[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
NEW ENERGY POLL RELEASED
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY BUDGET COALITION
315 Circle Avenue, #2, Takoma Park, MD 20912-4836
Phone 301-270-2258 / Fax: 301-891-2866
ON FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF PERSIAN GULF WAR, NATIONAL SURVEY SHOWS STRONG
SUPPORT FOR SHIFT IN U.S. ENERGY PRIORITIES
VOTERS BACK R&D FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES AND EFFICIENCY MEASURES,
OPPOSE FUNDING FOR FOSSIL FUEL AND NUCLEAR POWER PROGRAMS
LARGE MAJORITIES HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE AND
DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL; MAJORITY REJECTS ANWR DRILLING
SUPPORT FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY POLICIES WILL BE AN ISSUE IN 1996 ELECTIONS
Embargoed for Release Until: January 16, 1996
Contact: Henry Griggs 202-682-1270
Ken Bossong 301-270-2258
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- American voters strongly favor funding
federal research and development programs for renewable energy
sources and energy-efficiency measures over programs for nuclear
power and fossil fuels, according to a new public opinion survey,
"America Speaks Out on Energy," released today by a coalition of
nearly 40 business, environmental, consumer, governmental, and
energy policy organizations.
In addition, most voters say they would be more likely to
support a candidate for Congress who shares their energy
priorities. And more than 70 percent of them recognize global
warming or climate change as a threat, while better than three-
quarters want to do something about U.S. dependency on foreign
oil.
The 100-page, 13-question survey was commissioned by the
Sustainable Energy Budget Coalition, and conducted in early
December 1995 by Research/Strategy/Management, Inc. of Lanham,
Maryland, headed by Dr. Vincent Breglio, a noted Republican
pollster who has worked for Presidents Reagan and Bush and the
NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. The survey results have an overall
margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percent.
PRIORITIES FOR FEDERAL R&D FUNDING, BUDGET CUTTING, AND TAX INCENTIVES
Respondents were reminded about the budget cuts facing
federal departments and agencies, and were asked three
questions about energy research and development programs in five
areas: renewable energy such as solar, wind, geothermal,
biomass, and hydroelectric power; nuclear power; technologies to
improve energy efficiency and conservation; natural gas; and
other fossil fuels such as oil, gasoline, and coal.
First, they were asked which of these programs should
receive the highest priority for funding in the U.S. Department
of Energy's (DOE) research and development (R&D) budget. More
than a third of the sample (34 percent) favored renewable
energy while one-fifth (21 percent) said they believed energy
efficiency should be the top priority. Support for R&D on
natural gas, fossil fuels, and nuclear power tied for last, with
only 9 percent of the sample backing each area.
Respondents were also asked which program should be cut
first. Three in ten voters cited nuclear power as the energy
source for which federal R&D funding should be cut first, while
fossil fuels were the cutting target of 20 percent. Renewable
energy programs would be cut first by 14 percent of the sample,
while natural gas and energy efficiency measures would be the
cutting target of 5 percent and 4 percent respectively.
Finally, voters were asked which of the five programs should
received federal tax incentives to attract private sector
efforts to develop and promote it. Again, renewable energy was
the top priority, with 32 percent citing it first, while 17
percent backed tax incentives for energy efficiency. Support for
such incentives for natural gas, fossil fuels, and nuclear power
fell in the single digits, at 9 percent, 7 percent, and 6 percent
respectively.
In its analysis of the survey data, R/S/M performed a
synthesis of the results from the three question by adding
together the percentages in favor of funding priority and tax
incentives for each program, and subtracting the percentage who
would make the program the top target for cuts. The result is a
clear rank ordering of programs. Renewable energy has the most
positive support, while technologies to produce energy
efficiencies rank a solid second. Overall, natural gas has only
slightly positive public backing. Fossil fuels and nuclear power
each has a net negative score, meaning that more people favor
cutting those programs than collectively favor funding them and
providing tax incentives for them.
Support for renewable energy programs and energy efficiency
programs is fairly consistent among subgroups of the
population. But renewable energy is somewhat more strongly
supported by people under the age of 60, men (particularly those
under 45), whites, Protestants, Independents, liberals and
moderates, and those who reside in the Midwest and West.
Efficiency gains higher than average levels of support among
Democrats, moderate-to-liberal voters, middle-aged people, women,
members of minorities, and those in the Northwest and West. Both
renewables and efficiency are backed by respondents with higher
income and education levels.
IMPACT OF ENERGY PRIORITIES ON VOTING BEHAVIOR
About six in ten (59 percent) voters said that they would be
more likely to vote for a candidate who supports their funding
priorities for energy R&D, with about 26 percent saying they
would be much more likely to support such a candidate. Those
who support renewables and efficiency are somewhat more forceful
in linking their vote to views on energy, while 75 percent of
Independent voters who favored renewables said they would make
that link. There is less of a linkage between shared priorities
for budget cutting and likely voting behavior, although those who
express support for cutting nuclear power R&D, the overall
top target for cutting, have a stronger vote linkage to their
opinions (65 percent), than those who favor cutting such programs
for fossil fuels (44 percent).
WIDESPREAD CONCERN OVER GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE, AND U.S. DEPENDENCE ON
FOREIGN OIL
More than 70 percent of the 1,000 registered voters surveyed
said that global warming or climate change is a threat, with
more than one-third saying it is very (36 percent) or somewhat
(35 percent) serious, and only a quarter of respondents saying it
is not too serious (16 percent) or not a threat at all (9
percent). Women (78 percent) and non-whites (79 percent) were
more likely to perceive a threat than men (62 percent) and whites
(69 percent). Those who see the threat as very serious are the
strongest supporters of R&D funding and tax incentives for
renewable energy programs.
The sample of voters was told that oil imports account for
52 percent of U.S. petroleum consumption and contribute $60
billion yearly to the nation's trade deficit. They were asked
whether the U.S. should do something to reduce this dependency,
or if it is not serious enough a problem to worry about.
Overwhelmingly, by 75 to 20 percent, they want to do something
about U.S. dependency on foreign oil, a position that is
consistent across all political and demographic subgroups.
Those who said they believe that oil imports present a
problem were asked if they supported each of several options that
could reduce dependence on foreign oil, and again clear
preferences emerged. Improving the fuel efficiency of cars and
light trucks received nearly unanimous (94 percent) support among
the subgroup that said oil imports were a problem, as did
developing renewable energy alternatives, with 90 percent
support. Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling
received only 31 percent support, with 62 percent of the subgroup
opposing it.
SUPPORT FOR EPA PROGRAMS, INTENSE OPPOSITION TO NEW NUCLEAR PLANTS
Respondents were told that the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) encourages private industry to invest in
cost-effective energy-efficiency improvements in their facilities
through two voluntary programs known as Energy Star and Green
Lights. They were then asked whether they thought the programs
should be retained, or whether, in order to balance the budget,
we can no longer afford to spend money to help even voluntary
programs like these. Half of the respondents favored retaining
the program, a fairly strong level of support in a budget-cutting
climate while 41 percent favored cutting it.
The sample was also asked if they agreed or disagreed with
the following: "Federal funds should be used to develop a
new generation of commercial nuclear power plants." Opposition
to this suggestion was intense, with 48 percent saying they
strongly disagreed with it, and another 24 percent disagreeing
somewhat, for a total of 72 percent in opposition.
Finally, since expressing support for new sources of energy
is not the same thing as willingness to pay for them,
respondents were asked if they would be willing to pay more for
electricity generated from renewable sources. Three in four
respondents indicated a willingness to pay more, with 23 percent
saying they would pay up to two percent more, 26 percent
saying they would pay up to five percent more, and 26 percent
professing a willingness to pay more than five percent, with most
of them (19 percent) indicating they would pay up to a ten
percent premium for such energy.
METHODOLOGY
This study was conducted for the Sustainable Energy Budget
Coalition by Research/Strategy/Management, Inc. of
Lanham, MD. It contains the results of 1,000 telephone
interviews with voters nationwide. Survey responses were
gathered December 1-10, 1995. All respondents were randomly
selected using a combination of random and fixed-digit telephone
number sampling procedures. This introduced both listed and
unlisted numbers as well as new households into the available
sample. Interviewers screened for registered voters and randomly
selected an eligible respondent from each household contacted.
The application of these procedures produced a calculable
probability of being included in the survey sample for each
member of the potential universe.
At the most conservative proportion confidence level (where
the response rates to a given question with two available
responses are 50 percent), the margin of error for a survey of
this size (n=1,000) is +/-3.1 percentage points at a significance
level of .05 or the 95 percent level of confidence. This means
that in 5 out of 100 samples of this type, the sample value at
the 50 percent response level for a given question is within
+/-3.1 percentage point of the value that would be achieved by
measuring the whole population. As the response rate for a given
question moves away from the 50 percent level, the margin of
error decreases. The margin of error for subgroups of the sample
is larger, however.
# # # #
The Sustainable Energy Budget Coalition is a not-for-profit
coalition of nearly 40 national business, environmental,
consumer, governmental, and energy policy organizations founded
in 1992 to promote increased support for renewable energy and
energy efficiency technologies and reduced support for nuclear
power and fossil fuels. A list of participating organizations is
available upon request.
Copies of the 100-page survey, "America Speaks Out on Energy: A
Survey of Public Attitudes on Sustainable Energy Issues,"
are available for $25.00 from the Sustainable Energy Budget
Coalition, 315 Circle Avenue, #2, Takoma Park, MD 20912-4836.
This includes the full text of the survey questions, all the
demographic data associated with the responses, more than a dozen
charts and graphs, a detailed description of the methodology, and
an analysis of the results.
COPIES OF THE 8-PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND/OR STATEMENTS FROM THE
PRESS CONFERENCE CAN BE OBTAINED BY SENDING A REQUEST TO
CMEP@CITIZEN.ORG.
COPIES OF THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WILL BE AVAILABLE ON THE CRITICAL MASS
HOME PAGE WITHIN THE NEXT WEEK.
----------------------------------------------------------------
To receive regular energy policy alerts, summaries and updates
from Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project, send the
following message to listproc@essential.org: SUBSCRIBE CMEP-LIST
[your name - organizational affiliation - home state]
The Critical Mass home page is located at http://www.essential.org/CMEP