How Pittsfield feels about climate change policies

According to the Pew Research Center, about two-thirds of Americans feel the federal government is not doing enough to counteract the effects of climate change. While a majority of U.S. adults acknowledge climate change to be a real issue, there is less consensus in regards to what measures to take to address the worsening climate crisis. Solutions such as planting more trees to absorb carbon emissions garnered widespread, bipartisan support. Approval for taxing corporations based on their emissions output or introducing stricter emissions standards for vehicles, on the other hand, seemed to fall along party lines, with 86-89% of Democratic-leaning respondents supporting those measures, versus 52-55% of Republican-leaning respondents.

Attitudes toward climate change policies are split by more than mere political party affiliation, however. Other important demographic factors include generational differences, gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic situation, and proximity to a coastline where natural disasters have increased in frequency. Economic reliance on fossil fuels also plays a large role in whether people support or oppose climate change measures on both a local and federal level. In order to parse how people in Pittsfield feel about climate change policies, Stacker compiled statistics using data from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. The data is from a survey conducted in 2020.

- Support in Pittsfield for funding research into renewable energy sources: 88.9%
--- #14 highest among all metros
--- 3.2% higher than national average

Metros where the most people support funding research into renewable energy sources

#1. Ithaca, NY: 90.4% support funding research into renewable energy sources
#2. San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA: 90.3%
#3. Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH: 90.1%

Metros where the fewest people support funding research into renewable energy sources

#1. Amarillo, TX: 79.0% support funding research into renewable energy sources
#2. Houma-Thibodaux, LA: 79.7%
#3. Longview, TX: 79.7%

- Support in Pittsfield for regulating CO2 as a pollutant: 78.9%
--- #11 highest among all metros
--- 4.3% higher than national average

Metros where the most people support regulating CO2 as a pollutant

#1. Ithaca, NY: 82.9% support regulating CO2 as a pollutant
#2. Ann Arbor, MI: 80.4%
#3. Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH: 80.3%

Metros where the fewest people support regulating CO2 as a pollutant

#1. Provo-Orem, UT: 65.0% support regulating CO2 as a pollutant
#2. Amarillo, TX: 65.2%
#3. Midland, TX: 65.3%

- Support in Pittsfield for setting strict limits on existing coal-fire power plants: 72.2%
--- #34 highest among all metros
--- 4.4% higher than national average

Metros where the most people support setting strict limits on existing coal-fire power plants

#1. Urban Honolulu, HI: 81.1% support setting strict limits on existing coal-fire power plants
#2. Ann Arbor, MI: 78.5%
#3. Ithaca, NY: 78.2%

Metros where the fewest people support setting strict limits on existing coal-fire power plants

#1. Farmington, NM: 46.3% support setting strict limits on existing coal-fire power plants
#2. Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH: 49.2%
#3. Longview, TX: 51.4%

- Support in Pittsfield for requiring fossil fuel companies to pay a carbon tax and use the money to reduce other taxes (such as income tax) by an equal amount: 72.4%
--- #23 highest among all metros
--- 4.5% higher than national average

Metros where the most people support requiring fossil fuel companies to pay a carbon tax and use the money to reduce other taxes (such as income tax) by an equal amount

#1. Ithaca, NY: 77.1% support requiring fossil fuel companies to pay a carbon tax and use the money to reduce other taxes (such as income tax) by an equal amount
#2. New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA: 76.9%
#3. Urban Honolulu, HI: 76.7%

Metros where the fewest people support requiring fossil fuel companies to pay a carbon tax and use the money to reduce other taxes (such as income tax) by an equal amount

#1. Provo-Orem, UT: 53.1% support requiring fossil fuel companies to pay a carbon tax and use the money to reduce other taxes (such as income tax) by an equal amount
#2. Casper, WY: 53.9%
#3. St. George, UT: 54.2%

- Support in Pittsfield for requiring utilities to produce 20% electricity from renewable sources: 69.1%
--- #26 highest among all metros
--- 4.1% higher than national average

Metros where the most people support requiring utilities to produce 20% electricity from renewable sources

#1. San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA: 72.8% support requiring utilities to produce 20% electricity from renewable sources
#2. Ann Arbor, MI: 72.2%
#3. Urban Honolulu, HI: 72.2%

Metros where the fewest people support requiring utilities to produce 20% electricity from renewable sources

#1. Provo-Orem, UT: 52.2% support requiring utilities to produce 20% electricity from renewable sources
#2. Decatur, AL: 54.7%
#3. Johnson City, TN: 55.5%

- Support in Pittsfield for providing tax rebates for people who purchase energy-efficient vehicles or solar panels: 85.6%
--- #4 highest among all metros
--- 3.6% higher than national average

Metros where the most people support providing tax rebates for people who purchase energy-efficient vehicles or solar panels

#1. Ithaca, NY: 86.6% support providing tax rebates for people who purchase energy-efficient vehicles or solar panels
#2. Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH: 86.1%
#3. Ann Arbor, MI: 86.0%

Metros where the fewest people support providing tax rebates for people who purchase energy-efficient vehicles or solar panels

#1. Amarillo, TX: 75.2% support providing tax rebates for people who purchase energy-efficient vehicles or solar panels
#2. Houma-Thibodaux, LA: 75.3%
#3. Texarkana, TX-AR: 76.0%

- Support in Pittsfield for drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: 27.3%
--- #322 highest among all metros
--- 4.4% lower than national average

Metros where the most people support drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

#1. Dalton, GA: 43.7% support drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
#2. Lima, OH: 41.6%
#3. Enid, OK: 41.4%

Metros where the fewest people support drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

#1. Ann Arbor, MI: 21.9% support drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
#2. Ithaca, NY: 22.5%
#3. Corvallis, OR: 23.1%

- Support in Pittsfield support for expanding offshore drilling for oil and natural gas off the U.S. coast: 49.7%
--- #270 highest among all metros
--- 2.4% lower than national average

Metros where the most people support expanding offshore drilling for oil and natural gas off the U.S. coast

#1. Lake Charles, LA: 69.4% support expanding offshore drilling for oil and natural gas off the U.S. coast
#2. Alexandria, LA: 68.9%
#3. Decatur, AL: 67.7%

Metros where the fewest people support expanding offshore drilling for oil and natural gas off the U.S. coast

#1. Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA: 34.6% support expanding offshore drilling for oil and natural gas off the U.S. coast
#2. San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA: 36.6%
#3. Santa Maria-Santa Barbara, CA: 37.0%