tainted by the hacking of climate research email servers which provided a perspective of conspiracy (more later).
More recently, the choice of NOAA to 'adjust' recorded temperature information, lowering earlier records and raising current records, furthers the perspective of manipulation.
Data Not Available for Review
In addition to the question of data integrity, there is an ongoing complaint that many of the reports and news articles present the results of an review, without providing the source information and methodology for evaluation.
Active Conspiracies
While some level of confidentiality and opaqueness is expected in scientific exploration, the lengths that the proponents for climate change goes to doesn't help the perception that something untoward is going on behind the scenes. This is worsened be previously referenced release of emails from within a climate change organization that reflected those concerns.
Abandonment of the Scientific Process
The line that creates the most cringing response is "the science is settled," with the impression being that it has been proven that man made actions have an influence on climate change. As if all factors were understood, all the data was in, and that it was definitively proven that man has a measureable impact on the climate. In this case, the intention that the exhausts of man made technologies has an influence on climate change (again, more later), requires an in depth understanding of a multitude of factors, which non-exhaustively includes: solar cycles, irregularities of the planets orbit, irregularities of the planets rotation, the cyclical nature of prevailing winds, interaction of the moon on the tides and the resulting effects, irregularities of the planet's core hydraulic rotation, shifting of the continental shelves, variation of volcanic heating influences on the oceans, and many, many more. Further, the claim that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, which is held true in order to curtail it's production, is questionable. An increased availability of carbon dioxide would encourage an expanse in plant growth.
Summary
Climate Change does exist; there are cyclical pattern that can be demonstrated in what weather does.
The other answers mention taxation, government expansion, etc. Those are good points, and definitely a big part of why conservatives generally don't support fighting AGW. But there's a pervasive reason that hasn't been mentioned:
Because liberals support it, loudly and conspicuously.
To endorse the idea of man-made climate change in a conservative space is to invite accusations of being a RINO, a turncoat, someone who has lost the One True Way. Liberals further drive this dynamic by insulting loudly and at great length those who deny the facts as we understand them. Since mocking people tends to be a rather poor way to change their minds, conservatives entrench even further.
And this is a problem, because it's arguably the largest existential threat to humankind today.
I think you're missing something fundamental to the Conservative parts of the Republican Party: government control. Let's break down climate change for a second and we can better spot the disagreements as we go
Scientific fact. Not many argue against this because the records go back long before the theories we have today.
There are some minor disagreements here and there but there seems to be a strong correlation. Still not that many political arguments at this level.
There's a case to be made here that humans are making it worse, but carbon dioxide sources are somewhat varied. There's some who disagree with this assessment (not endorsing it either way, just noting it's there), and it's hard to solidify on either side because we don't have an easy way to determine all sources.
This is where the friction gets going. The problem with this is that there are lots and lots of political alarmists in this arena like Al Gore, who produced the documentary An Inconvenient Truth, which has proven to be inaccurate
Gore also famously predicted storms would become more frequent and intense as man-made emissions warmed the oceans.
“And of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms,” Gore said in his film. “That same year that we had that string of big hurricanes, we also set an all-time record for tornadoes.”
Unfortunately, science has not backed that up
The IPCC found in 2013 there “is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.” The IPCC also found “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century” and “[n]o robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”
A similar problem was criticism of George W. Bush in 2005 about Hurricane Katrina
"The Bush government rejects international climate protection goals by insisting that imposing them would negatively impact the American economy," wrote Jürgen Tritten, Germany's environment minister and a Green Party member.
"The American president is closing his eyes to the economic and human costs his land and the world economy are suffering under natural catastrophes like Katrina," Tritten charged.
The problem there was that Katrina wasn't caused, or even made worse by, the policies of Bush
But the experts add that it is scientifically unfair to blame any one hurricane on the warming trend.
"We would expect hurricanes on average should be getting more intense because of global warming, but it's hard to make the connection in any one event, like Katrina," said Jay Gulledge, senior research fellow at the Pew Institute for Climate Change.
Let's put aside the science for a moment. Imagine one political side starts making wild claims that don't always match up to reality. Would the other side be more or less inclined to listen to them, even if there were more solid scientific arguments to be made?
Here's climate activist Greta Thunberg
One way forward would be to declare a global climate emergency, a proposal that she says has been backed by the U.K., Ireland and other countries, but not yet by Sweden.
This would “send a clear signal that we’re in a crisis,” she said.
And an indirect rebuttal by Conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg (emphasis mine)
In times of emergency, we’re all in it together. And that’s a good thing.
But there are two caveats. The first is that emergencies do not last, and when the emergency is over, the old rules need to come back. If they don’t, then capitalism, democracy, and liberty are done for. Emergencies must be the exception to the rule, because if we make the spirit of emergency the rule, then we no longer live under the rule of law, but the rule of tyrants or mobs.
The second problem is that real emergencies must be obvious to all — or at least nearly all. There are moral equivalents to war. A girl down a mine shaft is one. A meteor heading to earth is another, as are various forms of natural disasters, zombie, vampire, and C.H.U.D apocalypses, etc.
The problem is that there are people who are very attracted to the power that comes with emergencies. Power is seductive in whatever form it takes: Emergency powers, money, Infinity Stones, the One Ring, or, as we’ve seen in the case of Jussie Smollet, the cultural power that comes with being able to claim you are a victim.
This leads people to declare emergencies when they do not exist or to exaggerate real challenges so they can do an end run around the conventional rules of democracy. There’s been a lot of the latter over the last decade or so.
Now, not all of this is centered around emergency powers. The Democrat's Green New Deal isn't an emergency power grab, yet it can't resist being political either. Somehow it manages to link dealing with climate change to high speed rail (a long time Democrat favorite), labor law reforms, jobs and leave policy, free college, no nuclear power, etc. In other words, give Democrats full control of the US economy and they'll solve all the problems of the world, along with climate change.
As such, it's unsurprising that Republicans have been more skeptical of the claims pushed by Democrats. Viewed through a political lens, it looks less like science and more like rhetoric to them.
There are actually several opposing aspects to this issue for US republicans.
However, despite all of this, it is not entirely true that conservatives oppose CCRs, disbelieve climate change and hate the environment. For example, in conservative, rural states, preserving natural resources is a very popular conservative issue that doesn't make it to national news. A lot of this has to do with preserving hunting and fishing, but usually the public in these areas is interested in keeping these activities sustainable. Historically, there have been cases of conservative pro-environment initiatives in other countries as well. However, climate change (for those conservatives that accept it as real and relevant) has been too poisoned by progressive involvement, if you will, for conservatives to not opposed it in reaction in today's very partisan society.
It is unclear to me why religion is given as a factor, see Conservatism in the United States.
Conservatism in the United States is not a single school of thought.
I, for example, am a Constitutional conservative, not a Christian conservative.
Also, see Opposition to environmentalism.
Conservative think tanks since the 1990s have opposed the concept of man-made global warming; they challenged scientific evidence, publicised what they perceived as beneficial aspects of global warming, and stated their strong beliefs that proposed remedies would do more harm than good. The concept of anthropogenic global warming continues to be an ongoing debate among Conservatives in the United States, but the majority reject the scientific consensus that climate change is caused by humans; 73% of Republicans believed humans were uninvolved in causing global warming, according to a 2015 poll by Pew Research.
In recent times, American conservatives have generally supported deregulation of pollution and reduced restrictions on carbon emissions. Similarly, they have advocated increased oil drilling with less regulatory interference, such as in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In the 2008 election, the phrase, "Drill baby drill" was used to express the Republican position on the subject.
Preponderance of research is less than preponderance of evidence due to Falsifiability.
The classical view of the philosophy of science is that it is the goal of science to prove hypotheses like "All swans are white" or to induce them from observational data. The Inductivist methodology supposes that one can somehow move from a series of statements such as 'here is a white swan', 'over there is a white swan', and so on, to a universal statement such as 'all swans are white'. As observed by David Hume, Immanuel Kant and later by Popper and others, this method is clearly deductively invalid, since it is always possible that there may be a non-white swan that has eluded observation (and, in fact, the discovery of the Australian black swan demonstrated the deductive invalidity of this particular statement). This is known as the problem of induction.
There is a lack of deductive evidence for anthropogenic global warming; this means there is room for skepticism.
[To clear up some apparent confusion, since lack of does not always mean no.]
There is not enough deductive evidence to reach a definitive conclusion for anthropogenic global warming; this means there is room for skepticism. While some level of Scientific skepticism is normal, the level of skepticism of conservatives in the Climate Science claim of AGW is quite high.
From Pew Research Center, How Americans see climate change in 5 charts:
5 Partisanship is a stronger factor in people’s beliefs about climate change than is their level of knowledge and understanding about science.
In 2016, 93% of Democrats (including leaners) with a high level of knowledge about science said climate change is mostly due to human activity, compared with 49% of Democrats with low science knowledge, based on a nine-item index. By contrast, Republicans and GOP-leaning independents with a high level of science knowledge were no more likely than those with a low level of knowledge to say climate change is mostly due to human activity.
Among those with a high level of science knowledge, the difference between 23% and 93% shows a very high degree of skepticism. Conservatives don't trust the data and don't trust those providing the data.
From Pew Research Center, Conservative Republicans especially skeptical of climate scientists’ research and understanding:
Many conservative Republicans have a negative view of scientists’ understanding of climate change.
Conservative Republicans are closely divided over whether to trust information from climate scientists:
Many conservative Republicans express doubts about whether the work of climate scientists is based on the best available evidence.
Conservative Republicans are more doubtful than others about motives behind climate research findings.
As requested in a comment You should explain what the second half of this post is supposed to have to do with the question.:
The title question: What caused the tendency for conservatives to not support climate change reform? I'm a conservative. Conservative think tanks since the 1990s have opposed the concept of man-made global warming; they challenged scientific evidence .... I'm skeptical of the scientific evidence. Those who are skeptics need not necessarily explain why; it amounts to trying to prove a negative. I provided an explanation.
The Republican National Committee has a pro-fossil fuel stance. Now, we might ascribe various true motivations behind this that others detail very well, but it also helps to see what they argue as well.
In their 2016 platform document the Republican Party sets forth such arguments as
"conservative" ... "reform". Those are conflicting labels. While explaining complex relations with labels is oversimplification, it's a starting point. Being conservative means to oppose change, and particularly changing yourself. Trying to keep the environment from changing, if necessary by changing yourself, is not conservative but conservationist.
