Energy & Environment
The United States has had a longstanding tension between its needs for protection of the environment and for reasonably-priced energy. The challenge of finding the right balance between these priorities has been a perennial of policymaking for some time now.
A longstanding concern has been the health effects from air pollution caused by the emissions from the use of fossil fuels. These are particularly significant for certain vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly and those with asthma.
More recently, the concern has extended to the effect of the use of fossil fuels on the global climate. There is now a clear consensus in the scientific community that energy production from fossil fuels creates greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, with destabilizing effects on the global climate.
To address both of these effects there have been numerous proposals to promote clean energy–i.e. alternatives to fossil fuels, such as wind and solar, that do not produce negative health effects or destabilize the climate–and to promote greater energy efficiency so as to reduce the demand for energy produced by fossil fuels. These proposals primarily focus on tax incentives and regulations. All of these proposals are controversial as tax incentives reduce public revenues and regulations can increase the cost of cars, trucks and buildings.
In addition, there have been numerous proposals for the US to make commitments to gradually reduce the level of greenhouse gases. The US has participated in a series of international conferences that have led to international agreements to seek such reductions, most recently the “Paris Agreement.”
In August 2022, after two years of negotiating a climate change bill, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which includes the largest investment in reducing emissions and developing clean energy technology in US history, and is estimated to reduce emissions by 40% by 2030 — bringing the US close to its Paris Agreement goal. Included in the bill are numerous tax credits for energy efficiency-improvement and clean energy projects which have bipartisan support (see PPC survey results below). Such tax credits, however, sunset in 5-10 years, and so have been kept on the list of common ground proposals for when debate over their extension occurs.
Another area of controversy has been the extraction of fossil fuels offshore and in environmentally sensitive areas. Offshore drilling has resulted in environmentally damaging numerous oil spills and fossil fuel extraction in certain sensitive areas has posed threats to wildlife. These concerns align with the broader goals of reducing the use of fossil fuels due to its impact on health and the climate. But, once again, imposing constraints on the extraction of fossil fuels has the potential to reduce supply and increase the cost of energy.
|
Survey: PPC, July 2024 The government working to further reduce air pollution was rated as a high priority by 85% (very high priority 46%), including 74% of Republicans, 95% of Democrats and 82% of independents. The government working to reduce greenhouse gasses was rated as a high priority by 80% (very high priority 44%), including 66% of Republicans, 94% of Democrats, and 81% of independents More Details Air Pollution: Briefing Respondents were presented the following briefing on the negative impact of energy production in the US on air pollution: One debate is about how high a priority it should be for the government to work to reduce the air pollution that has negative effects on health. Some forms of energy production—especially the burning of coal and to a lesser extent natural gas—contribute to soot and smog. These can contribute to increased asthma attacks, bronchitis, heart attacks and even premature deaths. These negative health effects also have economic consequences, as they result in lower productivity and lost workdays. Over the last few decades, laws were passed, especially the Clean Air Act, which required these air pollutants to be reduced. As a result, negative public health effects were reduced as well. However, there is still significant air pollution that has negative health effects, with related economic consequences, which could be avoided with lower levels of pollution. Reducing Air Pollution: Arguments They evaluated arguments for and against the government making it a high priority to further reduce air pollution. Reducing Air Pollution: Priority Level Finally, asked how high a priority it should be for the government to reduce air pollution, a bipartisan majority of 85% rated it has a high priority (very high 46%), including 74% of Republicans, 95% of Democrats and 82% of independents. Greenhouse Gasses: Briefing Respondents were presented a briefing on the impact of energy production on climate change: Another debate is about how high a priority it should be for the government to work to further reduce greenhouse gasses, especially carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas; and the process of reducing carbon dioxide also reduces other greenhouse gasses and other forms of air pollution that have negative health effects. In 2001, at the request of the administration of President George W. Bush, the National Academies of Science did a major study that concluded: “Greenhouse gasses are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.” This conclusion has also been confirmed by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—a panel of over two thousand climate scientists from 154 countries around the world, including the US. The effect of the increase of greenhouse gasses produced by burning fossil fuels – like coal, oil and natural gas – has been studied extensively. A group of US government agencies and outside experts regularly produce a Climate Assessment. It has consistently found that greenhouse gasses are causing the climate to change, and global average temperatures to rise. This Assessment continues to conclude that this increase in temperature has resulted in various negative consequences, such as more severe storms, droughts, wildfires, and rising sea levels. These have led to the destruction of homes, businesses, infrastructure and farmland, as well as famine, water scarcity and the creation of millions of refugees. All of these consequences are projected to increase substantially in the coming decades. They were also informed that a small percent of scientists do not believe that fossil fuels are contributing to climate change: While nearly all climate scientists say that climate change is a problem and that reducing carbon emissions from energy production is important, there are some climate scientists who contest this view. Some members of Congress question whether climate change is a real problem that needs to be addressed. Others question whether climate change is due to human causes and whether reducing carbon emissions will help reduce the problem of climate change. Others argue that the costs of changing the way energy is produced are too high, and outweigh the benefits. Thus, there continues to be a debate within the government about how high a priority it should be for the government to work to further Reducing Greenhouse Gasses: Arguments Respondents evaluated arguments for and against the government making it a high priority to reduce greenhouse gasses. Reducing Greenhouse Gasses: Priority Level Finally, asked how high a priority it should be for the government to reduce greenhouse gases, a bipartisan majority of 80% rated it has a high priority(very high 44%), including 66% of Republicans, 94% of Democrats, and 81% of independents. |
|
PROMOTING CLEAN ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY |
|
|
Respondents were first presented a briefing on the US energy system: One way the US has reduced carbon emissions has been increasing the production of energy from sources that do not produce carbon emissions, such as renewables (including solar, wind, and hydropower) and nuclear power. This carbon-free energy has replaced some of the energy from fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas. Currently, 79% of the energy used in the US comes from fossil fuels. Energy that produces no carbon emissions accounts for the rest: Renewables make up 12% and nuclear energy makes up 8%. Energy used for transportation (cars, buses, planes) comes mostly from fossil fuels. In comparison, energy used to generate electricity comes from more carbon-free sources. The use of carbon-free energy has been increasing in the US as it has become cheaper to produce. Currently, most carbon-free energy is cheaper to produce than most fossil fuel energy, and experts say that this trend will continue. They were then introduced to the idea of using tax credits as a way to incentivize a switch to clean energy and energy-saving technologies as follows: In order to reduce carbon emissions, the US has passed laws that provide tax credits to encourage businesses and individuals to:
(As you may know, a tax credit reduces the total amount of taxes a business or individual owes. For example, if a business or individual owes $5,000 in taxes and gets a $1,000 tax credit, then they will only owe $4,000.) These tax credits have been widely used, and are estimated to reduce government revenues by about $100 billion a year. Respondents evaluated general arguments for and against using tax credits as incentives. The pro argument was found convincing by a large bipartisan majority of 81%. The con argument did less well, but was still found convincing by a majority of 60%, including just half of Democrats. Before receiving any briefing materials or engaging in the deliberation process respondents were given the same poll question as those asked afterwards. Support increased from the pre-deliberation poll to the post-deliberation poll, overall (61% to 72%), and among Republicans (34% to 52%) and Democrats (80% to 89%). Related Standard Polls Clean energy and energy-efficiency In 2024:
In 2022:
In 2020:
Electric vehicles When tax credits for electric vehicles are presented on their own, they are supported by a large plurality, but most Republicans are opposed:
When given a middle option, the percent in support drops to half, with a very large percent choosing the non-committal option:
|
|
|
TAX INCENTIVES FOR PRODUCING CLEAN ENERGY |
|
Survey: PPC, July 2024 Respondents were first presented a briefing and evaluated arguments for and against using tax incentives to reduce emissions (see above). They were then asked whether they want to repeal, keep the same, or increase, “A tax credit up to 30% of the cost of equipment that produces clean energy, such as solar panels or wind turbines, or stores clean energy." A bipartisan majority of 88% chose to maintain or increase (Republicans 83%, Democrats 94%). Demographics Results from Six Swing States Results from Past PPC Survey Status of Legislation The proposal was also in the Clean Energy for America Act by Sen. Ron Wyden (D) (S. 1288) and the GREEN Act by Rep. Mike Thompson (D) (H.R. 848) from the 117th Congress. |
|
Survey: PPC, July 2024 Respondents were first presented a briefing and evaluated arguments for and against using tax incentives to reduce emissions (see above). They were then asked whether they want to repeal, keep the same, or increase, “A tax credit for the amount of electricity produced with clean energy, equal to up to 5-10% of the average retail cost of electricity.” A bipartisan majority of 88% chose to maintain or increase (Republicans 84%, Democrats 92%). Demographics Results from Six Swing States Results from Past PPC Survey Status of Legislation The exact proposal to provide a tax credit for clean energy production equal to 5-10% of the average retail cost was in the Clean Energy for America Act by Sen. Ron Wyden (D) (S. 1288) and the GREEN Act by Rep. Mike Thompson (D) (H.R. 848) from the 117th Congress. |
|
Survey: PPC, July 2024 Respondents were first presented a briefing and evaluated arguments for and against using tax incentives to reduce emissions (see above). They were then asked whether they want to repeal, keep the same, or increase, “ A tax credit of up to $1 per gallon for the production of transportation fuel that produces 25% fewer emissions than the current average.” A bipartisan majority of 83% chose to maintain or increase (Republicans 76%, Democrats 91%). Demographics Results from Six Swing States Results from Past PPC Survey Status of Legislation The proposal was also in the Clean Energy for America Act by Sen. Ron Wyden (D) (S. 1288) and the GREEN Act by Rep. Mike Thompson (D) (H.R. 848) from the 117th Congress. |
|
Survey: PPC, October 2020 Respondents were first presented a briefing and evaluated arguments for and against using tax incentives to reduce emissions (see above). They were then asked whether they favor, “A tax credit up to 30% for an investment in the development of first-of-its-kind clean energy technology to produce, store or distribute energy." A bipartisan majority of 71% were in favor (Republicans 57%, Democrats 83%). Demographics Status of Legislation The other two received majority support, but less than half of Republicans were in favor:
|
|
Survey: PPC, June 2016 Respondents were first presented a briefing and evaluated arguments for and against using tax incentives to reduce emissions (see above). They were then asked whether they favor a tax credit for “Installing small residential wind and fuel cell micro-turbines to generate energy for homes." A bipartisan majority of 73% were in favor, including 62% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats. Demographics Status of Legislation Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation |
|
TAX INCENTIVES FOR ENERGY EFFICIENT BUILDINGS |
|
Survey: PPC, July 2024 Respondents were first presented a briefing and evaluated arguments for and against using tax incentives to reduce emissions (see above). They were then asked whether they want to repeal, keep the same, or increase, “A tax credit up to $3,000 for building a new energy-efficient home or residential building.” A bipartisan majority of 87% chose to maintain or increase (Republicans 83%, Democrats 93%). Demographics Results from Six Swing States Results from Past PPC Survey Status of Legislation Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation
|
|
Survey: PPC, July 2024 Respondents were first presented a briefing and evaluated arguments for and against using tax incentives to reduce emissions (see above). They were then asked whether they want to repeal, keep the same, or increase, “A tax credit up to $6,500 for making energy-saving improvements such as fuel-efficient lighting, doors, windows, or insulation." A bipartisan majority of 86% chose to maintain or increase (Republicans 82%, Democrats 92%). Demographics Results from Six Swing States Results from Past PPC Survey Status of Legislation Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation
|
|
Survey: PPC, July 2024 Respondents were first presented a briefing and evaluated arguments for and against using tax incentives to reduce emissions (see above). They were then asked whether they want to repeal, keep the same, or increase, “A tax credit up to $1,500 for installing a new energy-efficient heating or air conditioning system." A bipartisan majority of 89% chose to maintain or increase (Republicans 84%, Democrats 93%). Demographics Results from Six Swing States Results from Past PPC Survey Status of Legislation Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation
|
|
Survey: PPC, July 2024 Respondents were first presented a briefing and evaluated arguments for and against using tax incentives to reduce emissions (see above). They were then asked whether they want to repeal, keep the same, or increase, “A tax credit up to $4.75 per square foot for building new energy-efficient commercial buildings." A bipartisan majority of 88% chose to maintain or increase (Republicans 84%, Democrats 94%). Demographics Results from Six Swing States Results from Past PPC Survey Status of Legislation Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation
|
|
Survey: PPC, July 2024 Respondents were first presented a briefing and evaluated arguments for and against using tax incentives to reduce emissions (see above). They were then asked whether they want to repeal, keep the same, or increase, “A tax credit up to $9.25 per square foot for making energy-saving improvements to commercial buildings that reduce energy." A bipartisan majority of 83% chose to maintain or increase (Republicans 81%, Democrats 87%). Demographics Results from Six Swing States Results from Past PPC Survey Status of Legislation Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation
|
|
ELECTRIC VEHICLES |
|
Survey: PPC, July 2024 Respondents were first presented a briefing and evaluated arguments for and against using tax incentives to reduce emissions (see above). They were then asked whether they want to repeal, keep the same, or increase, “For people earning less than $150,000, a tax credit of up to $7,500 for purchasing a new electric car.” A bipartisan majority of 79% chose to maintain or increase (Republicans 69%, Democrats 89%). Demographics Results from Six Swing States Results from Past PPC Survey |
|
Survey: PPC, July 2024 Respondents were first presented a briefing and evaluated arguments for and against using tax incentives to reduce emissions (see above). They were then asked whether they want to repeal, keep the same, or increase, “For people earning less than $75,000, a tax credit of up to $4,000 for purchasing a used electric car.” A bipartisan majority of 80% chose to maintain or increase (Republicans 71%, Democrats 89%). Demographics Results from Six Swing States Results from Past PPC Survey |
|
Survey: PPC, July 2024 Respondents were first presented a briefing and evaluated arguments for and against using tax incentives to reduce emissions (see above). Respondents were then told that, “many people will only buy electric cars if they can have access to charging stations. For example, people who live in an apartment building or condo may not have a way to charge their car. Having more charging stations would encourage people to buy electric cars. Asked whether they want to repeal, keep the same, or increase a “tax credit of up to 30% of the cost of installing a charging station that can be used by anyone,” a bipartisan majority of 82% chose to maintain or increase (Republicans 73%, Democrats 90%). Demographics Results from Six Swing States Results from Past PPC Survey Status of Legislation |
|
Manufacturers of fully electric buses: a tax credit equal to 10% of the sales price of each bus soldSurvey: PPC, October 2020 Respondents were asked whether they favor, “For manufacturers of fully electric buses, a tax credit equal to 10% of the sales price of each bus sold.” A bipartisan majority of 69% were in favor, including 52% of Republicans and 84% of Democrats. Demographics Status of Legislation A similar proposal, which provides a tax credit for the purchase of electric school buses was in the Inflation Reduction Act, sponsored by Rep. John Yarmouth (D) in the 117th Congress. It passed the House with 220D voting in favor, and 212R and 1D voting against; and passed the Senate with 48D, 2I and the Vice President voting in favor and 50R voting against. The tax credit is temporary and will sunset by 2032. The other two were favored by majorities overall, but less than half of Republicans:
|
|
Results from Center for Deliberative Democracy The 2019 CDD survey found majorities in favor of using “taxes or other market incentives to achieve emissions reductions”. Before providing their final response, they were presented with briefing materials on the environment and climate change and arguments for and against the proposal, and participated in an in-person deliberation. On a 0-10 scale, 72% were in favor of the proposal (6-10), including 89% of Democrats and 52% of Republicans. Before receiving any briefing materials or engaging in the deliberation process respondents were given the same poll question as those asked afterwards. Support increased from the pre-deliberation poll to the post-deliberation poll, overall (61% to 72%), and among Republicans (34% to 52%) and Democrats (80% to 89%). Standard Polls Majorities, bipartisan in many cases, have favored the government providing tax credits for energy efficient products and buildings, clean energy production, and electric vehicles. However, tax credits for electric vehicles are the least popular, and when they are presented by themselves, they do not have bipartisan support. Clean energy and energy-efficiency In 2024:
In 2022:
In 2020:
Electric vehicles When tax credits for electric vehicles are presented on their own, they are supported by a large plurality, but most Republicans are opposed:
When given a middle option – “neither favor nor oppose” – support drops to half, with a very large percent choosing the non-committal option: Asked whether they favor, “Providing tax credits, cash rebates, or other financial incentives for the purchase of electric vehicles,” 49% were in support and 29% opposed. Among Democrats, a majority of 69% were in favor. Among Republicans, just 33% favored and 41% opposed. (AP-NORC, February 2023) |
|
REGULATIONS |
|
Survey: PPC, July 2024 Respondents were asked whether they favor the following proposal, “By 2027, new cars and light trucks need to get about 20 to 30% more miles per gallon (mpg) on average than cars and light trucks made in 2022.” They were also informed that this would increase the price of new cars, but new car owners would save money in the long run. A bipartisan majority of 70% were in favor (Republicans 61%, Democrats 81%). Demographics More Details Briefing Arguments Both arguments were found convincing by bipartisan majorities, with more Democrats finding the pro argument convincing, and more Republicans finding the con argument convincing. Final Recommendation By 2027, new cars and light trucks need to get about 20 to 30% more miles per gallon (mpg) on average than cars and light trucks made in 2022:
They were informed about the initial and long-run costs to consumers: It is estimated that this will increase the initial cost of a car, but owners would save money in lower fuel costs. Overall, by 2027, owners of a new car or light truck will save an average of $1,000 over the lifetime of the car. They were also informed about society-wide costs: And over time, the benefits are expected to outweigh the costs even more. Less emissions would slow climate change and reduce air pollution which would improve people’s health, both which save society as a whole money. Overall, taking into account both the increased costs of meeting these new standards and the benefits of less emissions, society as a whole would save around $110 billion. Asked for their final recommendation, a bipartisan majority of 70% were in favor (Republicans 61%, Democrats 81%)
Results from Past PPC Survey Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation Results from the Center for Deliberative Democracy On a 0-10 scale, with 5 being “in the middle”, just 39% were in favor of this policy (6-10), including just 19% of Republicans, but a majority of Democrats (56%). Including the middle option (5-10), those who were not opposed was 56% overall, including 75% of Democrats, but just 34% of Republicans. Before receiving any briefing materials or engaging in the deliberation process respondents were given the same poll question as those asked afterwards. Support decreased from the pre-deliberation poll to the post-deliberation poll, overall (42% to 39%) and among Democrats (64% to 56%). Including the middle option, those who were not opposed decreased, overall (66% to 56%), and among Republicans (40% to 34%) and Democrats ( 85% to 75%). Related Standard Polls
Large bipartisan majorities have favored increasing fuel efficiency standards:
Status of Proposals |
|
Survey: PPC, June 2016 Respondents were presented a proposal for reducing emissions from energy production through government regulation: Another option is for government to require electric companies to have a minimum portion of their electricity come from renewable sources that produce little or no air pollution or greenhouse gases, such as solar, wind and bio-gas. State governments have established such minimums in 29 states, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that currently they reduce greenhouse gases from power production for the entire US by 3.6%. The costs of these programs have been substantially passed on to consumers, increasing their price of electricity by 1 to 2 percent. Asked whether they favor, “your own state requiring that electric companies have a minimum portion of their electricity come from renewable sources such as solar, wind or bio-gas,” a bipartisan majority of 74% were in favor (Republicans 56%, Democrats 89%). Demographics Results in States with Minimum Renewable Requirements Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation Related Standard Polls Majorities have supported setting minimum renewable energy standards for each state, even told that this would likely increase the amount they pay for electricity, but less than half of Republicans have been in favor:
When the possible price increase is not mentioned, Republican support is much higher, but still not a majority:
When presented pros and cons, support has increased to a bipartisan majority:
A partisan majority favored keeping the Clean Power Plan rules to reduce power plant emissions:
Status of Proposal In the 118th Congress, a proposal to require all utility companies to get a minimum amount of their energy from zero-carbon sources was in the American Renewable Energy Act of 2024 by Rep. Yvette Clark (H.R.10139) and Sen. Peter Welch (S.5352). The bill did not make it out of committee. In the 116th Congress, the proposal was in the Renewable Electricity Standard Act (S. 1974), sponsored by Sen. Tom Udall. It did not make it out of committee. |
|
Survey: PPC, June 2016 Respondents were informed that “ HFCs are far more harmful than carbon dioxide or even methane. Ton for ton, HFCs are at least 400 times more harmful than carbon dioxide. They were then presented the following proposal: Require businesses to:
This proposal would cost all affected businesses an overall total of $63 million per year, but because the alternatives are more energy-efficient for the consumer, most of this cost can be offset. A bipartisan majority supported this new regulation (77%), including two thirds of Republicans and nine in ten Democrats.
Demographics Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation |
COMMITMENTS TO REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS |
|
|
Survey: DDL, 2019 Respondents were asked about the following proposal: “The US commit to the 2014 Paris Agreement to combat climate change,” On a 0-10 scale, 70% favored the proposal (6-10), including 91% of Democrats, but less than half of Republicans (44%). Including the middle option (5-10), the share not in opposition to the proposal was 80% nationally, 97% of Democrats and a majority of Republicans (60%). Respondents were also presented a proposal for going beyond the Paris Agreement as follows: “The US should go beyond the Paris Agreement and aim for even greater reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.” This proposal was favored (6-10) by 68%, including 85% of Democrats, but less than half of Republicans (44%). The share not in opposition to the proposal (5-10) was 81% nationally, including 97% of Democrats and a majority of Republicans (60%). More Details Briefing In 2016, the US government signed the Paris Agreement, a framework for tackling climate change across the globe that was signed by nearly all of the world’s nations (but not Russia, Turkey, or Iran). In 2017, the US government announced it would withdraw from the treaty. Some Americans believe the US should re-commit to the Paris Agreement to combat climate change, which they say is a rapidly escalating global threat requiring urgent global action.4 After all, greenhouse gases emitted anywhere affect the people everywhere.5 From this perspective, climate change is one of the most serious long-term threats to the health and well-being of Americans, and even American military readiness is being affected.6 Additionally, some advocates believe the US needs to participate in the Paris Agreement in order not to give up its claim of global leadership on climate change to China and other nations. Opponents of the Paris Agreement believe the US government was right to withdraw because it included only voluntary commitments and imposed no consequences on countries that failed to follow through. Critics also object that the American commitment was much larger than those of other countries, and that it would prove costly to US households and harmful to American competitiveness in the energy market. As a result, spending US taxpayer dollars on this problem would benefit other countries more than the US.8 Advocates respond that US leadership is critical to mobilizing global action, and that some other nations have actually made commitments far more serious than ours. Some believe the US should go beyond the Paris Agreement to more ambitiously reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They say that the Paris Agreement only seeks to hold the rise in average world temperatures to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, and that it does not go far enough. Many scientists predict more severe droughts, wildfires, flooding, food shortages and refugee flows unless we can keep global temperatures from rising beyond an additional 2.7 degrees. Advocates for strong action argue we have been warned by scientists about the dangers of global warming for over three decades — and have done relatively little as a nation. Because adverse climate changes are so profound and so difficult to reverse, but take place so slowly over time, it is important to take action as soon as possible — both to minimize the damage as much as possible, and to minimize the costs of preventive action, which will rise dramatically with time. For the sake of the next generation we need to start acting now. Critics believe that moving beyond the current Paris Agreement goal is unrealistic. Industrialized countries and other big polluters like China and India would be unlikely to agree to the immediate and costly actions that a larger goal would require. Greater real-world progress will come, they suggest, by aiming for a more attainable objective. Commit to the Paris Agreement Proposal: The US should commit to the 2014 Paris Agreement to combat climate change. Argument for: Climate change is an urgent global threat requiring global solutions. It demands international cooperation, since greenhouse gases emitted anywhere affect people everywhere. The US should not cede its claim of global leadership in this arena to China and others. Argument against: The Paris Agreement is harmful to American energy competitiveness and is expensive and ineffective. Overall, the agreement requires a vast expenditure of taxpayer dollars in ways that benefits other countries more than the US. On a 0-10 scale, 70% favored the proposal (6-10), including 91% of Democrats, but less than half of Republicans (44%). Including the middle option (5-10), the share not in opposition to the proposal was 80% nationally, 97% of Democrats and a majority of Republicans (60%). Pre-Deliberation Poll Going Beyond the Paris Agreement Proposal: The US should go beyond the Paris Agreement and aim for even greater reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Argument for: The Paris Agreement tries to assure that global temperatures do not rise more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. But many scientists predict grave consequences of extreme weather and flooding if temperatures rise beyond 2.7 degrees. The agreement must be revised. Argument against: Moving beyond the Paris goal is unrealistic. Countries responsible for the bulk of greenhouse emissions would not consent to the immediate and costly actions that would be required of their citizens. It is better to aim for a more attainable objective. This proposal was favored (6-10) by 68%, including 85% of Democrats, but less than half of Republicans (44%). The share not in opposition to the proposal (5-10) was 81% nationally, including 97% of Democrats and a majority of Republicans (60%). Pre-Deliberation Poll Related Standard Polls
Majorities and pluralities have opposed President Trump withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, with large partisan divisions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
REDUCE GREENHOUSE GASSES IN THE U.S. |
|
Survey: PPC, June 2016 Respondents were asked whether they approve of the US setting the goal of reducing its greenhouse gases by about 2% each year, which they were informed is part of the international agreement reached in Paris. A bipartisan majority of 71% approved, including 52% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats. Respondents were also asked whether they favor a specific plan to reduce emissions by 2-3% a year -- known as the Clean Power Plan, put forward by the Obama administration. This plan included multiple steps to reduce greenhouse gasses from power plants, as well as a provision to give assistance to coal workers who lose their jobs. A bipartisan majority of 77% were in favor of this plan, including 59% of Republicans and 93% of Democrats. Demographics
More Details Briefing Respondents were first introduced to the international framework for addressing climate change as follows: Scientists that study atmospheric changes emphasize that climate change is a global problem. The temperature changes that occur are for the planet as a whole and the greenhouse gases that each nation generates contribute to the global problem. As a result there have been numerous efforts, sponsored by the UN, to try to arrive at an international agreement for reducing greenhouse gases. A series of international conferences have been held. They were then introduced to a debate in these conferences that has posed a major obstacle to achieving an international agreement: whether the developing countries should be required to limit their greenhouse gases. Illustrated with charts, it was explained that developed countries, such as the US, argue that developing countries now produce large total amounts of emissions, while developing countries argue that they are still growing out of poverty and produce much lower levels of emissions per capita. It was then explained that at the December 2015 conference of 200 countries in Paris, for the first time all of the countries—including developing countries as well as developed countries—came to an agreement to seek to limit the increase in global temperatures to no more than 3.4 degrees Fahrenheit. Respondents also learned that: All countries, including the US, presented their national plans for limiting their greenhouse gases in line with this goal. The countries have not made legally binding commitments to meet this goal, but the agreement does require them to:
The agreement refers to the assessment of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that meeting the goal of limiting temperature increases to 3.4 degrees will require 2%-a-year reductions on average between now and 2050 While developed countries like the US have submitted plans for reducing greenhouse gases right away, developing countries, such as China and India, have submitted plans for a more gradual path of first slowing, and then, within several years, beginning to reduce their gases. Arguments The argument in favor was found convincing by a bipartisan majority. The argument against did less well and elicited a substantially more partisan response, with a majority of Republicans finding it convincing, but just a third of Democrats. Final Recommendation At the end of the survey—after respondents had evaluated a range of concrete options aimed at reducing US greenhouse gases—they were provided a summary of the arguments previously given for and against US participation in the Paris agreement. Finally, they were asked whether they approved or disapproved of the US setting the goal of reducing its greenhouse gases by about 2% each year, as part of the international agreement reached in Paris. Seven in ten (71%) approved of the goal, including 52% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats. Demographics
Adopt the Clean Power Plan to Reduce Emissions Respondents also evaluated a specific plan for reducing emissions in the US -- known as the Clean Power Plan. They were provided a briefing on the various aspects of this plan, which they were told would not only reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but also other pollutants such as sulfur dioxide. They learned that the plan calls for each state in the US to reduce carbon dioxide from power plants by 2-3% a year, by coming up with their own plan. They were also informed that this plan includes adjustment assistance to coal workers who lose their job as a result of the transition to cleaner energy. After evaluating arguments for and against, they were asked whether they favor this plan as a whole, including the adjustment assistance for coal workers. A bipartisan majority of 77% were in favor, including 59% of Republicans and 93% of Democrats. Demographics Related Standard Polls When told that President Trump has repealed the Clean Power Plan and told what it was, a majority was opposed, though a majority of Republicans favored it:
Given no information about the Clean Power Plan and the opportunity to took a neutral position overall a plurality was opposed to its repeal, Democrats were opposed and half of Republicans took a neutral position:
|
|
Survey: PPC, June 2016 Asked whether they favor, “government assistance to help coal workers who lose their jobs,” a bipartisan majority of 69% were in favor, including 59% of Republicans and 78% of Democrats. Demographics More Details Briefing Respondents were first asked to consider the problem from the workers’ standpoint. They were told that, “it is likely that some older coal plants will be shut and unlikely that new ones will be built because cleaner forms of energy are now less expensive.” Final Recommendation They were told that proponents “say it is not fair for coal workers to take the brunt of the changes that come with changing energy sources, and thus they should get help,“ while opponents “say it is not the government’s job to take care of everyone affected by economic change and these programs are often not effective.” When asked if they favored the plan, seven in ten (69%) favored it, including six in ten Republicans and eight in ten Democrats. Demographics |
|
Respondents were asked whether they favor, “the federal government providing subsidies for developing and building new technologies to capture and store carbon dioxide from coal plants.” A majority of 55% were opposed, including 57% of Republicans, 52% of Democrats, and 58% of independents.
Demographics
More Details Briefing Following the evaluation of arguments for and against the use of government regulations to reduce carbon dioxide and other pollutants (discussed above), respondents received a briefing on the sequestration of carbon dioxide from burning coal, often referred to as ‘clean coal.’ They were informed that: There is a method being developed for greatly reducing the carbon dioxide from coal. It is known as ‘sequestration.’ What it does is to capture the carbon dioxide from coal plants and store it underground in caverns and empty oil wells, rather than releasing it into the air. The problem, though, is the only way it can be economical is if the government covers much of the cost of developing and building the technology. Arguments Respondents were then presented pros and cons to subsidizing carbon sequestration, as follows: Some people argue in favor of this idea saying:
Others argue against this idea saying:
Final Recommendation In the end, a majority of 55% opposed the “federal government providing subsidies for developing and building new technologies to capture and store carbon dioxide from coal plants,” including 57% of Republicans, 52% of Democrats, and 58% of independents.
Demographics
Among those who have or have a family member who has worked in the coal industry, support was a bit higher but still surprisingly low—51% in favor, 47% opposed. |
CONSTRAINING FOSSIL FUEL EXTRACTION |
|
|
OFFSHORE DRILLING |
|
Survey: PPC, July 2024 Asked whether the government, when making decisions about leases for offshore drilling, should have the goal of increasing, decreasing or keeping the amount of offshore drilling about the same, a bipartisan majority of 76% chose to maintain or decrease (Republicans 64%, Democrats 86%). More Details Briefing Offshore drilling is currently taking place in some areas off the coasts of Texas, California and Alaska. About 15% of oil and 2% of gas in the US is produced from offshore drilling. Every year, the federal government decides which offshore areas, if any, they will allow companies to drill for oil or gas. The government then sells or renews leases to companies to drill in those areas. In response to a series of major damaging oil spills, including the Santa Barbara spill in 1969 and the Exxon Valdez in 1989, laws have been enacted banning offshore oil drilling in several areas. They were informed about the debate around changing the amount of offshore drilling: There is some debate about whether the government should grant and renew leases in a way that would increase or decrease the amount of oil being drilled offshore, or keep it about the same as is currently drilled. The government estimates that there are substantial amounts of oil and gas in the offshore areas which are not currently open for drilling. However, if those areas are opened for drilling, it may take several years before any oil or gas is produced. Arguments
Each argument was found convincing by a bipartisan majority of about seven-in-ten, with some partisan differences. The argument in favor of increasing offshore drilling did better among Republicans than Democrats, while the arguments for maintaining or decreasing offshore drilling did better among Democrats. Final Recommendation Finally, respondents were asked whether the government, when making decisions about leases for offshore drilling, should have the goal of increasing, decreasing or keeping the amount of offshore drilling about the same. A bipartisan majority of 76% chose to maintain or decrease (Republicans 64%, Democrats 86%).
Demographics Results in Six Swing States Standard Polls
However, when asked about their support for drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge in particular, large bipartisan majorities has been opposed:
|
|
Respondents were first introduced to the policy which bans offshore drilling, as follows: Currently, oil and gas are only being drilled along the Gulf Coast. There have been bans on drilling in the Atlantic and the Pacific coast since a series of major damaging oil spills, including the Santa Barbara spill in 1969 and the Exxon Valdez in 1989. There are also limits on the Alaska coast. The new proposal is to lift these bans and allow drilling for oil and gas along all of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and to expand the allowed area around Alaska. They then evaluated two sets of arguments for and against that proposal. The arguments against lifting the ban were found convincing by a larger and more bipartisan majority. There were significant partisan differences, with Republicans more likely to find the arguments in favor convincing, and vice versa for Democrats. They were then introduced to a proposal concerning state-level action: The proposal to allow offshore drilling along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts affects 17 states. As you may know, governors in 15 of the 17 states have requested waivers that would keep in place the ban on offshore drilling for their states. The states requesting this waiver include -- Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, California, Oregon and Washington. Florida has already been granted this waiver. Asked whether they favored granting these waivers, a bipartisan majority were in favor (71%), including 86% of Democrats and 56% of Republicans. Related Standard Polls
However, when asked about their support for drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge in particular, large bipartisan majorities has been opposed:
Status of Proposal There were also several pieces of legislation in the 116th Congress to prohibit offshore drilling:
|
|
The Gulf of Mexico oil spill in 2010 caused increased concern over the safety and reliability of equipment used for offshore drilling. To address this concern, the federal government adopted a policy requiring this equipment to be inspected by federally-certified auditors. In 2017, the Department of Interior recommended removing this policy, but this recommendation has not been carried out. This has sparked debate between those who support the regulations as necessary safety precautions, and those who see it as unnecessary government overreach. Respondents were first presented a briefing on oil spills and the safety requirements imposed to reduce the risk of their occurrence: As you may recall, in 2010, there was a major oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico by the company British Petroleum. After the spill, a bipartisan presidential commission was established to look at what went wrong and to make recommendations. The Commission concluded that the government oversight of compliance with safety standards was not adequate. The commission recommended higher safety standards and that outside independent auditors, certified by the federal government, conduct inspections to ensure companies’ compliance with the safety standards. The cost of the inspection was to be covered by the companies. These recommendations were adopted by the government and independent auditors have been conducting regular inspections. They were then told about a proposal to change the safety requirements: Currently, there is a proposal to eliminate the requirement that companies hire independent auditors, certified by the federal government, to conduct inspections to ensure compliance with safety standards. Arguments for and against the proposal were then evaluated. The argument in favor was not found convincing by a majority of any group, while the argument against was found convincing by a large bipartisan majority. |
|
There has been a concern over how the clean-up of oil spills should be paid for, as some oil companies are not able to fully cover the costs. To address this concern, in 1990 the federal government implemented a tax on oil companies that would go into a clean-up fund if the company responsible for the spill couldn’t cover the costs or if the responsible party was unknown. In 2018, this tax expired. In 2019, the tax was renewed by the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act. Respondents were presented a briefing on oil spills and policies for funding their clean-up: As you probably know, there have been many oil spills, both on land as well as offshore, when there is an accident or breakdown of an oil carrier, a pipeline, or an oil rig. While you may have heard about the big spills, there are also many small and medium spills. As a general rule, the company that owns the system that caused the spill is responsible for paying the costs of the cleanup. However, in some cases the company does not have the financial means to pay for the cleanup or they resist taking responsibility. Because it is important to react quickly to an oil spill in order to prevent further damage, in 1986, Congress created a special fund to pay the cost of acting immediately in the event that the responsible company does not act promptly. The federal government is still empowered to pursue companies to cover those costs later. Though most companies repay the fund, sometimes there is a legal battle and sometimes the company does not have the means to pay or goes out of business. To pay for this fund, Congress imposed a 9 cent per barrel tax on all oil companies. The fund has received about $500 million per year from oil companies. They were then informed that: While this tax has been renewed numerous times over the years, it has at times lapsed, and most recently was only renewed for one year. Finally, they were presented with a proposal “to renew the tax for a 5 year period and to raise the amount to 10 cents. (The amount has not been adjusted for inflation since the tax was established in 1986.)” Arguments for and against this proposal were evaluated, with the argument in favor doing overwhelmingly better among all groups, by around 60 points. Status of Proposal |
|
OIL AND GAS DRILLING IN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS |
|
Respondents were presented with the following briefing material as part of an in-person deliberation conducted by Stanford University’s Center for Deliberative Democracy in September 2019: Instead of focusing on climate change, some Americans believe the US should expand oil and gas production. This focus, they maintain, can ensure an abundant, secure supply of energy for the US, increase prosperity and jobs, and lower energy prices for consumers. Even though the US is the world’s largest oil producer, it still imports more oil and gas than it exports, and, they say, energy independence is important for our national security. Additionally, many believe that government regulation should not constrain private sector innovation. In contrast, advocates for a rapid switch to renewable energy sources stress that human reliance on fossil fuels is driving a disastrous acceleration of climate change; that renewable energy is the ultimate form of energy security, and that the private sector can be incentivized to speed up innovation for renewable energy. Some advocate expanded oil and gas production on federal lands now dedicated to wildlife preservation. They believe we can design less restrictive regulations, while still maintaining our national commitment to protecting endangered species and ecosystems. But critics of this approach assert that the Department of Interior’s current efforts to protect federal lands are already too weak, and that we need stronger restrictions in light of the growing threat of extinction faced by many species and natural environments. Another issue in environmental and energy policy today concerns the pros and cons of fracking. Advocates want to allow fracking in oil and gas fields throughout the United States in order to increase oil and gas production. Fracking, they argue, will create many new jobs and bring forth new sources of oil and gas and will enable us to speed up the closing of much dirtier coal-burning power plants. But critics believe fracking only deepens our dependence on fossil fuels, increasing greenhouse gas emissions, while also contaminating drinking water and posing other risks to health for workers and people in nearby communities. They were then presented with a proposal and arguments for and against: Proposal: The US should expand oil and gas production on federal lands previously dedicated to wildlife preservation. Argument in Favor: We need more domestic oil and gas production for our prosperity and security, and it is possible to design less restrictive Regulations in a fashion that continues to protect endangered species and ecosystems. Argument Against: The Department of Interior’s current efforts to protect the environmental integrity of federal lands are too weak, not too strong. They need strengthened in light of the growing threat of extinction faced by many species and possible other harm to natural environments. After receiving the briefing material, respondents deliberated on the proposals in-person. Finally, they were asked for their final recommendation. On a 0-10 scale, 76% opposed the proposal (0-4), including 54% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats. Related Standard Polls
When it comes to drilling in public land in general, partisan majorities have been opposed, with a majority of Democrats opposed, and a majority of Republicans in favor:
|
They were then asked whether they favored lifting the ban. Six in ten opposed this policy, but this was not bipartisan. While 86% of Democrats opposed it but just one third of Republicans.
Respondents in the 15 states with governors who requested a waiver were also asked if they approved of that request. In those states, seven in ten approved, including 88% of Democrats and half of Republicans. 
Finally, asked whether they favored removing the requirement that oil drilling companies hire independent auditors to conduct safety inspections, a large bipartisan majority of three in four opposed, including 68% of Republicans and 83% of Democrats.
Status of Proposal
In the end, a large bipartisan majority of 85% favored the proposal, including 78% of Republicans and 92% of Democrats.
Pre-Deliberation Poll