1026 HOFSTRA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 37:1017
The existing literature finds mostly inconsistent effects for several
socio-demographic variables. For instance, a few studies report no
statistically significant effect for gender,
63
while Leiserowitz
64
and
O’Connor, Bord, and Fisher
65
find males to have greater support for
climate policies, and Zahran, Brody, Grover, and Vedlitz report that
females have greater support.
66
O’Connor, Bord, Yarnal, and Wiefek
reveal that age has no effect on climate policy support,
67
while Krosnick,
Holbrook, Lowe, and Visser report that younger adults express greater
support than do older adults,
68
and Dietz, Dan, and Shwom
69
and
O’Connor, Bord, and Fisher
70
find that older adults express greater
support. In some studies race has no effect,
71
but in others non-whites
report greater support for climate policies than do whites.
72
The results for education and income are just as inconsistent. While
some studies report education to have a positive effect on policy
support,
73
others find a negative effect.
74
Also, while one study reports a
positive effect of income on policy support,
75
others show no such
statistically significant effect.
76
Finally, a few studies do examine the effects of political
identification on climate policy support, and they consistently find that
laypeople on the left express stronger support for climate policies than
do laypeople on the right. Compared to conservatives, liberals have
greater support for climate policy proposals,
77
and Democrats express
greater support for government efforts to reduce emissions than do
Republicans.
78
63. See, e.g., Jon A. Krosnick et al., The Origins and Consequences of Democratic Citizens’
Policy Agendas: A Study of Popular Concern About Global Warming, 77 C
LIMATIC
C
HANGE
7, 26
tbl.V (2006); O’Connor et al., supra note 13, at 12 tbl.2.
64. Leiserowitz, supra note 21, at 60 tbl.III.
65. O’Connor et al., supra note 27, at 468.
66. Zahran et al., supra note 37, at 782.
67. O’Connor et al., supra note 13, at 12-13.
68. Krosnick et al., supra note 63, at 26 tbl.V.
69. Dietz et al., supra note 13, at 203, 206 tbl.4.
70. O’Connor et al., supra note 27, at 468, 469 tbl.V.
71. See, e.g., Krosnick et al., supra note 63, at 26 tbl.V.
72. See, e.g., Dietz et al., supra note 13, at 205, 206 tbl.4; Leiserowitz, supra note 21, at 61
tbl.IV.
73. See, e.g., Leiserowitz, supra note 21, at 61 tbl.IV; O’Connor et al., supra note 27, at 469
tbl.V; O’Connor et al., supra note 13, at 12 tbl.2; Zahran et al., supra note 37, at 781 tbl.3.
74. See, e.g., Krosnick et al., supra note 63, at 26 tbl.V.
75. See, e.g., Dietz et al., supra note 13, at 206 tbl.4.
76. See, e.g., O’Connor et al., supra note 13, at 12 tbl.2; Zahran et al., supra note 37, at 781
tbl.3.
77. See, e.g., Krosnick et al., supra note 63, at 26 tbl.V; Leiserowitz, supra note 21, at 61
tbl.IV, 62.
78. See, e.g., O’Connor et al., supra note 13, at 12 tbl.2.