Political elites in the US are deeply divided over climate change, and there are two main explanations why. The "intrinsic" view says climate beliefs are a core part of people's political identity, and over time, both sides have become more extreme in their positions. The other, "instrumental" view suggests that political actors use climate issues strategically. According to this idea, they ramp up the divide when major events bring climate change into the spotlight, making the level of disagreement rise and fall over time.

A new article co-authored by SIS Professor and Director of the Center for Environment, Community, and Equity Dana Fisher analyzes data from Congress and media coverage in the swing states of North Carolina, Ohio, Nevada, and Florida from 2013-2017 to assess how polarization has been manufactured around climate. It also looks at the kinds of events that seem to influence the level of political division: endogenous events caused by politics itself (like elections or policy battles) versus exogenous, outside events (like natural disasters or global climate talks).

Using new ways to measure how polarized the debate is, the researchers found that political events inside the US play the biggest role in driving division. Polarization goes up and down over time, often in connection with changes in who is speaking up and getting involved in the climate debate. These patterns support the instrumental idea that political leaders are actively shaping and stirring the debate when it suits them, rather than polarization worsening over time because of people's intrinsic beliefs.

Read the full article here.