Climate change takes a back seat in campaigns, but research suggests voters still care – WRAL

From rising electricity bills to grocery prices, affordability has dominated the conversation heading into Election Day. But an issue receiving less attention on the campaign trail remains a concern for many voters: climate change.
New research from the University of Michigan suggests candidates may be underestimating how much Americans care about climate policy, even as they increasingly frame their campaigns around the cost of living.
Other WRAL Top Stories
The disconnect is playing out in North Carolina’s closely watched U.S. Senate race between Democratic former Gov. Roy Cooper and Republican Michael Whatley.
Cooper, who spoke frequently about climate change while serving as governor, has made lowering costs a centerpiece of his Senate campaign.
“We’ve got to remember that that climate change is affecting weather patterns, is affecting the intensity of storms,” Cooper said after Hurricane Helene in 2024.
Two years later, his campaign message has centered on a different promise: to “make stuff cost less.”
Whatley, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, has also emphasized affordability, promoting a “Make More, Keep More” economic message while criticizing Cooper’s record.
“What has Roy Cooper’s solution to affordability issues he complains about every day? Wants to raise taxes and more regulations,” Whatley said.
The candidates offer competing explanations for rising costs and different approaches to addressing them. But their emphasis on affordability also reflects a broader shift in how politicians talk about energy and the environment.
Geoffrey Henderson, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan’s School for Environment and Sustainability, studies how political messaging shapes public support for climate policy.
In an October analysis with fellow University of Michigan researcher Nathaniel Geiger, Henderson identified three approaches Democratic candidates are taking to energy and climate issues this election cycle.
Some, including Cooper, emphasize lowering energy costs without making climate change central to their message. The researchers call them “energy populists.”
Others campaign more explicitly on climate action and renewable energy. A third group promotes an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy, combining support for cleaner energy with continued fossil fuel development.
Henderson says part of the challenge is that politicians may assume voters are more divided over climate change than they actually are.
“There is a perception that the public is as polarized as elites are on the issue, and that perception is not true,” Henderson told WRAL.
The distinction matters because concern about climate change does not necessarily follow the same partisan divisions seen among elected officials.
The researchers also found that messaging focused on cost savings can increase support for renewable energy across party lines, suggesting affordability and climate action do not have to be competing campaign priorities.
Henderson warns that when climate change receives less attention during elections, candidates may emerge with less of a mandate to prioritize climate policy once in office.
The latest Yale Climate Opinion Maps offer a closer look at how North Carolinians view the issue.
Based on national survey data and statistical modeling, Yale researchers estimate that in Wake County:
The findings suggest climate change remains relevant to a substantial share of residents, even when it is not a dominant campaign talking point.
The figures are modeled estimates of adult opinion, not a direct survey of Wake County voters in the 2026 Senate election. The presidential-candidate question also should not be interpreted as a measurement of support for either Senate candidate.
Still, the results illustrate Henderson’s broader point: Political messaging may not fully reflect public concern about climate change.
Climate change and household costs are not necessarily separate issues.
Extreme weather can damage homes, businesses, and infrastructure, while rising insurance costs and investments in the electric grid can create additional financial pressures.
Energy policy also involves choices about how electricity is generated, who pays for new infrastructure, and how utilities balance reliability, affordability, and emissions.
Those connections are increasingly relevant in North Carolina, where rising electricity demand, including from data centers, has intensified debate over utility costs and future power generation.
A national Yale survey found that roughly two-thirds of registered voters believe global warming is contributing to higher utility bills. That finding measures voters’ perceptions, rather than establishing how much climate change contributes to any particular bill.
For Henderson, the larger question is whether campaigns focused on immediate financial concerns can also address the longer-term environmental challenges that voters say matter to them.
His research suggests candidates do not necessarily have to choose between talking about affordability and talking about climate change. The two issues may resonate most when voters understand how they intersect.

source