In recent years, the United States has witnessed an alarming surge in partisan hostility, a phenomenon that extends far beyond the halls of Congress and public debate. This intensifying political polarization, characterized not only by ideological differences but more critically by affective polarization—a deep-seated mutual animosity between opposing party supporters—has fractured social bonds and increased societal tensions. New research emerging from the University of Colorado Boulder reveals that this form of affective polarization may be undermining democracies’ capacity to tackle climate change, one of the most urgent global challenges of our time.
The study, published in the American Sociological Review, conducts an extensive analysis of CO₂ emission rates from over 20,000 fossil-fueled power plants in 92 democracies worldwide. It explores the relationship between political polarization, particularly affective polarization, and the effectiveness of climate regulations at the national level. Affective polarization differs fundamentally from ideological polarization; while the latter involves disagreement over policy ideas—potentially leading to healthy debate and innovation—the former embodies a hostile distrust that corrodes democratic discourse and obstructs policy implementation.
According to senior author Don Grant, a professor of sociology and a fellow at the Renewable and Sustainable Energy Institute (RASEI), the findings demonstrate a clear correlation between higher levels of affective polarization and elevated carbon emissions at the power plant level. This suggests that countries where citizens harbor deep hostility toward opposing parties have institutions less capable of enforcing climate regulations effectively, thereby allowing some of the largest sources of carbon pollution to operate with greater impunity.
The mechanisms behind this phenomenon are complex. In highly polarized democracies, entrenched political rivalries harden into rigid coalitions that are more concerned with obstructing their adversaries’ agendas than with collaborating on pressing issues. This dynamic severely impedes governance, diminishes policy effectiveness, and undermines legislative compromise, all of which are crucial for addressing multifaceted problems like climate change. Consequently, the institutions that should regulate and restrain carbon emissions struggle to function as intended.
Empirical evidence from the study quantifies these effects. For instance, Uruguay, a nation scoring lowest on the affective polarization scale, exhibited plant emission rates approximately 11% below the global average. Conversely, Poland, which scored the highest, recorded emissions nearly 8% above average. The United States, notorious for its entrenched partisan divides, ranks near the top of the scale and exceeds the average emissions rate. These patterns underscore the pervasive influence of affective polarization on environmental governance across diverse geopolitical environments.
Historically, the political landscape regarding environmental issues was markedly different. In the early 1970s, bipartisan consensus facilitated landmark environmental legislation such as the Clean Air Act in the U.S., which the Senate passed unanimously. During that era, utilities included environmental stakeholders as integral partners in decision-making processes, recognizing the necessity of collaborative governance for environmental protection. The passage of the Clean Air Act empowered the newly formed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish stringent air quality standards that held polluters accountable.
However, developments over recent decades reveal a shift in this cooperative dynamic. As society has polarized, political parties and their constituents have grown increasingly unwilling to engage with opposing views or stakeholders. This withdrawal has led to the marginalization of environmental advocacy within utility governance and regulatory frameworks. The consequence is a gradual insulation of power plants from public scrutiny and regulatory influence, even in countries with established climate policies. This insulation permits significantly higher emissions from fossil fuel infrastructure within polarized democratic settings.
The findings also highlight the particular vulnerability of government-owned power plants to the effects of affective polarization. Public utilities must navigate competing pressures from both pro-fossil fuel factions and environmental advocates. When polarization runs deep, reconciling these conflicting demands becomes an almost insurmountable challenge. This gridlock not only impedes the adoption of cleaner technologies but may also precipitate the dismantling of long-standing climate protection policies.
Don Grant raises concerns about the future trajectory if affective polarization continues unchecked. There is a worrying trend evident in the United States, where foundational environmental protections, such as the 2009 EPA “endangerment finding” that classified greenhouse gases as threats to public health, face repeal. Such regulatory rollbacks epitomize how affective polarization is not merely a social or political issue but an existential threat to democratic institutions’ ability to safeguard planetary health.
Despite these sobering realities, the study concludes on an optimistic note by spotlighting Great Britain’s recent progress. The UK, with its own legacy of political contention, succeeded in shuttering its last operating coal plant in 2024, signaling a decisive national commitment to eliminating one of the world’s dirtiest power sources. This success, as noted by Grant, stems from the strategic framing of climate action as a collective national endeavor, transcending partisan divides and fostering a unified sense of purpose.
The British example illustrates a critical pathway forward: overcoming affective polarization through inclusive narratives that reframe climate commitments as embodying shared national identity rather than partisan victories. This approach not only enables effective climate governance but also strengthens democratic resilience. In an era when polarization threatens to hamper global environmental efforts, such models offer a vital beacon of hope for democracies worldwide.
In sum, the interplay between affective polarization and climate change mitigation represents a formidable challenge to effective governance in democracies. The entrenched hostility between political factions creates institutional barriers that weaken regulatory enforcement and allow heightened emissions. Addressing this issue necessitates innovative political strategies that restore trust across divides, reengage marginalized stakeholders, and reimagine climate action as a unifying endeavor rather than a contentious battleground.
One of the crucial takeaways from this research is the necessity of differentiating between types of polarization in policy discourse. While ideological differences can stimulate robust debate and policy refinement, affective polarization erodes the very democratic fabric required to implement those policies. Consequently, strategies aimed at depolarizing society or at least mitigating affective hostility could have profound implications for climate policy success globally.
This research also signals an urgent call to policy makers, social scientists, and environmental advocates alike. Beyond technical solutions to emissions reductions, addressing the social and political dimensions of polarization is imperative. Cross-disciplinary efforts combining sociology, political science, and environmental policy could generate new frameworks to rebuild consensus and promote cooperative governance, critical for confronting the existential threat of climate change.
As democracies worldwide continue to grapple with polarized electorates, understanding the social dynamics influencing policy effectiveness is more important than ever. This study provides essential empirical evidence tied directly to one of the most pressing challenges facing humanity: curbing fossil fuel emissions to avert catastrophic climate impacts. Bridging the partisan divide is thus not only a matter of political health but a crucial step in securing a sustainable future.
Subject of Research: Not applicable
Article Title: The Long Shadow of Partisan Hostility: How Affective Polarization Hinders Democracies’ Ability to Mitigate Climate Change
News Publication Date: 29-Dec-2025
Web References: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00031224251396518
References: Grant, Don et al. “The Long Shadow of Partisan Hostility: How Affective Polarization Hinders Democracies’ Ability to Mitigate Climate Change.” American Sociological Review, 29 Dec. 2025.
Keywords: Climate change, Pollution, Political science, Sociology, Affective polarization, Partisan hostility, Carbon emissions, Democratic governance, Environmental policy
