Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, just sent the note below about a new analysis of climate attitudes. I’m posting it here as part of a continuing effort to point to notable news and analysis out there in the firehose flood of information:

Today we are releasing a short report that draws upon data from our latest national survey (March 2012) and other research to investigate this question: On balance, will candidates for political office benefit or be harmed by talking about and supporting action to reduce global warming? The short answer is that – at the national level and among ten key swing states – taking a pro-climate stand appears to benefit candidates more than hurt them with registered voters. Of course, the political dynamics in any given district may be an exception to this pattern, but it is important to note that the pattern is similar at both the national and swing-state scales. A few highlights: · A majority of all registered voters (55 percent) say they will consider candidates’ views on global warming when deciding how to vote.

· Among these climate change issue voters, large majorities believe global warming is happening and support action by the U.S. to reduce global warming, even if it has economic costs.

· Independents lean toward “climate action” and look more like Democrats than Republicans on the issue.

· A pro-climate action position wins votes among Democrats and Independents, and has little negative impact with Republican voters.

· Policies to reduce America’s dependence on fossil fuels and promote renewable energy are favored by a majority of registered voters across party lines.

The full report can be downloaded here: The Political Benefits of Taking a Pro-Climate Stand in 2012.

Matthew Nisbet of American University offered this thought:

Candidates can effectively elevate the agenda status of the issue by focusing on the possible harm to people in their district, and the need to defend local communities and industries from climate change-related impacts. Framing climate change in terms of public health and safety is not only likely to diversify and intensify support for national policy action, but our research suggests that a health focus may also help diffuse the intuitive feelings of anger common to the conservative base.

This related post is worth exploring: “Obama Ducks and Covers on Climate.” Here’s the core line: