You Are NOT Alone, and Good News About Forever Chemicals (PFAS) and Regulations
The Yale Program on Climate Change Communication does a national survey titled “Climate Change in the American Mind: Beliefs and Attitudes.” In late January 2026 they released the results of the survey that was conducted November 6-14. 2025.
Note that they use “global warming” in reporting the survey results (not the title), not the preferred term for many of us. I suspect that is because they have been doing these for many years and feel staying with consistent language is important to compare results over time.
The key message is that it is important to realize that you are not alone. They found that 72% of Americans surveyed think global warming is real and happening; only 13% think it is not.
About 2/3 (64%) are at least somewhat worried. This includes almost 1/3 (29%) who are very worried.
Similarly, almost 2/3 (64%) think global warming is affecting the weather, with almost 1/3 (31%) of them thinking it is affecting the weather a lot.
Most importantly, when you feel alone, realize that you may be among the 85% of us who underestimate (or just don’t know) how many Americans are indeed concerned about this issue.
Why is that? The authors think it is in part due to lack of media coverage; only 17% say that they hear about the issue in the media at least once a week. This is the lowest percentage since they started asking about this in 2015. The decrease was most dramatic in 2025; in 2024 the percentage who said they saw media stories on global warming at least once a week was between 25 and 28%; in 2025 that decreased to 18% and then 17%. Given the current anti-science, anti-environment Trump administration and the take-over of some major media outlets by billionaires, this decrease in media coverage in 2025 should not surprise anyone. Even at a time when both India and China see the wisdom and economic value of wind and solar energy, the Trump administration and its enablers are actively disparaging of these efforts.
I have often wondered why environmental issues don’t seem to have much direct traction in elections. After all, there are many conservatives /republicans who recognize the problem. In part it may be that those on the right are not on the same page as those on the left or in the center when it comes to the role of the government in solving the problem, eschewing “big government” spending approaches.
Also, it seems that in elections environmental issues don’t seem to reach the top tier compared to other concerns in the minds of many voters. It may be in part that the effects seem distant to many Americans compared to more immediate concerns, and those most impacted may well be already voting for those who are aligned with their environmental concerns. For example, Yougov.com asked people to rank issues that were most important to them in the 2024 presidential election; they could give up to 3 responses out of 8 issues listed. They found that among Harris voters, environment and energy was listed at 41%, coming after the economy and health care. Of total registered voters, the environment and energy was listed as a main concern by 25%, coming after the economy, health care, immigration, and crime. Among Trump voters, the environment and energy came below everything else at 8%!
So, we can take heart that the majority of Americans are aware and concerned about climate change and believe it is happening now. It may not be the determining factor when they vote, but it is on the table as a viable issue. This is why political action that will benefit the environment is not limited to directly addressing the environment. The top priority is not necessarily perfection or purity, but reasonable and rational are critical; we have to vote in candidates who aren’t anti-science climate deniers in the pockets of the polluters, whether or not they are perfect. That would be a start.
On the good news front: climate isn’t the only concern. Over the last several years there have been major efforts to come to grips with the pervasive problem of “forever chemicals” (PFAS), so called because they last for a long time in the environment and in tissues. A recent study out of Harvard published in the science journal PNAS, reported by Mongabay, found evidence that regulating PFAS can make a difference, not only locally but in far-flung ecosystems!
From the Mongabay article:
“PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are synthetic chemicals used since the 1950s in products ranging from non-stick cookware and waterproof clothing to food packaging and firefighting foam. Legacy PFAS are older compounds that were used for decades but are generally no longer produced for industrial use. Their extreme stability has earned them the nickname “forever chemicals,” as they persist in the environment and accumulate in the tissues of living organisms.
“PFAS exposure has been linked to numerous health problems in humans and wildlife, including liver damage, immune system suppression, developmental problems, thyroid disease, and certain cancers. The chemicals bioaccumulate in the food chain, meaning concentrations increase at each level, with top predators like whales and humans facing the highest exposures.
“The new research revealed that organofluorine concentrations in pilot whale livers peaked around 2011 and declined by more than 60% by 2023. This represents roughly a decade-long lag after major manufacturers began phasing out production of the most problematic legacy PFAS in the early 2000s due to toxicity concerns…
“‘Production phase-outs, which were initially voluntary and later driven by regulation, have been quite effective at reducing concentrations of these chemicals in near-source communities as well as more remote ecosystems, which I think is very positive and important to emphasize,’ Jennifer Sun, lead author and recent Harvard PhD graduate who is currently a postdoctoral fellow, said in a statement.”
Don’t give in to despair! What we do matters! Who we elect, the regulations we create, makes a difference.