This post examines how American politics has made weather and climate perception a partisan issue, and how regional experiences shape what people worry about most.
Surveys — both national and Louisiana-specific — reveal sharp divides in beliefs about extreme weather and climate change.
Partisanship and the perception of extreme weather
Over three decades in climate research and public engagement, I’ve seen how personal experience blends with politics to shape public views.
Today, party identity often determines whether people interpret hotter summers, stronger storms, or rising seas as evidence of climate change or as isolated weather events.
Regional concerns reflect lived exposure
People naturally worry about the hazards they experience most.
In the South, hurricanes dominate attention; in the Midwest, tornadoes; along the Eastern Seaboard, flooding and powerful storms; and in the West, wildfires rank highest.
This geographic pattern matters because local experience can either reinforce scientific understanding or, in the presence of partisan messaging, compete with it.
For example, a 2024 LSU/Reilly Center survey of Louisiana residents found widespread reports of hotter weather, flooding, damaging storms and rising seas.
Between 66% and 88% of respondents in that survey connected these local changes to climate change — a strong signal that direct exposure can align public perception with the underlying science.
National polls show a clear partisan split
Nationally, partisan differences are pronounced.
Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say extreme weather is growing more frequent and intense and to attribute that increase to climate change.
These differences appear consistently across multiple reputable surveys.
- 84% of Democrats vs. 38% of Republicans expect worsening extreme weather in the near future.
- A Pew survey found 68% of Democrats but just 26% of Republicans say climate change contributed “a lot” to severe weather.
- On sea level rise, 72% of Democrats compared with 43% of Republicans see climate change as a major driver.
Bipartisan support for practical risk reduction
Despite stark differences in cause attribution, Americans show broad agreement on sensible, protective steps.
When it comes to reducing harm from extreme events, practical measures draw support across the political spectrum.
High public backing for standards, aid, and local measures
Polling indicates substantial majorities favor policies that reduce vulnerability: 77% support stricter building standards and 64% back financial aid for rebuilding after disasters.
In Louisiana specifically, the 2025 LSU survey found strong support for targeted actions:
- 81% favor subsidies to strengthen roofs;
- 79% support relocation aid for those in unsafe locations;
- 71% back restricting new construction in the highest-risk zones.
Policy implications and communications strategy
For policymakers, planners and communicators, the mixed landscape of opinion suggests a dual approach.
Emphasize locally salient risks and the concrete benefits of mitigation and adaptation — measures that have broad appeal — while tailoring messages about causes to audiences more receptive to climate framing.
Moving forward: focus on shared priorities
Partisanship colors beliefs about climate drivers. However, it does not preclude consensus on practical solutions.
Prioritizing resilient infrastructure can mobilize public support across party lines. Equitable rebuilding programs and voluntary relocation incentives also help reduce harm from extreme weather now — whatever people call its cause.
Here is the source article for this story: Ron Faucheux: Bad weather and the politics of climate change