Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Households with solar installations are ideologically diverse and more politically active than their neighbours

Abstract

Climate risk mitigation requires rapid decarbonization of energy infrastructure, a task that will need political support from mass publics. Here, we use a combination of satellite imagery and voter file data to examine the political identities of US households with residential solar installations. We find that solar households are slightly more likely to be Democratic; however, this imbalance stems primarily from between-neighbourhood differences in partisan composition rather than within-neighbourhood differences in the rate of partisan solar uptake. Crucially, we still find that many solar households are Republican. We also find that solar households are substantially more likely to be politically active than their neighbours, and that these differences in political participation cannot be fully explained by demographic and socioeconomic factors. Our results demonstrate that individuals across the ideological spectrum are participating in the US energy transition, despite extreme ideological polarization around climate change.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Location of households in study sample.
Fig. 2: Comparing party affiliation across households of solar adopters and neighbouring control households.
Fig. 3: Comparisons of mean partisan score for solar households and neighbouring control households across different geographic levels.
Fig. 4: Voting behaviour comparisons.
Fig. 5: Party registration by density of solar installations.
Fig. 6: Voting behaviour by density of solar distributions.

Data availability

De-identified data that support the findings of the study have been deposited in the Harvard Dataverse40.

Code availability

Replication code to produce the figures and analyses reported in this study have been deposited in the Harvard Dataverse 40.

References

  1. 1.

    Jones, C. F. Routes of Power (Harvard Univ. Press, 2014).

  2. 2.

    Breetz, H., Mildenberger, M. & Stokes, L. The political logics of clean energy transitions. Bus. Polit. 20, 492–522 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. M. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (Bloomsbury, 2011).

  4. 4.

    Layzer, J. A. Open for Business: Conservatives’ Opposition to Environmental Regulation (MIT Press, 2012).

  5. 5.

    McCright, A. M. & Dunlap, R. E. The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001-2010. Sociol. Q. 52, 155–194 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Stokes, L. C. Short-circuiting Policy: Interest Groups and the Battle Over Clean Energy and Climate Policy in the American States (Oxford Univ. Press, 2020).

  7. 7.

    Aklin, M. & Urpelainen, J. Political competition, path dependence, and the strategy of sustainable energy transitions. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 57, 643–658 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Stokes, L. C. & Breetz, H. L. Politics in the US energy transition: case studies of solar, wind, biofuels and electric vehicles policy. Energy Policy 113, 76–86 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Pierson, P. When effect becomes cause: policy feedback and political change. World Polit. 45, 595–628 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S. & Auld, G. Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sci. 45, 123–152 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Schmidt, T. S. & Sewerin, S. Technology as a driver of climate and energy politics. Nat. Energy 2, 17084 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Solar Industry Research Data (Solar Energy Industries Association, 2019).

  13. 13.

    Sigrin, B. O. & Mooney, M. E. Rooftop Solar Technical Potential for Low-to-Moderate Income Households in the United States (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2018).

  14. 14.

    Tranter, B. & Booth, K. Scepticism in a changing climate: a cross-national study. Glob. Environ. Change 33, 154–164 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    McCright, A. M., Dunlap, R. E. & Marquart-Pyatt, S. T. Political ideology and views about climate change in the European Union. Environ. Polit. 25, 338–358 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Lewis, G. B., Palm, R. & Feng, B. Cross-national variation in determinants of climate change concern. Environ. Polit. 28, 793–821 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Stokes, L. C. & Warshaw, C. Renewable energy policy design and framing influence public support in the United States. Nat. Energy 2, 17107 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    McCright, A. M. Political orientation moderates Americans’ beliefs and concern about climate change. Clim. Change 104, 243–253 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    McCright, A. & Dunlap, R. The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming. Sociol. Q. 52, 155–194 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Gromet, D. M., Kunreuther, H. & Larrick, R. P. Political ideology affects energy-efficiency attitudes and choices. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 9314–9319 (2013).

  21. 21.

    Lyon, T. P. & Yin, H. Why do states adopt renewable portfolio standards?: an empirical investigation. Energy J. 31, 133-157 (2010).

  22. 22.

    Huang, M.-Y., Alavalapati, J. R., Carter, D. R. & Langholtz, M. H. Is the choice of renewable portfolio standards random? Energy Policy 35, 5571–5575 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Hess, D. J., Mai, Q. D. & Brown, K. P. Red states, green laws: ideology and renewable energy legislation in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 11, 19–28 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Rabe, B. G. Statehouse and Greenhouse: the Emerging Politics of American Climate Change Policy (Brookings Institution Press, 2004).

  25. 25.

    Mildenberger, M., Marlon, J. R., Howe, P. D. & Leiserowitz, A. The spatial distribution of Republican and Democratic climate opinions at state and local scales. Clim. Change 145, 539–548 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Rai, V., Reeves, D. C. & Margolis, R. Overcoming barriers and uncertainties in the adoption of residential solar PV. Renew. Energy 89, 498–505 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Bollinger, B. & Gillingham, K. Peer effects in the diffusion of solar photovoltaic panels. Mark. Sci. 31, 900–912 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Graziano, M. & Gillingham, K. Spatial patterns of solar photovoltaic system adoption: the influence of neighbors and the built environment. J. Econ. Geogr. 15, 815–839 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Rode, J. & Weber, A. Does localized imitation drive technology adoption? A case study on rooftop photovoltaic systems in Germany. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 78, 38–48 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Palm, A. Local factors driving the diffusion of solar photovoltaics in Sweden: a case study of five municipalities in an early market. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 14, 1–12 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Dharshing, S. Household dynamics of technology adoption: a spatial econometric analysis of residential solar photovoltaic (PV) systems in Germany. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 23, 113–124 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Sunter, D., Castellanos, S. & Kammen, D. Disparities in rooftop photovoltaics deployment in the United States by race and ethnicity. Nat. Sustain. 2, 71–76 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Sunter, D. A., Dees, J., Castellanos, S., Callaway, D. & Kammen, D. M. in 2018 IEEE 7th World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion (WCPEC) (A Joint Conference of 45th IEEE PVSC, 28th PVSEC & 34th EU PVSEC) 24262429 (IEEE, 2018).

  34. 34.

    Who Installs More Solar: Democrats or Republicans? (Power Scout, 2018).

  35. 35.

    Tidemann, C., Engerer, N., Markham, F., Doran, B. & Pezzey, J. C. Spatial disaggregation clarifies the inequity in distributional outcomes of household solar PV installation. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 11, 035901 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Project Sunroof Data Explorer (Google, 2018).

  37. 37.

    Graziano, M., Fiaschetti, M. & Atkinson-Palombo, C. Peer effects in the adoption of solar energy technologies in the United States: an urban case study. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 48, 75–84 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Mummolo, J. & Nall, C. Why partisans do not sort: the constraints on political segregation. J. Polit. 79, 45–59 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Kahle, D. & Wickham, H. ggmap: Spatial Visualization with ggplot2. R J 5, 144–161 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Mildenberger, M., Howe, P. & Miljanich, C. Replication data for: Households with solar installations are ideologically diverse and more politically active than their neighbors (Harvard Dataverse, 2019); https://doi.org/10.7910/dvn/4kleou

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank K. Goldstein for contributions to the data collection, as well as I. Stadelmann, L. Schaffer, P. Bergquist, participants at the 2019 Coevolution of Politics and Technology workshop, ETH Zurich, and participants at the Comparative Political Economy of Energy Transitions workshop, University of Lucerne, for comments on earlier drafts of this article.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

M.M. and P.D.H. jointly participated in all stages of this study, including design, data collection, analysis and writing. C.M. participated in data collection and analysis.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matto Mildenberger.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–7 and Supplementary Note 1.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mildenberger, M., Howe, P.D. & Miljanich, C. Households with solar installations are ideologically diverse and more politically active than their neighbours. Nat Energy 4, 1033–1039 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0498-8

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing