Voters overwhelmingly support an ‘all of the above’ energy policy over a rapid green transition, reflecting climate change skepticism and unwillingness to pay.
The future of the clean energy transition is cloudy. It’s well-known that there are disagreements—wide disagreements—between Republicans and Democrats about our energy future. [emphasis, links added]
But less well-known is the bedrock of public opinion on America’s energy supply, the importance of a rapid transition away from fossil fuels, and the general salience of the climate change issue.
Findings from a new YouGov survey indicate that most voters’ views differ quite a bit from those of rapid energy transition advocates.
These views constitute an ineluctable reality that any transition, on any timetable, will have to deal with. At the same time, there is a political opportunity here to better align policy priorities with voter preferences.
This survey is part of a broader study conducted by Roger Pielke, Jr. and Ruy Teixeira of the American Enterprise Institute that seeks to compare scientific understandings of energy and climate with dominant public narratives on these issues and how both compare to the views of actual voters.
The full study and polling data will be released after the election but here we present ten of the most interesting findings from our new survey that shed light on the current debate around climate and energy issues.
1. An “all of the above” approach to energy policy has by far the most voter support and shows remarkable stability and common support across voter groups.
When presented with a choice among three options—a rapid green energy transition, an “all of the above” energy policy, and emphasizing fossil fuels—American voters across demographics and partisanship strongly prefer an “all of the above” approach to energy policy including oil, gas, renewables, and nuclear.
Less than a quarter support a rapid transition to renewables, which drops to under a fifth for working-class (noncollege) voters. Even among Democrats, support for a rapid transition is only a little over a third.
2. On extreme weather events, most voters have not accepted the apocalyptic reporting found in the media and pushed by climate activists.
Most people hold views of trends in extreme weather events that are consistent with the most recent assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Truncated chart from here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-12/
They do not say they have personally observed an increase in hurricanes, floods, droughts, or tornadoes, which is consistent with the current state of scientific understanding.
The exception is heat waves where, consistent with the IPCC [High confidence in tropical regions where observations allow trend estimation and in most regions in the mid-latitudes, medium confidence elsewhere.], a majority report that they have observed an increase in such events. [see chart above]
3. American voters are reluctant to pay even a small amount to support climate action and this willingness drops quickly as the proposed small costs increase.
When asked if they would support just a $1 monthly fee on their electricity bill to fight climate change, only 47 percent said they would while almost as many (43 percent) are opposed. Even at this level, opposition is greater than support among working-class voters.
When the proposed fee is increased to $20, overall voter support plummets to 26 percent with 60 percent opposed. At $40, it is 19 percent support to 69 percent opposition; at $75 it is 15 percent vs. 72 percent; and at $100 it is 7:1 against (77 percent to 11 percent) paying such a fee to combat climate change.
4. Voters expect an energy transition away from fossil fuels to lead to unexpected problems.
About two-thirds think problems are likely. A follow-up question indicates that voters are most worried about the impact on the prices of energy and everyday goods and about the impact on the reliability of the electrical grid.
Voters are most positive about the impact of an energy transition on job opportunities in the energy sector and on air and water quality.
5. Overall, the public is much more favorable on both solar and natural gas than on wind, suggesting that the concept of “renewables” masks some important differences.
Solar energy tests the best among five energy sources that voters were asked to rank. Thirty-eight percent of voters ranked solar first. Natural gas did the second best, picked first by 26 percent of voters. Nuclear energy came third (15 percent ranked it first) followed by wind (10 percent) and coal (six percent).
Coal is clearly the least preferred energy source with 38 percent ranking it dead last among options. Wind and nuclear also have strong opposition with, respectively, 19 percent and 29 percent ranking the technology their least favorite option.
6. In terms of the energy they consume, cost and reliability are way, way more important to voters than possible effects on the climate.
Given four choices, 37 percent of voters said the cost of the energy they use was most important to them and 36 percent said the availability of power when they need it was most important.
Just 19 percent thought the effect on climate of their energy consumption was most important and six percent selected the effect on U.S. energy security.
7. In terms of proposals to mitigate the effects of climate change, getting to “net zero” as quickly as possible is relatively unimportant to voters.
Asked to consider proposals to reduce the effects of global climate change, voters were least likely to say “getting the U.S. to net zero carbon emissions as quickly as possible” was very important to them personally (29 percent), fewer than [those who] said “limiting the burden of regulations on business” was very important (32 percent).
Voters were most likely by far to say keeping consumer costs low (66 percent) and increasing jobs and economic growth (60 percent) were very important aspects of climate mitigation proposals.
The split was wider among working-class voters: 71 percent thought keeping consumer costs low was very important, compared to 26 percent who thought rapidly getting to net zero was very important.
8. Climate change as an issue has very low salience to voters.
Voters were asked to evaluate a list of 18 issue areas and rate their priority for the president and Congress to address in the coming year.
As a “top priority,” dealing with global climate change ranked 15th out of these 18 areas, well behind strengthening the national economy, fighting inflation, defending the country from terrorist attacks, and keeping Social Security financially sound—and also behind reducing healthcare costs, dealing with immigration, improving the educational system, keeping energy costs low, reducing the budget deficit, reducing crime, improving how the political system works, improving the job situation, strengthening the military, and dealing with the problems of poor people.
The climate issue only ranked above global trade, drug addiction, and issues around race.
The Honest Broker is written by climate expert Roger Pielke Jr and is reader-supported. If you value what you have read here, please consider subscribing and supporting the work that goes into it.
Read rest at The Honest Broker
Top photo by KWON JUNHO on Unsplash
Energy News Beat