The relationship between religious beliefs, personal values, and social preferences has gained significant importance in environmental consciousness and policy development (; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ). This paper contributes to the existing body of literature by focusing on the quantitative analysis of the relationship between religiosity, political alignments, and environmental views.
The global challenge of addressing the environment and transitioning to sustainable energy sources has gained unprecedented attention, necessitating a comprehensive understanding of the intersection of faith, personal values, and environmentalism. This study seeks to clarify how religious affiliation shapes perceptions of environmental policy, both directly through theological and moral interpretations of nature, and indirectly through political alignments and partisan preferences. Rather than treating religion and politics as separate determinants of environmental views, this research explores their intersection, analysing how religious worldviews may influence political identity and, in turn, attitudes toward environmental regulation and spending. Drawing on empirical patterns in American National Election Studies (ANES) data, the study aims to uncover both theological orientations and their political expressions in shaping environmental stances in the US context.
Christianity, a major religious force with historical roots shaping cultural standards, ethical frameworks, and social attitudes, is particularly interesting (; ; ). The significance of Christianity extends beyond individual behaviour, influencing governance and policy formulation. Exploring the influence of Christian principles and comparing Christianity with other religions can offer insights into the contributions of different beliefs to environmental attitudes and behaviours. Additionally, there is growing interest in minor religions that are expanding in the US due to migration and the establishment of new faith communities. This paper employs socio-demographic variables from American National Election Studies (ANES) to statistically analyse these relations.
Religiosity is a complex and multi-dimensional construct that includes not only denominational identity but also religious intensity, belief systems, and practices. While this study primarily examines religious affiliation (denomination) due to the structure of the available ANES dataset, this represents only one facet of religiosity. The decision to focus on affiliation reflects its empirical relevance in shaping group-based political and environmental preferences, especially in the US context where denominational identity often aligns with broader cultural and ideological patterns (; ). Nevertheless, the importance of incorporating measures of religious intensity (e.g., frequency of attendance, scriptural literalism, strength of belief) in future research could be useful to provide a more nuanced understanding of the religion–environment nexus.
In the complex realm of human behaviour, deeply held convictions such as religious beliefs shape human perceptions of the world (). Understanding how religious beliefs influence Americans' perceptions and attitudes is crucial for policymakers, environmental leaders, religious leaders, and advocacy groups aiming to develop effective strategies for addressing this challenge. Section 2 contextualises the influence of religion on political and social behaviours and provides an overview of the current debate surrounding religion’s potential effects on the environment and environmentalism. Section 3 outlines the materials and methods used for this research. The results are presented in Section 4, followed by a discussion in Section 5. Finally, Section 6 summarises the conclusions of this study.
To understand the intersection of religion with sociopolitical and environmental dynamics in the US, this section offers a contextual framework that situates religion within broader American social and political behaviours (2.1), as well as its evolving role in shaping attitudes toward the environment and ecological stewardship (2.2).
Recent scholarship affirms the enduring and evolving influence of religion on political attitudes and social behaviours in the US. The literature reflects a shift from traditional measures of religiosity (e.g., church attendance) to more nuanced constructs such as Christian nationalism, religious identity, and cross-pressures within religious traditions.
Studies have increasingly focused on the intersection of religion with political polarisation, militarism, and secularisation. find that religiosity predicts public support for US military interventions, but with variation based on denomination and political ideology.
Similarly, investigate the growing politicisation of religious belief during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their panel study reveals that pandemic-related controversies —especially around vaccines and religious liberty— accelerated secular identification, particularly among politically liberal individuals, suggesting that public health politics functioned as a religious sorting mechanism.
Several recent studies emphasise the role of Christian nationalism in driving political polarisation and shaping civic discourse. demonstrate that while frequent church attendance alone does not strongly predict conservative attitudes, the presence of Christian nationalist beliefs significantly increases the likelihood of holding such views. These finding challenges prior assumptions that religious participation necessarily equates with liberalism or conservatism.
Moreover, argues that Christian nationalism has emerged as a salient civic identity that transcends denominational boundaries, acting as a cultural-political framework that organises views on immigration, race, and education.
The relationship between religiosity and protest participation is also receiving renewed attention. finds that regular church attendance correlates with higher levels of civic engagement, including protest activity, especially when religious elites cue political issues. However, the mobilising effect depends on the alignment of theological and partisan messaging within congregations.
finds little evidence that Catholics are uniquely or strongly cross-pressured compared to members of other religious traditions. In fact, Catholics —whether cross-pressured or not— are often more likely than their non-Catholic counterparts, including those from more politically homogeneous traditions, to embrace partisan politics. In some instances, the partisan differences within the Catholic population, shaped by varying responses to cross-pressures, are greater than the differences between Catholics and non-Catholics.
Generational change also factors prominently in recent work. document the continued decline in institutional religious affiliation but note a surprising rise in Christian identity among young adult males, particularly those who align with conservative politics. This emerging gender-religion divide has implications for partisan mobilisation and cultural narratives ().
Finally, public opinion about religion’s role in civil institutions reveals deepening divides. finds broad support for the presence of religious symbols and personnel (e.g., chaplains) in public schools but strong disagreement along partisan lines regarding the appropriate boundaries between church and state.
Across these studies, religion emerges not simply as a private matter of belief, but as a public and politicised identity —shaped by cultural currents, partisan cues, and demographic shifts. The latest research moves beyond traditional binaries (religious vs. secular) to map a more complex interplay of institutional participation, ideology, and national identity. These findings suggest that religion’s role in shaping American political life remains not only relevant but increasingly contested.
In recent decades, the US has witnessed a marked transformation in its religious composition, with profound implications for public discourse, political alignment, and environmental engagement. Christianity, once the overwhelmingly dominant religious tradition —claimed by approximately 90% of American adults in the early 1990s— has seen a steady decline, now representing around two-thirds of the population (). This significant contraction is largely driven by religious switching, as individuals increasingly abandon the religious traditions of their upbringing. A growing proportion now identifies as religiously unaffiliated, including atheists, agnostics, and those who describe themselves as “nothing in particular.” This trend represents not merely a demographic shift but a profound reorientation of moral frameworks, cultural authority, and ecological ethics.
The reasons for religious disaffiliation are multifaceted. attributes this shift to societal modernisation, increased individualism, disillusionment with institutional religion, and the politicisation of faith, particularly among younger and more progressive demographics. Education plays a pivotal role —individuals with higher levels of education are statistically more likely to be religiously unaffiliated. Additionally, gender (with men more likely to disaffiliate), political affiliation (Democrats over Republicans), and geographic location (especially in the Western and Northeastern US) are strong predictors of religious identity shifts.
Aside from religious switching, other demographic processes such as migration, fertility rates, and age structures also contribute to changes in religious composition. Immigration patterns, differences in fertility rates between religious groups, and age demographics all influence the future religious landscape of the US.
Importantly, these demographic variables are also correlated with environmental attitudes. For example, younger Americans —who are more likely to be unaffiliated— also exhibit stronger concern for climate change and environmental justice (). This intersection of secularisation and environmental consciousness invites a reevaluation of the traditional religious narratives that have shaped American attitudes toward nature.
Table 1 provides a comparative overview of the major religious environmental perspectives in the US.
Source: Own elaboration.
Despite its numerical decline, Christianity retains significant cultural and political influence in the US, and its internal theological diversity results in a wide spectrum of environmental ethics. Many Christian denominations invoke biblical teachings to support stewardship of the Earth, citing Genesis 2:15 as a foundational mandate for environmental care. Evangelical, mainline Protestant, and Catholic voices differ considerably in their environmental rhetoric and activism.
The intersection of Christianity and environmental concerns has garnered significant attention, fostering a nuanced and evolving discourse (). Lynn White's seminal work, “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,” published in 1967, shed light on the influence of Christianity on human perceptions of nature. White argued that the spiritual connection between Christian adherents and their local natural surroundings was severed, resulting in a perspective that viewed nature as a mere resource for exploitation rather than an integral part of the interconnected web of life (), as happened in the displaced animistic religions.
Critics and supporters alike engage in lively debates regarding the role of Christianity in the environmental crisis. While some assert that Christianity bears responsibility for significant environmental problems (; ; ; ; ; ), it is crucial to acknowledge the diverse perspectives within this discourse. Despite this historical departure from nature-friendly principles, Christianity also introduced values rooted in responsible stewardship. These principles were grounded in the teachings of the Holy Scriptures and Church tradition, emphasising the importance of caring for and managing the Earth's resources (). Early Christian thinkers portrayed nature as a conduit for divine communication, instilling reverence for creation and an inherent value in preserving its integrity (; ; ; ).
Pope Francis' encyclical, “Laudato Si',” has emerged as a central focus in contemporary environmental discourse. This stance on climate change advocates for a transformative shift, integrating religious perspectives to deepen the understanding of the climate crisis (). The literature reflects a diverse range of analyses, exploring the impact of the encyclical on various aspects such as health, well-being, and initiatives undertaken by the Catholic Church for environmental welfare (; ; ).
Empirical studies further reveal variability in Christian environmental behaviour. These investigations reveal correlations between Christian beliefs and environmental practices (; ). Notwithstanding, religious perceptions of the environment and climate change exhibit significant variation across demographics, necessitating nuanced analyses that consider cultural and political contexts (; ; ; ; ; ; ).
Judaism, representing roughly 2% of the US population, offers an ethical framework for environmental engagement rooted in Halakhic principles and prophetic justice. Scriptural passages such as Leviticus 25 —mandating the sabbatical year (shemittah)— exemplify a tradition of ecological restraint and communal responsibility. Contemporary Jewish environmental organisations, such as Dayenu and the Jewish Climate Action Network, have mobilised these teachings into advocacy campaigns centred on decarbonisation, climate equity, and intergenerational justice (; ).
Jewish environmental thought often aligns with broader movements for social justice, reflecting an integrated view of ecological degradation and systemic inequality. Rabbinic commentary and Talmudic law have been interpreted to support sustainability, biodiversity preservation, and limits on consumption. However, within the American Jewish community, as in other traditions, perspectives vary —ranging from eco-theological activism to apocalyptic or cyclical interpretations that temper urgency.
Muslims comprise approximately 1% of the US population, yet Islamic environmentalism is a growing area of discourse and practice. Islamic teachings emphasise the Earth as a trust (amanah) from God, with humans acting as stewards (khalifah) responsible for maintaining balance (mīzān) in creation (Qur’an 30:45, 6:141). Islamic ecological principles are gaining renewed attention through educational campaigns, green mosques, and climate action groups ().
Islamic environmentalists often stress the concept of hisbah —moral accountability in public life— as a foundation for sustainable practices. While theological pluralism exists within Muslim communities, contemporary interpretations increasingly engage with modern ecological science, and some scholars have begun articulating an Islamic theology of climate change (; ).
Approximately 1% of Americans identify as Hindu. Hindu cosmology, with its deep reverence for natural forces and cyclical time, offers a theologically rich foundation for environmental concern. Concepts such as prithvi (Earth as goddess), ahimsa (nonviolence), and dharma (duty) inform ethical relationships with the natural world. Rivers, forests, and mountains are considered sacred embodiments of divinity.
Modern Hindu environmentalism draws from classical texts like the Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads, as well as modern figures such as Gandhi, who linked spiritual discipline with ecological harmony. Environmental organisations rooted in Hindu principles promote organic agriculture, vegetarianism, and river conservation efforts. However, some Hindu views also frame ecological change within larger cosmic cycles (kalpas), potentially reducing the emphasis on urgent mitigation.
Buddhists, also about 1% of the US population, offer a distinctive eco-philosophy grounded in interdependence (pratītyasamutpāda) and compassion (karuṇā). Buddhist environmentalism emphasises mindfulness of one’s impact on all sentient beings and the minimisation of suffering caused by ecological destruction. Prominent Buddhist leaders, including the Dalai Lama and Thích Nhất Hạnh, have spoken extensively on climate change as a moral and existential crisis.
Western Buddhist communities often lead initiatives around sustainable living, veganism, and non-consumerist lifestyles. Buddhist ecology is particularly resonant with secular environmental ethics, making it a bridge tradition between religious and non-religious climate activism ().
Native American spiritualities, represented by over 3 million individuals, encompass diverse worldviews grounded in deep relationality with land, animals, and ancestral spirits. Many Indigenous cosmologies see humans as kin to non-human entities, with moral obligations to uphold reciprocity and respect for natural systems ().
Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) developed over millennia guides sustainable resource use, seasonal migration, and ceremonial cycles aligned with ecological rhythms. However, colonial dispossession, extractive industries, and climate change pose severe threats to Indigenous land practices. Climate adaptation among Indigenous communities often includes a revival of traditional practices alongside legal and political strategies for environmental justice (; ).
Earth-centred religions —including Wicca, Druidry, Neo-Paganism, and forms of Eco-Shamanism— are among the fastest-growing spiritual movements in the US. Although difficult to quantify precisely, adherents often share a deep reverence for nature, seasonal cycles, and feminine divinity. These traditions sacralise the Earth itself rather than a transcendent creator, promoting ritual connection with the land and its rhythms ().
Ecospirituality in these contexts is often explicitly anti-hierarchical, feminist, and ecologically activist. Celebrations of solstices and equinoxes, community gardening, and rituals of rewilding are common expressions. These practices challenge dominant paradigms of nature as property or commodity, offering instead a relational, immanent spirituality grounded in ecological care.
The evolving religious composition of the US is reshaping how environmental issues are understood and addressed. The rise of the religiously unaffiliated and Earth-centred spiritualities, combined with diverse ecological interpretations within major world religions, reflects a pluralistic and contested field of environmental ethics. Religious narratives, symbols, and institutions continue to influence public engagement with climate change, albeit in increasingly complex and heterogeneous ways.
Understanding these dynamics is crucial for scholars, policymakers, and activists seeking to mobilise faith-based responses to ecological crises. As the religious landscape continues to diversify and secularise, new coalitions and theologies may emerge —potentially bridging divides and contributing to a more inclusive and sustainable environmental ethic.
The analytical approach reflects the study’s dual interest: first, in religious affiliation as a cultural and value-laden identity, and second, in how this identity connects with political alignment and evaluations of environmental policy. Based on this framework, the central research question guiding this study is:
This question integrates both the theological-cultural and political dimensions of environmental attitudes, allowing the analysis to assess not only denominational distinctions but also their expression through partisan perceptions of environmental competence.
This study utilises data from the American National Election Studies (ANES) survey, known for its extensive and representative collection of voter demographics, political behaviour, and social attitudes. The ANES survey ensures a representative sample of the US population ().
As a result, religious affiliation data are categorised into the following groups: Protestants, Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Latter-Day Saints (LDS), Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, those identifying with other religions or none, and those refusing to declare their religion. Political alignment is classified into liberal, conservative, moderate, inapplicable, and refusal to answer. Additionally, the survey captured respondents' opinions on environmental policy, including which political party they believed would better manage environmental issues, views on business regulation to protect the environment, and perspectives on federal budget spending for environmental protection. The selected variables are shown in Table 2.
Source: Own elaboration.
This study employs a dual analysis strategy combining descriptive cross-tabulations and clustering. Cross-tabulations allow for direct observation of bivariate relationships between religious affiliation, political alignment, and environmental attitudes —offering transparency and interpretability. However, due to the multidimensional nature of the data and the potential for interactions between variables, a K-Means clustering algorithm was additionally used to uncover latent groupings that reflect combined religious, political, and environmental profiles. This complementary approach provides both targeted comparisons and holistic insights into population structure.
Regarding data treatment, the ANES dataset includes recommended sampling weights to correct for unequal probabilities of selection and post-stratification. For the descriptive analyses, weights were reviewed but not applied, as the primary goal was to explore patterns rather than produce population estimates. The clustering algorithm also used unweighted data due to the complexity of integrating weights in unsupervised learning methods, but preprocessing steps included standardisation of continuous variables.
The analytical approach begins with descriptive statistics to calculate the distribution of political alignments within each religious group. To further explore the relationship between political alignment and environmental policy perceptions, cross-tabulation is employed using the original ANES files in SPSS (Annex A). This method allows for the identification of trends within each religious group regarding their environmental policy preferences.
In this analytical step, the dependent variables are respondents’ environmental policy attitudes, operationalised through three ANES items:
The main independent variable is religious affiliation, treated as a categorical variable reflecting denominational identity (e.g., Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.). Additionally, political alignment is considered both a control variable and a potential mediator in the relationship between religion and environmental attitudes.
A clustering algorithm programmed in Python is then applied to group respondents based on their religious affiliation, political alignment, and environmental policy opinions. The Python code (Annex B) performs data preprocessing and clustering analysis using the K-Means algorithm. To determine the optimal number of clusters, the code implements the elbow method. Once the optimal number of clusters is established, the algorithm proceeds to identify the cluster centres. These centres represent the average values of the variables for each cluster. Subsequently, individuals are assigned to clusters based on their proximity to these centres.
Through these methodological steps, the study aims to uncover nuanced relationships between religious affiliation, political alignment, and environmental policy opinions, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of how these factors interact within American society.
This analysis explores the intersection of religious affiliation, political alignment, and environmental attitudes in the US. A consistent pattern across nearly all religious groups is the prevalence of political disengagement, as indicated by a substantial portion of respondents selecting “inapplicable” political alignments. However, where political identification is present, distinct ideological orientations emerge that align closely with religious identity (Annex A, Table A1).
Individuals who refuse to disclose their religion exhibit high political detachment: 68% selected either inapplicable or refused to answer, and only 22% identified as conservative. Those uncertain of their religious identity split evenly —50% inapplicable and 50% liberal— suggesting a latent liberal inclination among those who do adopt a political identity. Protestants show strong disengagement (74% inapplicable), along with a modest conservative leaning (15%) and minimal liberal presence (9%). Roman Catholics present a more politically diverse profile, with 59% selecting inapplicable and roughly equal shares identifying as conservative (21%) and liberal (18%). Orthodox Christians mirror these patterns with 58% inapplicable, 22% conservative, and 18% liberal. Latter-Day Saints (LDS) exhibit one of the highest levels of political disengagement (72% inapplicable), but among those expressing a view, 21% lean conservative and only 7% liberal. Jewish respondents also tend to avoid political labels (77% inapplicable) but show a slight preference for liberalism (12%) over conservatism (10%).
Muslims stand out for a more evenly distributed political identity, with 38% selecting inapplicable, 31% liberal, 23% conservative, and 4% moderate. Buddhists exhibit moderate engagement, with 69% selecting inapplicable and a lean toward liberalism (19%) over conservatism (12%). Hindus follow a similar pattern, with 61% inapplicable, 24% liberal, and 12% conservative. Atheists and agnostics demonstrate particularly high political disengagement —79% and 76%, respectively— though those who do identify politically tend to lean liberal (13% and 16%, respectively). Individuals identifying as “something else” or “nothing in particular” show greater political diversity, with roughly equal proportions identifying as conservative and liberal (23% and 20% for “something else”; 22% and 21% for “nothing in particular”).
Across the spectrum, non-Christian and unaffiliated groups display stronger liberal leanings, while Christian groups —especially LDS and Protestants— tend toward conservatism or political non-engagement. These patterns are echoed in perceptions of which political party is better suited to handle environmental issues (Annex A, Table A2). Overall, 38% of respondents believe Democrats would do a much better job, 19% think they would do somewhat better, and 23% see no significant difference. In contrast, only 12% believe Republicans would do much better and 9% somewhat better. Support for Democratic environmental competence is strongest among atheists (69%), Jews (69%), agnostics (67%), Buddhists (59%), Hindus (46%), and Muslims (44%). These groups show a clear alignment with progressive environmental policies. By contrast, support is much lower among Catholics (35%), Orthodox Christians (29%), Protestants (28%), and especially LDS (15%).
For those who consider that Democrats would do somewhat better or that there is no substantial difference between the parties, 50% of individuals uncertain of their religious affiliation fall into this category. This suggests a level of ambivalence or moderate Democratic preference among those with undefined religious identities.
Confidence in Republican environmental management is most concentrated among LDS, with 21% believing Republicans would do much better, followed by Protestants (17%), Orthodox Christians (12%), and Catholics (11%). In other religious denominations, confidence in this statement remains below 7%. Regarding the belief that Republicans would do somewhat better, LDS (15%), Orthodox Christians (14%), Protestants (14%), and Catholics (8%) show higher confidence. This perspective is less prevalent in other religious groups, with confidence levels falling below 5%.
The cross-tabulation analysis of political alignment and perceptions regarding the best party to handle environmental issues reveals several noteworthy patterns (Annex A, Table A3).
Among those who do not identify politically, a plurality (39%) believes there is no real difference between the parties, while 25% believe Democrats would do a much better job. Similarly, respondents who are unsure of their political placement largely feel there is no difference between parties (45%), with 25% believing Democrats would perform better. Among those who selected an inapplicable political placement, 41% think Democrats would do a much better job, indicating that political non-affiliation does not necessarily equate to policy neutrality.
Liberals overwhelmingly stand with the Democratic Party, with 48% believing Democrats would do a much better job and 22% thinking they would do somewhat better. However, 23% of liberals perceive no significant difference between the parties, and a small fraction, over 5%, think Republicans would do better, indicating some diversity of opinion within this group.
Conservative respondents present a more mixed view: 37% believe there is no significant difference between the parties, 22% think Democrats would do a much better job, and 21% feel Democrats would do somewhat better. This distribution suggests that while a considerable portion of conservatives acknowledge Democratic competence in environmental management, many remain indifferent or sceptical about party differences.
Moderates exhibit strong support for Democratic environmental policies, with 50% believing Democrats would do somewhat better and 35% thinking they would do much better. This indicates a substantial leaning towards Democratic solutions to environmental issues among those with centrist political views.
Attitudes toward environmental regulation further reveal religious divides (Annex A, Table A4). When asked to rate their support for business regulation to protect the environment (on a 1 to 7 scale, with 1 being strong support and 7 strong opposition), the largest share of respondents (28%) selected the most pro-regulatory option (1), with 52% overall favouring stronger regulation (options 1–3). Atheists (57%), agnostics (52%), Buddhists (51%), and those uncertain of their religious identity (50%) were the most supportive of regulation. Christian groups, by contrast, gravitate toward more centrist or sceptical views: LDS (19%), Orthodox Christians (16%), and both Protestants and Catholics (15%) most commonly selected moderate positions (4 or 5). Notably, opposition to regulation was most prominent among LDS and Protestants, with 12% each choosing the most anti-regulation stance (7), followed by Orthodox Christians (8%) and Catholics (6%). Some groups, including Muslims and those selecting “nothing in particular,” “something else,” or declining to answer, were more likely to say they had not thought much about the issue, indicating a degree of disengagement or uncertainty.
Similar patterns appear in attitudes toward federal environmental spending (Annex A, Table A5). Overall, 60% of respondents support increasing federal spending on environmental protection, while 32% favour maintaining current levels. Support for increased investment is highest among those uncertain of their religious identity (100%), atheists (84%), Buddhists (84%), agnostics (83%), Jews (78%), Muslims (69%), and Hindus (68%). In contrast, Christians display less enthusiasm: less than 59% of any Christian group supports increasing spending, and the lowest levels are found among LDS (35%) and Protestants (under 50%). Instead, 47% of LDS and 40% of Protestants prefer to maintain existing spending, and 18% of LDS and 13% of Protestants advocate for cuts. Among non-Christian groups, support for decreased spending rarely exceeds 6%.
In sum, religious affiliation emerges as a significant factor shaping political identity and environmental attitudes (Table 3). Non-Christian groups —including atheists, agnostics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and those uncertain of their religious identity— demonstrate stronger alignment with liberal politics and progressive environmental policies, as well as greater support for regulatory and fiscal interventions. Christian groups, particularly LDS, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians, display a more conservative orientation or political disengagement, and are more likely to perceive environmental regulation and spending as excessive or unwarranted. These findings underscore how religion in the US continues to shape not only moral and cultural worldviews, but also ecological and policy perspectives, positioning it as a critical axis in contemporary political and environmental debates.
Source: Own elaboration.
A clustering algorithm was subsequently applied to group the observations into distinct clusters. To determine the optimal number of clusters, the elbow method was employed (Figure 1). The plot indicated that the ideal number of clusters for this data was around three or four.
Based on this analysis, the decision was made to proceed with four clusters. Table 4 provides a characterisation of each cluster.
Source: Own elaboration.
Following the determination of cluster centres, individuals are assigned to clusters based on the average values of each cluster, as outlined in Table 4 (Share of respondents). The methodology ensures a well-balanced distribution of respondents across clusters (24.02%, 32.64%, 29.89%, and 13.44%). The four distinct clusters reflect divergent patterns of environmental attitudes, political leanings, and religious affiliations, as well as intersections between religious identity, political orientation, and views on environmental governance in the contemporary US context.
Cluster 1 is characterised by a strong alignment with liberal political ideals and substantial support for the Democratic Party regarding environmental management. Members of this cluster advocate for robust federal intervention in environmental issues, including increased environmental spending and stringent regulatory oversight of businesses to ensure environmental compliance. Religiously, this group is predominantly Christian, with the most common affiliations being Protestant and Roman Catholic. The religious orientation in this cluster appears to correlate with a progressive interpretation of stewardship theology—the belief that humans have a moral responsibility to care for the Earth as part of their faith commitments. Such theological frameworks are increasingly prevalent among socially active Christian communities, especially among mainline Protestants and environmentally conscious Catholics.
Cluster 2 shares much of Cluster 1’s policy orientation, particularly its liberal stance on environmental issues. Members strongly support federal spending on environmental protection and favour rigorous environmental regulation of private enterprise. Politically, this group is closely aligned with the Democratic Party and exhibits strong trust in governmental institutions to manage environmental affairs. However, unlike Cluster 1, the religious composition of this group is distinctly more secular or religiously pluralistic. A significant proportion of respondents in Cluster 2 identify as agnostic, atheist, or as belonging to religious traditions not explicitly surveyed in standard religious typologies (e.g., Unitarian Universalist, New Age, or eclectic spiritual paths). This secular-religious blend may contribute to a policy framework grounded more in scientific rationalism and ethical universalism than in traditional theological narratives. The absence of conventional Christian affiliations may also reflect broader sociopolitical trends among religiously unaffiliated populations (“nones”) who increasingly advocate for progressive environmental policies.
Cluster 3 exhibits more ideological complexity. While some members self-identify as liberal, the most frequently selected political orientation among them is “inapplicable,” suggesting a potential disengagement from or ambivalence toward traditional political categories. Despite this ambiguity, the cluster as a whole leans moderately conservative, with a slight preference for Republican leadership in environmental governance. Attitudes toward environmental business regulation are centrist, often occupying middle-ground positions that neither fully endorse nor reject regulatory frameworks. Similarly, this cluster supports moderate levels of environmental spending, with many respondents selecting neutral or mid-range options. This apparent centrist positioning may be partially attributable to a “middle-option bias,” where respondents gravitate toward moderate choices due to uncertainty or ambivalence.
Religiously, Cluster 3 maintains strong connections to traditional Christian groups, notably Orthodox Christians and members of LDS. These affiliations are significant, as both groups tend to emphasise family values, personal responsibility, and community stewardship, which may translate into more measured or localised approaches to environmental care. LDS teachings emphasise self-reliance and conservation, while Orthodox theology incorporates a sacramental understanding of creation that may inform ambivalent yet respectful attitudes toward the environment.
Cluster 4 is both demographically smaller and ideologically more diverse than the others, making it the most heterogeneous group identified. Politically, while the majority leans liberal, this group does not exhibit a strong or consistent partisan preference regarding which party is best suited to handle environmental issues. A significant portion of respondents expressed indifference or neutrality on this question, potentially indicating political detachment or a belief that neither party adequately represents their views.
In terms of environmental policy, Cluster 4 is unique for its relative scepticism. Members tend to favour decreased federal spending on environmental programs and exhibit lower levels of concern regarding environmental regulation of businesses. These attitudes stand in contrast to the general liberal tilt in political identity, suggesting that economic, cultural, or religious considerations may be exerting a counterbalancing influence.
Religiously, this group is composed predominantly of individuals affiliated with non-Christian traditions, especially Buddhists and Hindus. These traditions often promote environmental awareness through teachings on interconnectedness, karma, and respect for all life. However, the data suggest that these spiritual principles do not always translate into strong support for governmental environmental interventions in the US context—perhaps due to cultural distance from dominant political narratives or differing views on the role of the state. Given the predominance of non-Christian affiliations and the variability in attitudes, it is most accurate to describe Cluster 4 as religiously non-Christian and environmentally ambivalent.
Together, these four clusters reveal the ways in which religion, politics, and environmental attitudes intersect in American public opinion. While liberalism and Democratic partisanship tend to correlate with pro-environmental policies, the religious underpinnings of that support vary —from Christian stewardship to secular ethics. Meanwhile, more moderate or conservative religious traditions, especially within Christianity, tend to support more centrist or cautious approaches. The presence of religiously non-Christian voices introduces further diversity, complicating any attempt to draw direct lines between faith and environmental activism.
This typology offers a lens through which to analyse how belief systems —both sacred and secular— inform public attitudes toward environmental governance in the US.
The findings clarify how religious affiliation interacts with political identity to shape attitudes toward environmental issues, revealing the layered structure of belief systems, partisan orientation, and policy perception. A striking finding is the widespread disengagement from conventional political labels across a substantial portion of respondents, including those from traditionally active religious communities. This disengagement —evidenced by the frequent selection of “inapplicable” when asked to self-identify politically— poses both a conceptual and strategic challenge. For political mobilisation, especially around issues like environmental policy, this suggests that conventional partisan appeals may be insufficient or even counterproductive when addressing religious constituencies.
The disengagement may reflect broader trends in American political life: increased polarisation, disillusionment with party politics, and the perceived misalignment between party platforms and individual or communal religious values. It may also signal a strategic distancing by religious individuals who prioritise spiritual or moral frameworks over partisan identities. Future research would benefit from interrogating these dynamics further, including the theological, cultural, and socio-economic drivers of political disengagement among religious groups. Ethnographic and longitudinal methodologies could be particularly useful in unpacking how religious narratives shape and complicate civic engagement over time.
Among non-Christian groups —such as atheists, agnostics, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims— a consistent pattern emerges of greater alignment with Democratic environmental policies and stronger support for increased federal spending on environmental protection. This affinity may reflect shared values around social justice, global responsibility, and scientific consensus, which often underpin the environmental ethics in these communities. The alignment also suggests that these groups may act as critical constituencies for environmental advocacy coalitions and electoral strategies. Policymakers, NGOs, and activists could deepen their engagement with these communities by recognising their shared commitments, collaborating with faith-based or secular community organisations, and emphasising the moral and collective dimensions of environmental sustainability.
By contrast, many Christian denominations —particularly members of LDS and various Protestant traditions— exhibit more conservative attitudes toward environmental policy. This is most apparent in their preference for either maintaining or reducing current levels of federal environmental spending and their scepticism toward regulatory interventions in business. These views reflect broader trends within American conservatism but may also be shaped by theological worldviews that prioritise stewardship within a dominionist framework, scepticism toward centralised government, or a strong emphasis on individual responsibility.
For environmental advocates, this presents a dual challenge and opportunity. On one hand, messaging that emphasises regulatory enforcement and government expansion may encounter resistance. On the other hand, communication strategies that frame environmental action within biblical stewardship, intergenerational responsibility, or the protection of God's creation may resonate more effectively. Collaborating with religious leaders, especially those already engaged in “creation care” or evangelical environmentalism, could facilitate more effective outreach across ideological divides.
This study contributes to the broader literature on religion and politics by affirming that religious identity is not merely a cultural marker but a dynamic force shaping political perception and environmental engagement. The findings underscore the need for a more detailed understanding of how religious affiliation operates alongside other identity categories —such as race, class, region, and education— to influence environmental attitudes. For instance, Black Protestant communities may differ substantially in environmental outlook from white Evangelicals, despite similar denominational labels. Future research should adopt intersectional and intra-group analytical lenses to capture such variation.
The implications of this study extend beyond academic discourse. For practitioners and coalition-builders, the shared environmental priorities among non-Christian communities open avenues for interfaith and cross-secular collaboration. These alliances could amplify advocacy efforts, particularly around issues such as climate justice, pollution in low-income communities, and environmental equity. At the same time, the ideological and theological differences between Christian and non-Christian groups suggest that coalition-building will require intentional dialogue and the identification of shared values —such as the moral imperative to protect the vulnerable or preserve the planet for future generations.
Moreover, these findings suggest an untapped potential for interfaith cooperation on environmental issues. While the ideological gap may be wide in some cases, there is a growing movement within Christian communities —particularly among younger and more socially conscious members— to engage with climate change and environmental degradation from a faith-based perspective. Facilitating interfaith dialogues that centre on shared moral and ethical commitments could build bridges and foster more inclusive environmental coalitions.
Lastly, it is important to recognise the methodological limitations of the study. The use of cross-sectional data limits causal inferences, while reliance on self-reported political identities and broad religious categories may obscure more granular distinctions. For example, treating “Protestants” as a homogenous group neglects important theological and cultural differences between, say, mainline denominations and Pentecostal traditions. Future research should aim for greater specificity in religious categorisation and ideally incorporate longitudinal data to track changes over time. Mixed-methods approaches that combine survey data with qualitative interviews or case studies could provide richer insights into the lived experiences and motivations behind the observed patterns.
Additionally, this study uses religious denomination as a proxy for religiosity. While affiliation offers valuable insight, it does not capture religious intensity or behavioural commitment, which are also crucial in shaping environmental values. Future studies should incorporate more granular measures —such as frequency of religious attendance, personal belief strength, or scriptural interpretations— to better understand how depth of religiosity interacts with environmental attitudes.
In sum, the findings call for a deeper and more sophisticated engagement with the interplay of religion, politics, and environmental concern in the US. Recognising both the divisions and opportunities within and across religious communities will be essential for crafting effective environmental policy, political strategy, and interfaith collaboration in an era of ecological crisis and political complexity.
The interplay between religious beliefs, personal values, and social preferences increasingly influences environmental awareness and policy. This study quantitatively analyses the relationship between religiosity, political alignments, and environmental views in the US, contributing to understanding how faith and values influence environmentalism.
The demographic landscape of the US has seen a notable shift, with a decline in Christian affiliation and a rise in religiously unaffiliated individuals. This trend, attributed to various societal and political factors, has implications for environmental dynamics and behaviours. Moreover, Earth-centred religions, such as Paganism, advocating for reverence for nature, have gained popularity, further diversifying the religious landscape.
The study investigates how religious affiliation intersects with political alignment, particularly concerning environmental policy opinions. Using data from the American National Election Studies (ANES) survey, respondents' views on environmental policy are analysed alongside their religious and political identities. Cluster analysis reveals distinct patterns in attitudes towards environmental policies across religious and political groups.
The findings suggest that while non-Christian groups tend to support Democratic environmental policies, Christian denominations, particularly LDS and Protestants, lean towards conservative attitudes. Clustering underscores the complexity of garnering support for environmental initiatives across some religious lines and emphasises the potential for interfaith collaboration.
However, the study acknowledges limitations such as reliance on self-reported data and oversimplified categorisations of religious affiliations. Relevant religions such as Native beliefs and Paganism are often categorised under broad terms in data sources, along with others not explicitly included. However, this classification may marginalise their significance and unique contributions. Future research should address these limitations to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the interplay between religion, politics, and environmental attitudes. This study contributes to analyses on the intersection of religion, politics, and environmentalism, providing insights for policymakers, environmental and religious leaders, and advocacy groups.
2
3
Antkowiak, L. S. (2023). Are Catholics Uniquely Cross-Pressured? Policy Beliefs and Voting Behavior by Religious Tradition in Recent U.S. Elections. Politics and Religion Journal, 17(2), 299–325. https://doi.org/10.54561/prj1702299a
4
Balcomb, A. O. (2019). African Christianity and the Ecological Crisis – Tracing the Contours of a Conundrum. Scriptura, 118(1). https://doi.org/10.7833/118-1-1469
5
Bratton, S. (2018). Eco-Dimensionality as a Religious Foundation for Sustainability. Sustainability, 10(4), 1021. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041021
6
Briguglio, M., Garcia-Muñoz, T., & Neuman, S. (2020). Environmental engagement, religion and spirituality in the context of secularization. Environmental Research Letters, 15(10), 104098. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abb6a0
7
8
Brown, R. K., Kaiser, A., & Evans, H. (2023). Race, religious identities, and environmental activism. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 51(1), 90–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2021.1924596
10
Campbell, D. E., Layman, G. C., & Green, J. C. (2025). Fuel on the Fire: Has the Politics of COVID-19 Accelerated Secularization in America? Political Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-025-10006-w
11
Cope, M. R., Muirbrook, K. A., Park, P. N., Sanders, S. R., Ward, C., & Sumsion, R. M. (2023). Understanding Environmentalism: The Interplay between Politics and Religion on Environmental Attitudes from Rural Utah. Society & Natural Resources, 36(4), 405-424. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2023.2169423
12
Cox, D. A. (2020). Religious Diversity and Change in American Social Networks: How Our Social Connections Shape Religious Beliefs and Behavior. Findings from the American National Social Network Survey. https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/religious-diversity-and-change-in-american-social-networks/
13
Dayenu. (2024). A Jewish Call to Climate Action. https://dayenu.org/
14
Djupe, P. A., Friesen, A. J., Lewis, A. R., Sokhey, A. E., Neiheisel, J. R., Broeren, Z. D., & Burge, R. P. (2025). Attending Church Encourages Acceptance of Atheists? Suppression Effects in Religion and Politics Research. Political Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-025-10057-z
15
Ferrara, P. (2019). Sustainable International Relations. Pope Francis’ Encyclical Laudato Si’ and the Planetary Implications of “Integral Ecology.” Religions, 10(8), 466-486. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel10080466
16
17
García-García, P. (2024). Faith, Climate, and Energy Frugality: Unravelling the Nexus in European Perspectives. Studia Ecologiae et Bioethicae, 22(3), 41-56. https://doi.org/10.21697/seb.5812
18
Gozum, I. E. A., Garcia, A. E., & Nucum, J. L. A. M. (2022). Laudato si and the Role of the Church in Promoting Environmental Awareness Toward a Better Health-Related Quality of Life. Journal of Religion and Health, 62, 2532-2546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-022-01631-4
19
Guth, J., & Nelsen, B. F. (2025). Religious Influences on American Public Attitudes Toward Military Action, 2008–2022. Religions, 16(4), 398. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16040398
20
Henderson, A. (2025). Political Polarization and Christian Nationalism in Our Pews. Religions, 16(4), 507. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16040507
21
Hochberg, J. (2023). Church Attendance and Protest Participation in the United States. Politics and Religion Journal, 17(2), 383–409. https://doi.org/10.54561/prj1702383h
23
IFEES/EcoIslam. (2024). Islamic Foundation for Ecology and Environmental Sciences: Protecting our Planet for Future Generations. https://www.ifees.org.uk/
24
Jewish Climate Action Network-MA. (2024). Welcome. https://www.jewishclimate.org/
25
Kollar, N. R. (2019). Religions’ Future in the Anthropocene. Worldviews, 23(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685357-02301001
26
LSM (2024). Laudato Si’ Movement: Catholics for Our Common Home. https://laudatosimovement.org/
28
Mayer, C.-H., George, W. M., & Nass, E. (2020). “Care for the Common Home”: Responses to Pope Francis’s Encyclical Letter. Journal of Religion and Health, 59(1), 416–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-019-00957-w
30
Michaels, J. L., Hao, F., Smirnov, J., & Kulkarni, I. (2021). Beyond stewardship and dominion? Towards a social psychological explanation of the relationship between religious attitudes and environmental concern. Environmental Politics, 30(4), 622–643. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2020.1787777
31
Monsalve, J. A. (2019). La aportación de las creencias religiosas a la construcción de una ética ambiental. Observatorio Medioambiental, 22, 53–74. https://doi.org/10.5209/obmd.67063
34
Öhlmann, P., & Swart, I. (2022). Religion and Environment. Religion and Theology, 29(3–4), 292–321. https://doi.org/10.1163/15743012-bja10044
35
37
Petrescu-Mag, R. M., Ana, A., Vermeir, I., & Petrescu, D. C. (2020). Beliefs and Actions Towards an Environmental Ethical Life: The Christianity-Environment Nexus Reflected in a Cross-National Analysis. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 33(3–6), 421–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-020-09832-1
38
Pew Research Center (2022). Modeling the Future of Religion in America. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/09/13/how-u-s-religious-composition-has-changed-in-recent-decades/
39
Pihkala, P. (2018). Eco-Anxiety, Tragedy, and Hope: Psychological and Spiritual Dimensions of Climate Change. Zygon, 53(2), 545–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12407
40
Puglisi, A., & Buitendag, J. (2022). A faith-based environmental approach for people and the planet: Some inter-religious perspectives on our Earth-embeddedness. HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies, 78(2). https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v78i2.7582
41
Rappaport, M. B., & Corbally, C. J. (2023). An Ecotheology for Human Settlement of the Outer Planets: Roles for Religion Beyond the Warmth of the Sun. Theology and Science, 21(2), 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2023.2188368
42
Rifat, M. R., Toriq, T., & Ahmed, S. I. (2020). Religion and Sustainability. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(CSCW2), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415199
43
Rountree, K. (2012). Neo-Paganism, Animism, and Kinship with Nature. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 27(2), 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/13537903.2012.675746
44
45
Sharma, S., Ang, J. B., & Fredriksson, P. G. (2021). Religiosity and climate change policies. Energy Economics, 101, 105414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105414
46
Shin, F., & Preston, J. L. (2021). Green as the gospel: The power of stewardship messages to improve climate change attitudes. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 13(4), 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000249
48
Smiley, K. T. (2019). A Polluting Creed: Religion and Environmental Inequality in the United States. Sociological Perspectives, 62(6), 980–1000. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121419862229
49
Smith, E. K., Hempel, L. M., & MacIlroy, K. (2018). What’s ‘evangelical’ got to do with it? Disentangling the impact of evangelical Protestantism on environmental outcomes. Environmental Politics, 27(2), 292–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2017.1384185
50
51
53
55
USDA (2024). Native Americans and Alaska Natives USDA Climate Hubs. https://www.climatehubs.usda.gov/hubs/northwest/topic/native-americans-and-alaska-natives
56
White, L. (1967). The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis. Science, 155(3767), 1203–1207. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1720120
57
Whyte, K. (2017). Indigenous Climate Change Studies: Indigenizing Futures, Decolonizing the Anthropocene. English Language Notes, 55(1–2), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1215/00138282-55.1-2.153
Source: Own elaboration.
Source: Own elaboration.
Source: Own elaboration.
Source: Own elaboration.
Source: Own elaboration.
