University of Maryland Publishes Study: Considering the Cost of Clean: Americans on Energy, Air Quality and Climate

Maryland Opinions Policy R & D Focus University/College Programs

May 04, 2016

Print This Article Share it With Friends

(University of Maryland Program for Public Consultation) ... To find out what Americans would recommend when given facts and arguments, the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland developed an in‐depth survey instrument called a ‘policymaking simulation’ to be used for a Citizen Cabinet survey—a survey of a representative panel of registered voters. The idea is to put the respondents in the shoes of a policymaker such that they get a briefing, hear competing arguments and ultimately make recommendations in a context where they must be aware of tradeoffs. To ensure that the policymaking simulation accurately reflects the current debates, the content of the entire simulation was vetted with experts on both sides of the issue and with a Congressional staffer from each party.

...

The policymaking simulation was fielded as a survey with the national Citizen Cabinet, a citizen advisory panel consisting of a probability‐based representative sample of registered voters. The national Citizen Cabinet panel was recruited from the larger panel of Nielsen‐Scarborough, which is recruited by telephone and mail. The survey itself was conducted on‐line.

TOTAL RESPONDENTS: 4,394 adult registered voters
Margin of Error: +/‐ 1.6%Fielding Company: Nielsen‐Scarborough
Field Dates: April 16, 2016‐April 26, 2016
The sample was subsequently weighted by age, income, gender, education and race with benchmarks
from the Census’ 2014 Current Population Survey of Registered Voters.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Priority of Reducing Health Effects of Air Pollution

Three in four respondents said that it is a high priority to reduce air pollution from energy production that has negative public health effects. This includes a slight majority of Republicans and nine in ten Democrats.

Concern for Climate Effects of Greenhouse Gases

Seven in ten said it is a high priority to reduce greenhouse gases from energy production. This includes
just under half of Republicans and nine in ten Democrats.

US Participation in International Climate Agreement

After a briefing and assessment of arguments pro and con, seven in ten approved of the US participating in the international agreement recently negotiated in Paris and signed in New York, and thereby adopting the goal of reducing its greenhouse gases approximately 2% a year. Nine in ten Democrats approved, as did two in three independents. Among Republicans a bare majority approved, but six in ten said it was at least tolerable. The argument in favor of US participation was found convincing by three in four, including six in ten Republicans. The argument against was found convincing by a bare majority overall, but by seven in ten Republicans. A modest majority, overall, approved of the US providing aid to help developing countries reduce their greenhouse gases as part of the larger Paris agreement, though a majority of Republicans were opposed.

...

Carbon Tax

Initially only a bare majority favored having a tax on carbon. However, six in ten favored the idea of using the income generated by a carbon tax to offset the impact of a carbon tax on people with low to
middle incomes, and on this condition, the number favoring a carbon tax rose to two thirds. This support, though, was not bipartisan.

...

Priority of Reducing Health Effects of Air Pollution

Respondents were given a briefing on the issue of health effects of air pollution and evaluated arguments for and against making the reduction of air pollution a high priority. Asked to make a judgment about high a priority reducing air pollution from energy production was for them, about three quarters (74%) gave it a high priority (very high, 33%). This included 51% of Republicans and 9 in 10 Democrats.
Independents were in between, with three quarters giving it a high priority.

...

Regulations to Reduce Carbon Dioxide

Large bipartisan majorities favored government regulations requiring higher fuel efficiency standards for light cars and trucks, and heavy duty vehicles, and requiring electric companies to have a minimum portion of their electricity come from renewable sources.

...

Fuel Efficiency in Cars and Light Trucks

The first set concerned the fuel efficiency of cars and light trucks: these requirements are scheduled to go up over 2017 through 2025. Respondents were told that carbon dioxide emissions would be cut by 2025 to half of their 2010 levels. This would add $1,800 to the cost of the vehicle, but the owner would save an estimated $5,700 on gasoline over the car’s lifetime. Respondents read brief arguments, including the objection that it would increase prices on the very vehicles—light trucks and SUVs—that many Americans prefer.

Three in four (73%) favored imposing these higher standards, with 26% opposed. Among Republicans, almost three in five (57%) favored it; among Democrats it approached nine in ten.

Fuel Efficiency in Heavy‐Duty Vehicles

The second set of regulatory standards concerned heavy‐duty trucks, vans, tractors and similar vehicles, starting in 2018 and increasing through 2027. By 2027, respondents learned, a new vehicle in this class would cost an extra $1,855 but would save the owner about $400‐500 annually in lower fuel costs.
Respondents read brief arguments, including the objection that since these vehicles are the
workhorses of our economy, new regulations will drive up the costs of interstate commerce,
hurting businesses, increasing consumers’ costs. Seven in ten (71%) favored the higher standards,
with 28% opposed. Among Republicans 56% were in favor; among Democrats, this was 84%.

...

Carbon Tax

Initially only a bare majority favored having a tax on carbon. However, six in ten favored the idea of using the income generated by a carbon tax to offset the impact of a carbon tax on people with low to middle incomes, and on this condition, the number favoring a carbon tax rose to two thirds. This support, though, was not bipartisan.

While a few states are considering implementing carbon taxes, this method for lowering emissions is much less familiar to Americans than tax incentives and regulations. The carbon tax was introduced in
this way:
‐ Another method the government can use to encourage people and companies to reduce their
carbon dioxide is to put a tax on it.
‐ Research has shown that when the cost of energy that pollutes is increased, this leads people
and companies to both use that energy more efficiently and to switch more readily to cleaner
forms of energy.
‐ A carbon tax would apply to coal, natural gas, gasoline, diesel and jet fuels. Each fuel would be
taxed according to the level of carbon dioxide it releases when burned. READ MORE

Note from Advanced Biofuels USA: The carbon tax question did not consider life cycle carbon, only tailpipe emissions. For a discussion of taxing transportation fuels based on life cycle carbon used to power mobility rather than only tailpipe emissions, see: https://advancedbiofuelsusa.info/its-time-for-a-non-renewable-carbon-user-fee-for-fuels/ The example given in this survey appears to consider taxing renewable transportation fuels equal to non-renewable fuels.