Daily Score Blog

An interesting piece in the Christian Science Monitor yesterday by Robert Dujarric (who heads the Institute of Contemporary Japanese Studies at Temple University) makes the case that Americans can be motivated to act on climate measures by rousing their sense of patriotism.

I've written before about the powerful terminology of war in this context. But this is a new take. Dujarric recommends taking aim at particular targets. Namely, the sinister foreign oil barons who are getting rich and powerful thanks to  our oil addiction.

Is it an effective call to arms to remind Americans that the money we spend at gas pump and on our heating bills funds "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's nuclear and missile programs, enrich[es] Muammar Qaddafi (while he rants at the UN against the United States, and give[s] assistance to Vladimir Putin as he threatens American interests in the Caucasus and Central Europe?"

Should we start talking about climate policy as a move to "wage war to bankrupt oil tyrants?"

A CNN/Opinion Research poll released today shows strong public support for cap-and-trade legislation. As Alex Kaplun of E&E points out, this is despite months of attacks from those opposed to climate and energy policy.

The poll found 60 percent of the public expressed support for a cap-and-trade proposal that would "limit the amount of greenhouse gases that companies could produce in their factories or power plants." About 37 percent of voters say they would not support such a proposal.

Most interesting, perhaps, the poll found a relatively strong level of support among Republicans for the legislation, with about 4 in 10 backing the bill. A solid majority of both Democrats and independents back the measure.

There's a clear generational divide. Younger voters are more inclined to support the measure, with 68 percent of those under the age of 50 supporting the legislation but with those older than 50 evenly split.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Sept. 30-Oct. 4 among 1,500 adults (reached on cell phones and landlines) revealed some disheartening trends when it comes to opinions about climate change. At the same time, things are looking decent (if not rosy) for cap and trade policy.

• 57 percent think there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades. In April 2008, 71 percent said there was solid evidence of rising global temperatures.
  
  
• Over the same period, there has been a comparable decline in the proportion of Americans who say global temperatures are rising as a result of human activity, such as burning fossil fuels. Just 36 percent say that currently, down from 47 percent last year.

• The decline in the belief in solid evidence of global warming has come across the political spectrum, but has been particularly pronounced among independents. Pew found that just 53 percent of independents now see solid evidence of global warming, compared with 75 percent who did so in April 2008.
  
  
• Republicans, who already were highly skeptical of the evidence of global warming, have become even more so: just 35 percent of Republicans now see solid evidence of rising global temperatures, down from 49 percent in 2008 and 62 percent in 2007. Fewer Democrats also express this view -- 75 percent today compared with 83 percent last year.

Despite this trend backwards when it comes to skepticism (is it a seasonal thing?), the survey found more support than opposition for a policy to set limits on carbon emissions.

• Half of Americans favor setting limits on carbon emissions and making companies pay for their emissions, even if this may lead to higher energy prices.
  
  
• 39 percent oppose imposing limits on carbon emissions under these circumstances.

Recent polling found that 63 percent of respondents said they supported the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES--a.k.a. Waxman-Markey). The poll, which was commissioned by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, was conducted in Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Nevada, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia -- all considered swing states in the climate and clean energy debate.

The poll, which sampled likely 2010 voters, also found that 60 percent of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for their senator if he or she supports a comprehensive federal clean energy and climate bill. Only 26 percent said they'd be less inclined to re-elect their senator for supporting ACES.

And, digging deeper into the Washington Post/ABC poll I mentioned briefly a while back, there's a promising willingness to deal with higher energy costs in order to get our economy--and family budgets--off the fossil fuel roller coaster:

A substantial 41 percent of Americans in this ABC News/Washington Post poll think proposed changes being developed by Congress and the Obama administration will raise their energy costs. Yet enough of them back those changes nonetheless to give the effort 57 percent support among all Americans.

Compared with an ABC/Post poll in 2001, the biggest changes are on power plants – an 11-point drop in support for building more fossil-fuel plants, from 62 percent eight years ago to 51 percent now; and a smaller 6-point rise in support for more nuclear plants, from 46 percent then to 52 percent now. However, NIMBY sentiments rule out in this case -- support for nuclear power drops to 35 percent if the plant would be closer than 50 miles away.

Those pale, in any case, in comparison with longstanding support for developing more solar and wind power (91 percent) and fuel-efficiency standards (85 percent); for electric car technology(82 percent  support) and for requiring more energy conservation in the commercial sector (78 percent) and by consumers (73 percent).

All of this is good news for climate legislation set to go before the Senate sometime late this year or in early 2010.

Photo courtesy: Caveman92223, Flickr.com.

Quick opinion polling note as we roll into the autumn Congressional session.

Significantly, more people think these changes would add jobs in their state than believe jobs would be lost (36 percent to 15 percent). It looks like relentless conservative attempts to characterize the energy bill as a job-kill have so far failed to convince the public.

Support for a cap-and-trade system is steady. In June, there was a 52-42 support for this approach; today it’s nearly identical: 52-43 in favor.

Finally, Americans are more apt to see energy solutions in renewables and efficiency than domestic fossil fuels or nuclear.

Read the Center for American Progress analysis here.

Photo courtesy: jcolman, Flickr.com.

Quick polling note:

A new Zogby poll released last Tuesday revealed that 71 percent of likely voters support the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES--a.k.a. Waxman-Markey) passed by the US House of Representatives at the end of June.A majority of those polled also said they want the Senate to take similar action.The poll also asked people about how "efforts to reduce global warming and promote energy" will impact American jobs, and 51 percent of respondents said they believed these efforts would lead to new job creation.

Of course, as the Keith Johnson at the Wall Street Journal points out, "when it comes to surveys on things like global warming, clean energy and the like, a lot depends on how the questions are phrased." To keep things as clear as possible, Zogby asked potential voters to self-identify into one of two broad camps ahead of Senate action on the energy bill, explicitly echoing the language (and claims) of proponents and opponents:

The first camp—“I think the Senate should take action because I believe we need a new energy plan right now that invests in American, renewable energy sources like wind and solar, in order to create clean energy jobs, address global warming and reduce our dependency on foreign oil“—mustered 54 percent support.

The second camp—“I think the Senate should wait on this proposal, I believe the House energy bill is a hidden tax that will cost thousands of dollars every year in increased energy prices, weaken our economy further, and cause America to lose jobs to China and other countries”—got 41 percent support.

The idea that the energy and climate bill is actually an engine of job creation is gaining traction with the public too. Some 51 percent of respondents figure it will create jobs, while only 29 percent figure it will cost jobs, and 17 percent think legislation would have no impact.

Finally, the energy and climate vote may not be the political hot-potato some would have us believe when it comes to next year’s mid-term elections. Only 29 percent of respondents said they would have an “unfavorable” view of their representative for having voted for the bill; while 47 percent would have a “favorable” view.

Filmmaker and author Michael Moore has often made fun of television news broadcasts for being preoccupied with weather and sports rather than more substantial news stories. We do tend to obsess about the weather—probably far more than we think about climate or energy policy.

But studies indicate that meteorologists and weathercasters (those latter having no formal meteorology degree and credentials) are among the most trusted sources of information in the United States when it comes to global warming. And, frankly, these are folks who own a powerful local communications platform for informing the public about climate change. We listen to them.

But weathercasters mostly speak in sound-bites about the immediate forecasts. They rarely have time to look at the big picture—and they're not asked to comment on science or policy. In any case, climate change and current weather events are two different things entirely—the most significant impacts of climate change are gradual and the precise amount of warming or change in a particular area or region is uncertain.

Still, it’s encouraging to know that weathercasters and meteorologists from around the country met in Portland recently and attended a day-long series of lectures by climatologists, broadcast meteorologists, and researchers, exploring new and emerging scientific evidence on climate change and ways to frame and integrate climate change information for their on-air and off-air audiences.

Weather anomalies often prompt questions from the public, said Anthony Broccoli, director of the Center for Environmental Prediction, Rutgers University, speaking to workshop participants. "Those questions can provide meteorologists opportunities to report on climate change and science in direct and understandable terms."

Broccoli and others worked with participants to think through the most effective ways meteorologists can explain why science matters and what it may mean for local weather, the relationships between climate change and frequency and intensity of severe weather, and the role of policy in addressing climate change.

I say: power to the weathercasters! We trust them and they have our attention on a daily basis. Most importantly, they are really good at explaining scientific information in language everyone can understand--that's their job. And while their role in informing the public about this issue is not crystal clear, they are in a position to act as trusted translators of climate science and policy when they have a moment to step back and think "big picture."

Image courtesy: World Bridge Media.

A quick refresher on carbon tax shifts: The plan literally shifts taxes, it doesn't add taxes. All revenue generated by the carbon tax in BC are returned to individuals and businesses through reductions in other taxes. But that's not always abundantly evident to consumers when they're standing at the filling station and opening their wallets. That's probably why public support has been moderate at the very least.

on carbon tax shifting:

• Almost half of B.C. residents support the tax (last July, 40 percent expressed support and 56 percent opposed it). Current support for the tax is close to, but not quite fully back to the level achieved in February 2008 soon after the measure was first announced by the BC government (but not yet implemented).
  
  
• When asked how they would feel about the introduction of a B.C.-style carbon tax in their own province, opinions remain divided in every province.
  
  
• Nonetheless, support has increased since last July in every province, most noticeably in Alberta (up 17 points) and Saskatchewan (up 13 points).
  
  
• Across the country, support approaches 50 per cent from the Atlantic provinces to Manitoba, and remains somewhat lower in Saskatchewan (41 percent) and Alberta (44 percent).

The survey was conducted by Environics, by telephone from May 21 to 26 with a representative sample of 2,003 Canadians, including 250 in British Columbia.

As the House of Representatives fine tunes legislation like the American Clean Energy and Security Act, public opinion weighs far less than other pressures. But as our elected officials make perhaps the biggest decision of their careers about the biggest, most sweeping climate and energy legislation ever, it’s worth noting that the American public is calling for "yes" votes – and that’s across party lines.

Washington Post and ABC took the nation’s pulse on this issue last week and here’s what they found:

• Three-quarters of Americans think the federal government should regulate the release into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases from power plants, cars and factories to reduce global warming, with substantial majority support from Democrats, Republicans and independents alike.
  
  
• 52 percent support a cap-and-trade approach to limiting greenhouse gas emissions. (Forty-two percent of those surveyed this month oppose such a program.)
  
  
• 62 percent of those surveyed said they would support regulation even if it raised the price of purchases and 56 percent would back cap and trade if it resulted in a $10 increase in utility costs, 44 percent said they would back a cap-and-trade system if it boosted monthly electricity bills by $25.
  
  
• Despite nay saying about costs to households and negative economic effects of a cap and trade system, 60 percent of Republicans back a cap-and-trade program.
  
  
• Six in 10 Americans favor US action, even if other countries do less to confront climate change.

So, in a nutshell, Americans from both parties favor action. A solid majority is ready for cap and trade (including a sizable majority of Republicans -- 60 percent). We are willing to pay a bit more for energy to make this happen. We're no longer content to use India and China as scapegoats for our own foot dragging. (According to the Post, while partisan divides are dwindling, age matters in voters' position on cap and trade and, understandably, income matters when it comes to the question of cost).

Photo courtesy Vees Blog.

A recent Gallup Poll reveals solid majority support for higher fuel efficiency standards such as those President Obama announced Tuesday. A March poll found 80 percent of Americans in favor of higher standards. So, why are reporters painting a picture only of consumer woe and sacrifice when it comes to this landmark announcement?

Obama launched his proposal along with state governors from both sides of the aisle -- and public support is refreshingly bipartisan. While Democrats show more widespread support for higher fuel efficiency standards, 72 percent of Republicans also say they are in favor (see graph below). But a big AP story (front page of the Seattle Times, Wednesday) and a USA Today story -- along with all kinds of other coverage -- dwell almost exclusively on a litany of trumped up downsides: increased consumer costs, soccer moms jamming their families into smaller cars, and compromises on choice and safety for the sake of efficiency. This is odd when the proposal will encourage more consumer choice and more efficiency -- exactly what Americans seem to want.

Buried deep in these stories is the important factor that Obama has stressed, that the upfront cost increase (estimated to be $1,300 per vehicle) would quickly be offset by savings at the pump. He estimated a more fuel-efficient vehicle will pay off in as little as three years, and that over the vehicle's life the typical driver would save around $2,800.

A National Wildlife Fund survey (conducted by Public Opinion Strategies, April 7 through 9, 2009) reaffirms research I wrote about yesterday commissioned by Pew. Here it is in a nutshell:

The American electorate is overwhelmingly supportive of a number of different reforms to America's energy policy, including a proposal to cap carbon pollution through a new global warming plan. A solid majority is supportive of every element of such a proposal, say it is the right amount of change to America's energy policies, and perhaps most significantly are willing to pay higher energy prices in order to increase the amount of the nation's energy needs being met by renewable energy.

After hearing viewpoints from both sides, two-thirds think Congress should act now rather than wait. Majorities of most key voter sub-groups are more likely to side with taking action now rather than waiting, even after hearing the concerns raised about cost.

Even Republicans are evenly divided when the issue is placed in this context (46% take action; 50% wait). Finally, voters place emphasis on developing clean energy technologies and conserving natural resources as a potential use of funds derived from a global warming plan, followed by tax credits for consumers.

For the full executive summary, click here (pdf).

Image courtesy: victoriapeckham, flickr.

In a world where a big communications budget can pair two otherwise comically oxymoronic words in our minds -- think "clean" and "coal" -- it would be ill-advised to say that words don't matter. It would be even worse to assert that choosing the most effective words to convey smart ideas is somehow dishonest.

But that's basically what Robert J. Brulle of Drexel University, an expert on environmental communications, told the New York Times this week about EcoAmerica's prematurely leaked research-based talking points intended for climate policy advocates such as government officials and environmental leaders. As he put it, social change makers shouldn't stoop to the level of marketing or advertising tactics: "You want to sell toothpaste, we'll sell it. You want to sell global warming, we'll sell that. It's the use of advertising techniques to manipulate public opinion."

You can call it manipulation, but if we left strategic wordsmithing like this only to lobbyists for coal and oil interests, we'd be doing the public a major disservice. Anyway, Brulle's choice of a loaded word like "manipulation" in the first place -- when I imagine he's referring to might also be called "persuasion" or "consensus-building" (or just communicating) -- itself reveals the difference just one word can make. Words matter. And, for most of us working toward climate solutions, words are some of the most important tools we've got. Just as a brain surgeon doesn't go for a rusty scalpel, we like to choose our words wisely -- sometimes even paying money to figure out which ones are best for the job. EcoAmerica has been doing just that, conducting extensive polling and focus group research for the last several years to find ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation.

It's about making climate messages more clear, less wonky, and most effective at conveying the core values underlying the policies.

In his analysis of Obama's not-the-State-of-the-Union address this week, political language and framing expert Jeffrey Feldman (founder and blogger at Frameshop), articulated what we've known in our gut for a while: Obama is shifting the American discourse about government. In a good way. And in a big way.

What Feldman points out is that much of this shift can be summed up in a single word that Obama uses a lot -- a word that you could say Obama has reclaimed: investment.

The way Obama has defined it (and he's in the number one spot to set the agenda for the country), it's no longer limited to the concept of personal or private "investment."

Our personal investments are withering away. Private investment has failed us. Obama is renewing the American ideal of public investments as building blocks to prosperity -- everybody's prosperity. In other words, reinforcing the idea (not a new one but not one we've heard for a long time) that the investments we make together, as communities, build a stronger, healthier future.

The cost of oil has been a rollercoaster ride since the 1970s. Thankfully, we've hit a low in this season of recession, foreclosures, and a major Wall Street meltdown. But nobody expects the ride to be over -- and the only way to go now is up. 

Just ask oil industry insiders. A recent survey of senior oil and gas professionals by (auditing and consulting firm) Deloitte revealed growing concern among the top brass of the fossil fuel industry about the affordability and sustainability of oil and gas in the near future, along with a surprisingly strong belief in the viability of renewable energy.

Most participants in Deloitte's assessment group expressed a belief that oil and gas will no longer remain the world's cheapest energy source in the next few decades: 71 percent said that oil and gas is today's most affordable energy source, but only 23 percent feel it will still be the cheapest source 25 years from now -- a 48 percentage point drop.

Three-quarters considered it a good idea for the US to phase out fossil fuels for transportation.

Over half believe that transitioning away from fossil fuels is a reasonable goal for oil and gas companies.

When fuel prices are down, the inclination is to back away from energy policy that would get us off this scary ride. But even as we catch our breath (and our knuckles aren't white for the moment), the ride remains dangerous and unpredictable -- and it's likely not getting any better. I shudder to think what lies around the corner (a loop-de-loop perhaps?).

If oil execs -- of all people (!) -- are thinking about bailing off, shouldn't the rest of us?

Given the current economic crisis, now is the time to address climate change, not turn away from it. That's the majority view according to a new post-election poll results released earlier this month by Environmental Defense Fund.

It seems that voters have made the connection between economic concerns and energy stability. And they see that investing in clean energy can create millions of new jobs and help rebuild the economy. In other words, we want our stimulus served up green.

Significantly, solid numbers of respondents reported they'd be willing to pay higher home energy bills in order to cut oil imports and reduce pollution -- but only to a point. And a majority favored new regulations to promote environmental standards.