Oil Spill in the Gulf

Top elitist and Harvard Professor Kenneth Rogoff has shamefully called for the BP oil spill disaster to be exploited in order to create political momentum behind a carbon tax, even going to the lengths of embracing the nightmare scenario of hurricanes pushing the oil onshore as a way to create political momentum behind Obama’s dreaded “green economy.” - Paul Joseph Watson, Harvard Professor: ‘Exploit Gulf Disaster for Carbon Tax’, July 8, 2010, Prison Planet

U.S. Public Still Backs Offshore Drilling

June 22, 2010

Reuters - A majority of Americans still support offshore drilling on the U.S. coastline despite the devastating oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Tuesday.

The poll also found 89 percent of the U.S. public blame British energy giant BP Plc for the spill, the worst in U.S. history, and 69 percent think the U.S. government is also at fault.

About three-quarters believe neither BP nor the government responded quickly enough to the growing environmental disaster, which threatens wildlife, fertile fishing grounds and popular tourist beaches along the U.S. Gulf Coast, the poll found.

President Barack Obama imposed a six-month ban on deepwater drilling after an April 20 explosion at an offshore oil rig in the Gulf killed 11 people and triggered the huge spill.

With the oil still spewing two months later, 56 percent of Americans believe offshore drilling is necessary for the United States to produce its own energy and not rely on other countries for oil, while 38 percent believe it is a bad idea.

The poll found 69 percent have not changed their views on drilling despite the spill, with 24 percent now more opposed and 5 percent more in favour of drilling.

Obama, who has come under criticism for his response to the spill, has been harshly critical of BP. In an Oval Office speech last week, he said the disaster offered a chance to break the U.S. dependence on fossil fuels and called on Congress to pass energy legislation this year.

The poll found a huge majority believes BP is at fault for the spill, with 67 percent saying it is "very much" at fault and 22 percent saying it is "somewhat" at fault.

Just 9 percent believe the beleaguered company, which has agreed to create a $20 billion escrow fund to pay out damages and seen its share price drop dramatically, is not at fault.

About 69 percent of the public believe the U.S. government was either very much or somewhat at fault, with 30 percent believing it was not. The government agency that regulates offshore drilling came under heavy fire since the spill, and has been reorganized with a new director.

The poll found 78 percent believe BP did not respond quickly enough to the spill, which it has not been able to stop despite numerous efforts. But the U.S. government barely fared better, with 72 percent believing it did not respond swiftly enough.

The telephone poll of 1,005 Americans was conducted June 17 to 20 and has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

Research Findings on Climate Change, Electricity Usage and Cost, and Cap and Trade Auction Legislation

April 20, 2009

Lauer Johnson Research - This memo highlights the significant findings of a recently completed national survey assessing opinions on the issues of climate change, electricity usage and cost, and cap and trade auction legislation. It is the second in a series of surveys conducted on behalf of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) by Lauer Johnson Research (LJR).

SUMMARY

American families are facing unprecedented economic challenges. Throughout the survey, respondents again and again cite the need to keep their electricity bills as affordable as possible, and they wholeheartedly reject using cap and trade auction legislation to fund tax cuts and other programs. Key findings include:

• Respondents overwhelmingly agree that Congress should not enact any legislation to combat climate change without first knowing the impact the legislation will have on the cost of electricity.
• Respondents say that when considering climate change legislation, Congress must work to keep electricity bills affordable by focusing only on meeting climate change requirements and not raising revenue for other purposes, such as funding tax cuts or other government programs.
• Families are struggling economically right now and even a small increase in their household electric bill will force them to cut back in electricity use or elsewhere in their household spending.
• There is strong opposition to allowing speculators to play a role in setting the price of electricity.
• Respondents are skeptical that any funds generated through cap and trade auction legislation will fund a tax cut or address global warming as they are intended. Thus, there is a call for government accountability on a cap and trade auction.
• Respondents believe the government is passing the buck on raising taxes to electric utility companies.
• Respondents voice some concern about global warming and climate change, but the issue is far outpaced by concern about the economic stress facing families today and as such, there is not a consensus to immediately address global warming and climate change.

THE COST OF ELECTRICITY

A substantial 77% of respondents indicate they have seen their electricity costs go up in the past two years. Thirty-one percent have had their costs go up a lot, 46% have experienced smaller increases and prices have gone up uniformly across all regions and areas of the country. Despite these increases, however, respondents do not currently express outrage with their electricity costs – 55% say they are satisfied with the price they pay for electricity and 41% voice dissatisfaction.

Respondents are, however, on the brink of being unable to handle further increases. When we test two potential monthly electricity bill increases that observers indicate are possibilities if cap and trade auction legislation is enacted, majorities of respondents say such increases would cause financial hardship. Fifty-five percent of all respondents and 69% of working/lower class families say a $20 increase in their monthly electric bill would cause financial difficulty for their household. The impact of a $50 increase is more dramatic with a whopping 78% of all respondents saying a $50 increase would be a hardship. The consequences of a $50 monthly increase would be the most difficult for working/lower class families and seniors, but it is worth noting that even one-half of upper/upper middle class respondents indicate that a fifty dollar increase would affect their household budgets.

After testing reaction to the potential financial impact of cap and trade auction legislation, we asked respondents directly if they would be willing to pay more on their electricity bills to address climate change. In one of the most compelling findings of the survey, 58% of respondents say they are unwilling to pay any more than they currently pay for electricity to combat climate change. This is a 23% increase in those unwilling to pay more since 2007.

In addition, not one respondent indicated a willingness to pay over 20% more on their monthly electricity bill to combat climate change. Working/lower class and age 65+ respondents are the least willing to pay more, but substantial percentages of all classes and age cohorts indicate they do not want to see their electric bills increase by even one dollar for the purposes of combating climate change. Despite their unwillingness to pay more, respondents are aware that climate change legislation will likely cause their electricity rates to go up. Respondents are more fearful about the increases now than they were two years ago. Currently 37% of respondents say climate change legislation will cause rates to go up a lot, while in 2007, only 26% anticipated a big increase.

Yet another indication of respondents’ current inability to pay anything to combat climate change is the 68% who disagree with the idea that Congress should enact a carbon tax to encourage consumers to cut back on their electricity usage. In addition, one-half (50%) of the country opposes enacting a carbon tax to fund energy research, which represents an amazing 49-point shift (22% drop in agree; 27% increase in disagree) away from supporting a carbon tax for energy research in 2007.

CAP AND TRADE AUCTION

Respondents were presented with a lengthy question outlining the main components of the administration’s cap and trade auction plan, including putting a cap on carbon, establishing an auction market that allows participation by speculators, and using the majority of the funds generated for tax cuts, with the rest going to energy research. After hearing this description, respondents oppose the measure by a two-to-one margin, with 26% support, 52% oppose and 21% undecided or not sure.

We followed this question by asking respondents to indicate the likelihood of potential outcomes if cap and trade auction legislation is enacted. Even though 63% of respondents indicate they follow the global warming issue at least somewhat and a majority think global warming is a problem, reaction to possible outcomes demonstrate a belief that the administration’s cap and trade auction plan goes too far and that legislators must keep affordability in mind as they are working to address climate change and global warming. For example, over 60% of respondents say it is likely they will be forced to cut back their electricity use in order to be able to pay their bills, but only 34% believe revenues will be used to pay for a middle class tax cut and only 29% say cap and trade auction legislation is likely to slow global warming. Over 70% of respondents say it is likely that the poor and middle class will have trouble paying their electric bills, bills will be dramatically higher and families will have to cut back elsewhere to afford their electricity.

In addition, respondents are distrustful of speculator participation in a cap and trade auction. Over 75% of respondents are concerned about allowing speculators to control prices and agree that Congress should prohibit speculators from participating. Respondents also indicate a belief that a cap and trade auction will lead to more federal government spending.

THE GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUE

Climate change is not a top of mind concern these days. In fact, interest in protecting the environment and fighting climate change has dropped from a low priority (8%) in 2007 to receiving virtually no attention (3%) in 2009. Not surprisingly, the economy and jobs dominates respondents’ issue priorities, with fully 73% focusing on the economy; health care is a distant second at 17%. Despite the fluctuations in gas prices since 2007, concern about gas/energy prices has remained consistent at only 11%.

A recent CBS News/New York Times Poll also shows that health care is a higher priority than energy prices. When the economy is taken out of the mix, health care, education and Social Security all beat out energy as issue priorities. A 2008 Gallup poll reiterates that voters are more concerned about health care than energy or the environment. Here, notably more respondents worry a great deal about health care affordability than either energy costs/availability or the quality of the environment.

There has also been a slight drop in the level of seriousness respondents voice about the global warming/climate change problem. In 2007, 76% said global warming/climate change was very or somewhat serious, compared to 69% this year. Most importantly, there has been a 5% drop in the number saying it is a very serious problem and a 6% increase in the number who say global warming/climate change is not serious at all.

Both this survey and a recent Gallup Poll have found that for the first time in Gallup’s 25 year history of asking Americans about the trade-off between environmental protection and economic growth, a majority of Americans say economic growth should be given the priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent.

METHODS

The survey was conducted with 807 registered voters nationwide from April 2-7, 2009. The sample was derived from an updated list of adults in the continental United States. Respondents were screened to insure they are currently registered to vote. Findings applying to the 807 sample are subject to sampling error of plus or minus 3.5%. Other subgroups of the sample are subject to error of up to plus or minus 10%. Appended to this memo are a set of graphic charts and the topline questionnaire. When applicable, current results are compared to results from a September 2007 national survey of 1,000 registered voters LJR conducted on behalf of NRECA.

Yet Another Major Poll Finds Strong Public Support for Global Warming Action, “Even If It Means an Increase in the Cost of Energy”

June 24, 2010

ClimateProgress.org - The drumbeat of public support for comprehensive clean energy and global warming policies beats louder every day. The latest Wall Street Journal-NBC Poll found overwhelming support for comprehensive clean energy legislation that includes carbon pollution reductions. It also registered that cleaning up the BP oil disaster and energy reform is the number two priority of Americans. Finally, it registered another drop in support for the expansion of offshore oil drilling.

CAP’s Daniel J. Weiss has the details:

The WSJ-NBC poll was conducted by respected pollsters Bill McInturff (R) and Peter Hart (D). McInturff was John McCain’s presidential pollster in 2008. The survey was conducted June 17-21, 2010 -- after President Obama’s Oval Office address on the oil catastrophe and clean energy reform. There were 1,000 respondents, and the margin of error was +/- 3 percent.

Respondents favored comprehensive energy and carbon pollution reduction legislation by 63 percent to 31 percent -- a two to one margin.

Do you support or oppose an energy proposal designed to reduce carbon emissions and increase the use of alternative and renewable energy sources, even if it means an increase in the cost of energy? (IF SUPPORT/OPPOSE, THEN ASK) And, do you strongly (support/oppose) or just somewhat (support/oppose) this?

Strongly support	36%
Somewhat support	27%
Somewhat oppose	14%
Strongly oppose	17%
Not Sure	6%

Significantly, strong support for this legislation was double the strong opposition.

The reality of the BP oil disaster has likely led to far greater concerns about energy policy now than they were last month. When given a list of issues “that have been proposed for the federal government to address,” Americans expressed the second most concern about the “Gulf Coast oil spill and energy,” trailing only “job creation and economic growth.”

Job creation and economic growth	33%
The Gulf Coast oil spill and energy	22%
The deficit and government spending	15%
National security and terrorism	9%
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan	9%
Health care	7%
Social issues such as abortion & same sex marriage	2%
Other (VOL)	2%
All equally (VOL)	3%

Americans are increasingly skeptical about offshore oil drilling. In both May and June polls, respondents were asked

When it comes to oil drilling off U.S. coasts, which of the following statements comes closer to your point of view?

Statement A: The potential harm to the environment outweighs the potential benefits to the economy.

Statement B: The potential benefits to the economy outweigh the potential harm to the environment.

The results show a 14 percent drop in support for offshore oil drilling in just a single month. This is big swing of public opinion.

	6-10	5-10
A/ Harm to environment outweighs economy	48%	41%
B/ Benefits to the economy outweighs environment	46%	53%
A little of both (VOL)	2%	1%
Not sure	4%	5%

As Senate Democrats gather this afternoon to discuss energy and climate policies, they should remember that Americans strongly support action. This is evident in poll after poll that conclusively demonstrate that Americans want comprehensive energy reform that includes real reductions of global warming pollution. This is true even when respondents are told that it would cost jobs or increase energy prices. With such a supportive public, it’s time for senators still hiding in the shadows to come into the sunlight and support comprehensive reform. The American people are with you.

• Overwhelming majority support strong action to cut fossil fuel use, advance clean energy
• Post BP Disaster: Support grows for comprehensive energy bill that makes carbon polluters pay
• Obama’s campaign pollster: “In the aftermath of the oil spill disaster, voters overwhelmingly support a comprehensive clean energy bill. Voters understand the dangers of our dependence on oil. Now, they’re ready to hold Congress accountable.”
• New polls show Latinos and African Americans support bipartisan climate and clean energy jobs bill
• Memo to policymakers: Public STILL favors the transition to clean energy
• Swing state poll finds 60% “would be more likely to vote for their senator if he or she supported the bill” and Independents support the bill 2-to-1 (9/09)
• New CNN poll finds “nearly six in 10 independents” support cap-and-trade (10/09)
• Voters in Ohio, Michigan and Missouri overwhelmingly support action on clean energy and global warming (11/09)
• Overwhelming US Public Support for Global Warming Action (12/09)
• Public Opinion Stunner: WashPost-ABC Poll Finds Strong Support for Global Warming Reductions Despite Relentless Big Oil and Anti-Science Attacks (12/09)
• It’s all about Independents — and Independence (1/10)
• Yale: When asked whether they “support or oppose regulation carbon dioxide…as pollutant,” 73 percent said yes, with only 27 percent opposed, including 61 percent of Republicans (2/10)