But what does the American public think about some of these key issues? For details on how Americans view climate, energy, and the global economy, we turn to data from the long-running Chicago Council Surveys.
As growing hubs for people, commerce, industry, and transportation, global cities are leading contributors to stresses on the environment. According to UN Habitat, cities cover less than 2 percent of the earth’s surface but produce 60 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions and consume 78 percent of the world’s energy. Half of Americans (50%) say that the US government is not doing enough to deal with the problem of climate change nationally. Three in ten (31%) say the government is doing about the right amount, while two in ten (19%) say it is doing too much.
Despite this, the public overall does not see climate change as a critical threat to US vital interests. Four in ten (38%) say it is important, but not critical, while 35 percent say it is a critical threat. An additional 27 percent say it is not an important threat. This puts the threat of climate change 16th of the 20 threats asked about in the Chicago Council 2014 Survey.
Americans are in favor of international action to combat climate change. Seven in ten Americans (71%) support the US participating in a new international treaty to address climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Support is even higher among those who say that the government is not doing enough to deal with climate change—92 percent of this group believes that the US should participate. Conversely, 80 percent of people who say the government is doing too much oppose US participation in the treaty.
Globalization and the Global Economy
The forum will discuss the ways in which the world’s most powerful cities serve as economic engines of the twenty-first century and how global cities are positioned as hubs of trade and commerce. Meanwhile, Chicago Council public opinion data reveals how Americans view globalization and the global economy more broadly.
Americans believe economic strength (77%) is more important than military strength (23%) to a nation’s power and influence in the world, and seven in ten (72%, up 5 points since 2012) say that signing free trade agreements is an effective means to achieve foreign policy objectives.
Americans also express broad support for globalization and free trade. As the US economy continues to recover from the largest global economic collapse since the 1930s, public views on globalization have returned to 2004 levels. Two out of three Americans say that globalization is mostly a good thing (65% vs. 34% bad thing), the highest recorded percentage to feel this way since the question was first asked in 1998.
Asked about trade agreements specifically, half the public (50%) favors agreements to lower trade barriers provided the government has programs to help workers who lose their jobs. Another 14 percent favor trade agreements but oppose the governments’ programs to help workers who lose their jobs. One in three (31%) opposes agreements to lower trade barriers regardless of programs to help the unemployed, the lowest proportion yet. Since this question was first asked in 2004, opinion has been quite stable, with a plurality of Americans (between 43% and 50%) supporting trade agreements with a provision for the unemployed.
This general support for trade agreements is reflected in more specific situations. Majorities of Americans support both of the two far-reaching trade agreements that the United States is currently pursuing. Six in ten Americans support the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with Europe (62%, 29% oppose). A similar proportion support the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) being negotiated among a dozen Pacific Rim countries (63%, 31% oppose). Public support for these agreements is impressive given that the text of these agreements has been neither completed nor publicized. This suggests that public backing of these agreements is based on broad support for the idea of trade agreements rather than knowledge of the specifics.
Finally, the Chicago Forum on Global Cities will discuss how many of the world’s global cities were designed centuries ago and need to adapt their antiquated infrastructure to meet twenty-first century needs. One of their greatest challenges will be supplying increased energy options with fewer resources. So what do Americans think about energy sources and the US reliance on foreign supplies?
Americans have long considered securing adequate supplies of energy a top goal for US foreign policy. In the 2014 Chicago Council Survey, two-thirds of Americans (66%) deem it a very important goal, second only to protecting the jobs of American workers. Going back decades to the first Chicago Council Survey in 1974, majorities have consistently deemed securing energy supplies a very important goal. In addition, three in four (74%) say that reducing US dependence on foreign oil is a very important goal.
Reflecting these priorities, the American public favors a wide variety of measures to reduce US dependence on foreign energy sources. The most popular of the proposals presented in the 2014 Chicago Council Survey are maintaining existing nuclear power plants to reduce reliance on oil and coal (76%) and increasing tax incentives to encourage the development and use of alternative energy sources, such as solar or wind power (73%). Seven in ten (69%) favor requiring auto-makers to increase fuel efficiency, even if this means the price of cars would go up (69%). And two in three Americans (65%) support opening up land owned by the federal government for oil exploration.
Smaller majorities support increasing the use of hydraulic fracturing to extract oil and natural gas from underground rock formations (56%) and increasing the mining and use of coal for generating electricity (55%). The sole proposal in the 2014 Chicago Council Survey that Americans oppose is raising taxes on fuels such as coal and oil to encourage individuals and businesses to use less (34% favor, 63% oppose), a cost they would have to bear personally.
Though the Chicago Council Surveys don’t ask specifically about global cities, these issues – climate change, international trade, energy policy – have critical impacts on cities, both around the world and here in the United States. And with national governments controlling the key levers of power to resolve many of these critical issues, public opinion plays a critical role in shaping public policy. With urban leaders looking to solve these global challenges, they will also need to respond to the public’s views.
The Chicago Council on Global Affairs highlights critical shifts in American public thinking on US foreign policy through public opinion surveys and research conducted under the Lester Crown Center on US Foreign Policy.
The annual Chicago Council Survey, first conducted in 1974, is a valuable resource for policymakers, academics, media, and the general public. The Council also surveys American leaders in government, business, academia, think tanks, and religious organizations biennially to compare trends in their thinking with overall trends. And collaborating with partner organizations, the survey team periodically conducts parallel surveys of public opinion in other regions of the world to compare with US public opinion.
The Running Numbers blog features regular commentary and analysis from the Council’s public opinion and US foreign policy research team, including a series of flash polls of a select group of foreign policy experts to assess their opinions on critical foreign policy topics driving the news.
The Trump administration has taken a hard line on China, but has failed to convince the American public or many allies to follow suit. Instead, publics around the world now see the United States as a major threat.
Recent surveys about the political crisis in Nicaragua
President Trump's demand that South Korea dramtically increase its burden sharing is uniting South Korean across the politica and age spectrum.
Publics in South Korea and Japan agree on the problems that need to be resolved, but there's little optimism they can find solutions.
In recent years, partisanship has become a major factor in foreign policy attitudes in the Chicago Council Surveys; not so long ago opinions on foreign policy seemed immune to partisan impulses. Here are seven striking examples from the 2018 Chicago Council Survey.
It's been a busy, eventful year around the world. Throughout 2018, the Council's polling team has captured public and opinion leader attitudes on some of the most pressing foreign policy issues, including US-Russia relations, American views of China, public support for internationalism and trade, and how the rising generation of Millennials think about American foreign policy.
As the House becomes majority Democrat, there is low confidence among the American public for Congress--and several other institutions--to shape policies that benefit the United States.
President Trump pulled the United States out of the original Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations last year. But a majority of Americans seem to wish he hadn’t done that.
Past surveys have found that Americans want to cut US spending on foreign assistance and dramatically overestimate how much the US spends on those programs. When asked to construct their own US budget in the 2018 Chicago Council Survey, Americans allocate far more than the US actually spends.
While many headlines have declared that Donald Trump is remaking the Republican party in his image, a new 2018 Chicago Council Survey finds that not all Republican Party supporters have adopted the president’s positions. There is more than one GOP faction alive and kicking.
National Security Advisor John Bolton says "the International Criminal Court is already dead to us." Americans disagree.
A new joint report by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and the Levada Analytical Center finds experts have little hope for US-Russia relations in the near future.
Attitudes and beliefs frequently change from generation to generation and a new joint study from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, CATO Institute, and Charles Koch Institute explores generational differences between the American public on foreign policy issues.
The path to Singapore just got a little bumpy as North Korea reinforces message that denuclearization, if it comes at all, will not come cheap.
The April 27 inter-Korean summit was largely successful in the eyes of the South Korean public. It has created momentary trust in North Korea, and if that lasts, may lead the public to ask serious questions about the US-South Korea alliance.