The big picture: The 2008–2017 results from researchers with Yale and George Mason universities arrives as Democrats are emphasizing climate change in the 2020 election cycle more than prior contests.

What they found: Check out the chart above. It shows increases in concern, but also reveals that less than half of adults see climate change harming them personally.

• That's despite scientific studies showing the effects of warming have already arrived in the form of more intense heat, more powerful storms, and extreme precipitation events.

The intrigue: The data also shows Republicans and Democrats view risk of harm quite differently.

• On whether global warming will harm the U.S., huge majorities of Democrats hold that view in 2017, while that's true for only 32% of conservative Republicans and 55% of liberal-to-moderate Republicans.
• Of note: The sample sizes on party ideological groupings are not huge.

By the numbers: The new survey data arrives with a helpful interactive tool that lets you browse all kinds of opinion and demographic data. Here are just few more snapshots from the wide-ranging survey...

• Overall public acceptance that global warming is human-caused was 56% in 2017, underscoring the wide and persistent gulf with the longstanding scientific consensus.
• Partisan gaps are immense and persistent on nearly every question.
• 83% of liberal Democrats agreed warming is human-caused in 2017, compared to 28% of conservative Republicans (a number similar to a decade ago). Moderate-to-conservative Dems and liberal-to-moderate Republicans are at points in between.

Between the lines: The data also shows demographic divides within parties. Here's one of them.

• "Millennial Republicans are more likely than older generations of Republicans to think global warming is happening and human-caused, understand that most scientists agree about human-caused global warming, and worry about global warming," notes an accompanying piece in the journal Environment.

Go deeper: The findings, which also delve into climate communication strategies, are published here.

Employment in low-carbon energy fields is better-paid than average jobs and is widely available to workers without college degrees, a new Brookings Institution analysis shows.

But, but, but: These sectors — clean energy production, efficiency, and environmental management — are "dominated" by men, skew older, and some lack racial diversity, the study finds.

Why it matters: The report provides a highly granular look at the workforce characteristics in fast-growing, low-carbon energy sectors that already employ several million people combined.

• It arrives amid the political rise of the Green New Deal — a concept that marries huge investments in clean energy with a goal of ensuring that marginalized communities share the benefits.

Here are a few top-line findings:

• The wage difference is real. Check out the chart above. "The hourly differences between a clean energy economy occupation and one elsewhere in the economy can equate to a raise between 8 and 19 percent, if not more," the study states.
• You often don't need advanced degrees. "Workers with no more than a high school diploma fill over half of all energy efficiency occupations, while 45 percent of workers in clean energy production occupations share this distinction."
• Inclusion is a problem. As of 2016, less than 20% of workers in clean energy production and efficiency were women. African Americans have a smaller share of jobs in those 2 sectors than in the overall economy, although it's above the national average in environmental management.

What's next: The report lays out recommendations — some built on what's already happening — for how to make these industries more inclusive, train younger people, and generally help policymakers, educational institutions and businesses prepare the workforce. These include...

• "Modernizing and emphasizing" energy science curricula at all schooling levels, such as programs now available for 2-year associates' degrees in efficiency and renewables.
• Regional initiatives and public-private collaboration on job training and aligning education with local clean energy industries.
• Expanded efforts to reach underrepresented workers and students for recruitment and training. For instance, they cite the tech-focused Black Girls Code program as a model.

The bottom line: “This is a very accessible blue/green collar sector in many respects — widely distributed in both red and blue places, accessible to an inordinate number of people who don’t have a college degree, and a genuine opportunity for all kinds of workers,” co-author Mark Muro said.

• But Muro, an expert in industrial transitions, also told Axios: “We won’t just naturally get a more diverse clean energy workforce. It is going to require active effort.”

Go deeper: Renewable energy is on the rise, but it has a long way to go

Why it matters: Perry occupies an unusual spot in President Trump’s cabinet. He’s avoided the types of controversies that sped departures of several other agency heads and appears to have remained in Trump’s good graces, unlike many other cabinet chiefs. He hasn’t faced the same level of attacks from Capitol Hill Democrats as some others either.

The big picture: On policy, he’s an energetic booster for the country’s oil, gas, coal and nuclear sectors, yet has distanced himself from White House proposals to deeply slash renewable energy R&D and is a cheerleader for DOE’s research labs.

The intrigue: Perry has come up short thus far in one of his highest-profile and most controversial efforts, which is finding ways to directly support economically struggling coal-fired and nuclear power plants at risk of shutting down.