Political Views Prove a Sharp Divider on Energy Policy
On two controversial issues set to come before Congress after their August recess -- a health-care overhaul and energy policy -- the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll finds public opinion sharply riven by partisan leanings.
On energy, the political climate is far more favorable to the proposals coming from President Obama and the Democrats in Congress. About six in 10 say they back those changes, with a majority saying they approve of the way Obama is handling the issue. By contrast, 45 percent support the health care proposals before Congress, and 46 percent approve of how Obama is handling that issue.
Democrats and a majority of independents polled favor the proposals Obama and congressional Democrats have put forward, and unlike on the health care fight, strong support for changes to energy policy among Democrats (49 percent) outweighs strong opposition among Republicans (30 percent).
Still, Republicans are broadly opposed to the changes working their way through Congress, and more now oppose a cap-and-trade program than did so in June, just before the House passed the Waxman-Markey bill containing such a provision.
Most Republicans express skepticism that the proposed changes will address global warming (about half say they will not) or add jobs in their states (one in five say they will create new jobs), two possible benefits frequently cited by advocates for the changes.
But the biggest drawback for those on the right appears to be cost. Overall, 57 percent say the proposals from Congress and the Obama administration would increase their energy costs. Just 30 percent said that they would support cap-and-trade legislation if it reduced greenhouse gases while increasing electric bills by $25 per month.
Among independents, fewer say proposed changes will increase their energy costs (38 percent); however, support for cap and trade among independents drops sharply as cost increases. While 60 percent support a plan that reduces greenhouse gases and adds $10 to their electrical bills each month, just 38 percent would support it if the monthly increase was $25. Even among Democrats, a majority would oppose cap and trade if it were to result in such an increase in their monthly utility costs.
More breakdowns by party and ideology follow, and for more on the energy findings in the poll, check out this week's Post Politics Program.Q. Overall, given what you know about them, would you say you support or oppose the proposed changes to U.S. energy policy being developed by Congress and the Obama administration? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
-- Support --- --- Oppose ---
NET Strongly NET Strongly
All 57 29 29 19
Democrat 78 49 11 7
Independent 56 26 32 22
Republican 33 6 51 30
Liberal 76 47 13 7
Moderate 63 30 21 13
Conservative 40 17 49 31
Q. Do you think the proposed changes to U.S. energy policy...
...would add jobs in your state, take away jobs or won't make much of a difference?
Add Take away No difference All 36 15 42 Democrat 56 6 32 Independent 30 16 48 Republican 20 25 44 Liberal 52 5 36 Moderate 40 12 41 Conservative 23 24 46
...would increase your energy costs, decrease them or won't make much of a difference?
Increase Decrease No difference All 41 16 36 Democrat 31 23 39 Independent 38 17 39 Republican 57 6 28 Liberal 27 22 44 Moderate 35 19 38 Conservative 55 10 30
...would or would not help address the global warming issue?
Global warming isn't
Would Would not an issue (vol.)
All 52 34 5
Democrat 72 18 *
Independent 49 37 6
Republican 33 48 9
Liberal 72 21 7
Moderate 62 24 11
Conservative 32 50 8
Q. There's a proposed system called "cap and trade." The government would issue permits limiting the amount of greenhouse gases companies can put out. Companies that did not use all their permits could sell them to other companies. The idea is that many companies would find ways to put out less greenhouse gases, because that would be cheaper than buying permits. Would you support or oppose this system?
Support Oppose All 52 43 Democrat 65 28 Independent 51 45 Republican 37 56 Liberal 63 29 Moderate 58 38 Conservative 37 57
Q. (HALF SAMPLE) What if a cap and trade program significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly electrical bill by...
...10 dollars a month?
Support Oppose All 58 40 Democrat 68 31 Independent 60 39 Republican 45 52 Liberal 79 21 Moderate 64 35 Conservative 43 55
...25 dollars a month?
Support Oppose All 39 59 Democrat 47 52 Independent 38 61 Republican 30 67 Liberal 50 50 Moderate 47 53 Conservative 28 70
By
Jennifer Agiesta
|
August 28, 2009; 3:14 PM ET
Categories:
Crosstabs
,
Post Polls
Save & Share:
Previous: Virginians on Sen. Webb
Next: Seniors' Negative Turn on Health Care Reform
Posted by: stosp | August 28, 2009 6:55 PM | Report abuse
Most Democrats oppose nuclear fission power. The Left is even opposed to nuclear fusion, should that become available.
Instead, they're chasing pie in the sky, like wind power.
In America, unlike Europe,70% of our energy needs go to transportation. We're a sprawling, spread-out country, from Maine to Hawaii, from Florida to Alaska. We can't run our cars, trucks and planes on wind power.
Before the debate on health care got started in earnest, most Americans backed health care reform in principle. But once they saw specifics of ObamaCare (or PelosiCare), public opinion turned against it.
The exact same thing is going to happen with cap-and-trade. Once the Democrats' fantastic pursuit of pie-in-the-sky energy sources becomes visible, and Americans understand that cap-and-trade will vastly increase the pump price of gasoline and the price of an airline ticket, public opinion will turn against it as well.
Posted by: sinz52 | August 29, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse
First, to set a previous poster straight, transportation in the US accounts for nowhere near 70% of our energy use. It's actually 28%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States
That just shows how politically charged this issue is--especially for conservatives, many of whom are spewing invented statistics.
The fact is that we are caught between a need for energy independence and a need to protect the climate. The only solution is to conserve energy and to develop non-carbon sources. That includes nuclear, although it is far too slow and too costly to save our near-term bacon, and safe waste disposal costs MUST be included.
The first step, however, is to get past "nothing will interfere with my God-given right to drive an F-250", and to start pitching in together to solve this mess. We've been ignoring it since Nixon tried to get us together on this matter, for crying out loud! Enough stalling!
Posted by: Seldomseen | August 30, 2009 5:05 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.
I believe we're on the edge of a marvelous transformation from an old, dried up energy economy based on oil and other naturally limited energy sources to a revitalized, sustainable economic system based on the recognition that we live in an energy-rich universe. Solar, wind, geothermal now, nuclear, fusion and who-knows-what shortly.
We're done with the zero-sum game, the fighting of wars for energy, the enriching of a few at the expense of the many.
This is a time for joyous optimism. Let the "party of no" luddites sell short. They will still benefit in spite of themselves. And they'll love the profits once they get in the game.