|
|
|||||||
|
|
  |
 |
 |
||||
Energy Policy ~ #40
By Alan F. Kay, PhD
© 2004, (fair use with attribution and copy to authors)
Aug. 13, 2004
Today's global uncertainties over petroleum are providing another wake-up call to U.S. consumers about the unsustainability of our dependence on imports. The election is focusing on diametrically opposite energy plans: the Bush-Cheney plan, focused on fossil fuels, nuclear and increasing supplies, versus the Kerry-Edwards plan focused on more fuel-efficient cars, conservation and renewable technologies such as fuel cells, hydrogen and alternative fuels.
As the campaigns of Republican President George W. Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry promote their divergent plans for our energy future, they would do well to re-visit a set of polls that laid out the widest array of options. The Americans Talk Issues (ATI) Foundation in cooperation with the U.S. Congressional Institute for the Future produced three surveys in 1991-92 (#18-20) that uncovered a more future-oriented energy policy than the special-interest dominated methods for setting policy still evident in the power politics of Congress.
ATI's design team, consisting of polling and issue experts, gathered all proposals for improving U.S. energy supplies — coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, solar-based renewables; exotics; and conservation/ efficiency improvements of all kinds. This approach allowed the public a chance to be more holistic than are the necessarily, functionally-divided committees of Congress. To this end, the frame for the evaluation of each proposal was formulated as: " Will this proposal get us the energy we need and help the economy and help the environment as well?"
The 18 proposals tested in this frame are listed in Table 1, in rank order of percentage of the total sample who agreed that the proposal will help us get the energy we need and help our economic competitiveness and job creation (Q1). The second question (Q2) is the percentage of the total sample that said this proposal will help us get the energy we need and help the environment as well.
It is quite remarkable that, except for proposal No. 3 which missed by a hair, an absolute majority said each of the five items in Table 1A would get us the energy we needed, would help the economy, and would help the environment. We called these triple winners. Four more proposals had minimum support of 40% on both questions, but were not triple winners (See Table 1B). These top-rated proposals largely correspond to the Kerry energy plan.
The nine energy alternatives that landed in the bottom half were not even double winners. Some clearly were perceived as being pork for the power industry, (No. 10 through 14). They are remarkably similar to the Bush-Cheney energy plan. Others, (No. 15 through 18), were seen as providing insufficient energy to rate highly.
In 1992, the Senate was considering an energy bill similar to today's Bush-Cheney plan. The ATI team: Fred Steeper, pollster for Bush; Stanley Greenberg’s associate Celinda Lake, Democratic pollster; Rob McCord, executive director of the Congressional Institute for the Future; and Alan F. Kay, president of ATIF, made a presentation to members of Congress on "The Economy, Energy, Security and the Environment," the findings of two surveys conducted in late 1991, ATI#19 and #20. Yet, the Johnston-Wallop National Energy Strategy bill, S.2166, passed the Senate by an overwhelming 94-4 vote with provisions almost diametrically opposed to the public's preferences.
This Senate bill favored proposals that the public had turned down: build new safer nuclear power stations, allow oil development in coastal regions off-shore previously banned, and streamline the approval process for new nuclear power plants. The proposal most favored by the public -- developing renewable energy based on wind, solar, and hydro or water power -- received little support in the Senate bill, and the second most favored by the public -- new fuel efficient cars -- received none at all.
As the Kerry and Bush plans are debated in the presidential election, it is worth re-testing these questions in non-partisan surveys, such as those conducted by the University of Maryland and the Pew Center. The public may still be ahead of the Congress in assessing energy options. The reports of ATI#18–#20 are available from ATI at 904-826-0984.
|
Table 1A: The Five Triple Winners |
(Q1, Q2) | |
| 1. | Install new renewable-energy electric generating system, based on wind, solar and hydro or water-power. | (76%, 71%) |
| 2. | Build cars meeting new, high fuel-efficiency standards. | (61%, 68%) |
|
3. |
Build new, high fuel-efficiency trains and planes | (60%, 49%) |
| 4. | In homes and in commercial and industrial buildings; install new efficient systems for lighting, pumping and mechanical processes, and for air conditioning, refrigeration and heating. | (59%, 60%) |
| 5. | Adopt in a national scale some new fuel – like hydrogen or alcohol fuels – to begin to replace gasoline. | (59%, 60%) |
|
|
||
| 6. | Promote new safer nuclear power stations. | (55%, 40%) |
| 7. | Install new, efficient municipal incinerators that burn garbage and produce electricity. | (51%, 43%) |
| 8. | Install new efficient natural gas-fired power generating systems. | (49%, 43%) |
| 9. | Use car-pooling and public transportation more. | (47%, 82%) |
|
|
||
| 10. | Build new safer nuclear power stations. (46%, 29%) | |
| 11. | Allow oil development in the U.S. in places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in coastal regions off-shore, where oil development is now banned. | (44%, 14%) |
| 12. | Give tax breaks and other financial incentives to those seeking to increase our oil and natural gas supplies in the U.S. | (39%, 18%) |
| 13. | Streamline the current review and approval process for new nuclear power plants. | (38%. 23%) |
| 14. | Build new efficient coal-burning power stations. | (38%, 22%) |
| 15. | Change local zoning rules so that more people can live nearer to their work. | (34%, 47%) |
| 16. | Create car-free pedestrian malls and bicycle traffic lanes in downtown areas. | (32%, 60%) |
| 17. | Reduce agricultural use of oil-based pesticides and fertilizer and shift to organic farming. | (30%, 54%) |
|
18. |
Shut down small inefficient oil wells which cost more to pump a gallon of oil than the gallon is worth in the market, but still can be profitable because of tax subsidies to the well owner. | (19%, 23%) |
Respondents who said "No" that these proposals would not "get us the energy we need," but still believed would get us "more energy" were not asked Q1 and Q2. If they were, that would have given the four proposals 15–18 higher scores than shown here. It cannot be ruled out that some or all of these four proposals would be up there with the five triple winners.
Perhaps "the public's energy policy" depicted in Table 1 is still close to that of presidential candidate John Kerry. Let's find out.
| >>> 2.5 The Polling Critic |