Abstract
The political feasibility of sustained climate policy depends on whether deteriorating environmental conditions generate durable public support for environmental spending. To assess this, I link daily EPA air quality data with restricted-use General Social Survey interviews from 2000-2023 to study how physical exposure to air pollution and information exposure from local air quality advisories shape support for government spending on environmental protection. I document three main results. First, in ordered logit regressions with rich individual, economic, and geographic controls, recent exposure to elevated PM10 concentrations is positively associated with support for greater environmental spending, while exposure to PM2.5 and ozone has no detectable effect. Second, in a regression discontinuity design exploiting federal AQI advisory thresholds, a deterioration from “Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups” to “Unhealthy” causes a 21 percentage point increase in the share of respondents reporting that the government spends too little on environmental protection. Third, both effects fade within one month, with no persistent shift in support detectable thereafter. These findings suggest that deteriorating environmental conditions may not generate sufficiently durable public support to sustain long-run government spending on environmental protection, including the climate mitigation and adaptation programs typically funded through these channels.