Regunberg and Henn do not explicitly lay out any strategic orientation toward working-class agency. They speak of winning “majorities” including MAGA solar enthusiasts and MAHA gurus paranoid about fossil fuel pollution, but they also argue a climate message centered on “affordability” could appeal to working-class concerns. To make the case that it is logical to attach the climate issue to this agenda, they cite lots of polling data showing that climate change is a concern for large majorities of the American public (I acknowledge this in my original piece).
But just showing large majorities are concerned about climate change does not mean it would rise to the level of political salience in trying to build a real political base. The question for socialists should be: Can the climate issue be mobilized to appeal to the specific material interests of working-class people? I agree with Regunberg and Henn that focusing on “affordability” is in those material interests, but I depart from the necessity to center climate in that political agenda.
I do not want to get into a battle of polls — anyone can usually find a poll that backs the argument they’re trying to make. But I think the Yale Climate Opinion surveys are some of the most respected. For me, when it comes to ascertaining material interests, the most significant question they ask year after year is: “Estimated % of adults who think global warming will harm them personally a moderate amount or a great deal.” This question shows whether or not Americans see the climate issue as having a direct material impact on their actual lives.
In 2025, the percent who answered yes was 44. Put another way, this means 56 percent of Americans do not think climate change will harm them personally at all. So, while many more Americans are worried about climate change itself, a large majority doesn’t seem to think it is something related to their own material situation.
Regunberg and Henn do suggest there are more direct material reasons for voters to be concerned about climate change: “climate shows up in people’s lives not as an issue unto itself but in the form of rising insurance costs, the health impacts from heat waves, or a need for greater disaster preparedness.” But this conceit admits these material impacts do not register to most voters as a “climate” issue but rather is related to the more majoritarian concern with the cost of living.
Regunberg and Henn do cite a Data for Progress poll suggesting a majority do think climate change will have a financial impact on them, but I’d put more faith in the Yale figure which has asked the same question since 2008 and never risen to a majority. The number has actually declined since 2021 when it peaked at 48 percent (precisely when Biden made climate central to his administration).
Regunberg and Henn also cite polls showing black, Latino, and low-income voters say climate change is important (more so than rich voters). But again, the issue is how they rank climate in relation to other priorities. For me, the Pew Research Survey is most useful for showing how consistently Americans rank climate as a lower priority compared to the cost of living, jobs, and more (in 2024, only 36 percent ranked climate as their top priority).
Pew asks another pointed question on how Americans view climate policies impact on the economy — a stark 64 percent say climate policies either “hurt” (34 percent) or “make no difference” (30 percent) to the economy. This is damning for those who think the “link” between climate and economic concerns will be easy.
