How Reading 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 Reading 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 Reading for funding research into renewable energy sources: 83.8%
--- #250 highest among all metros
--- 1.9% lower 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 Reading for regulating CO2 as a pollutant: 74.6%
--- #104 highest among all metros
--- 0.0% 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 Reading for setting strict limits on existing coal-fire power plants: 67.0%
--- #106 highest among all metros
--- 0.7% lower 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 Reading 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: 67.4%
--- #116 highest among all metros
--- 0.4% lower 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 Reading for requiring utilities to produce 20% electricity from renewable sources: 62.2%
--- #195 highest among all metros
--- 2.8% lower 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 Reading for providing tax rebates for people who purchase energy-efficient vehicles or solar panels: 82.5%
--- #96 highest among all metros
--- 0.4% 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 Reading for drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: 30.6%
--- #274 highest among all metros
--- 1.1% 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 Reading support for expanding offshore drilling for oil and natural gas off the U.S. coast: 53.9%
--- #206 highest among all metros
--- 1.8% higher 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%
