Voters in Ohio, Michigan and Missouri overwhelmingly support action on clean energy and global warming

Posted on

"Voters in Ohio, Michigan and Missouri overwhelmingly support action on clean energy and global warming"

The new polls also found that large majorities believe global warming is a serious or very serious threat.

Polling from 3 key states — and 5 key districts — finds strong support for the climate and clean energy bill.  Every major recent poll has come to the same conclusion (see 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).  Perhaps that’s why E&E News found “At least 67 senators are in play” on climate bill.

In the new polls, likely 2010 voters were asked:

“Congress is considering an energy plan that has two key parts. One part would require factories and power companies to reduce their emissions of the carbon pollution that causes global warming by 17% (20% in MO) by the year 2020 and by 80% by the year 2050. The other part would require power companies to generate 15% of their power from clean energy sources like wind and solar by the year 2025. Would you favor/oppose this entire plan?”

The results:

  • 75% of voters in Michigan favor.
  • 68% of voters in Ohio favor.
  • 67% of voters in Missouri favor.

And this matches every recent poll:

The same question was asked in five swing House district and the result was the same:

  • 61% of voters in Florida’s 2nd district support.
  • 69% of voters in New Mexico’s 2nd district support.
  • 63% of voters in Ohio’s 16th district support.
  • 70% of voters in Virginia’s 5th district support.
  • 68% of voters in Washington’s 8th district support.

This new polling was done August through October by “by The Mellman Group, a leading Democratic firm, and Public Opinion Strategies, a leading Republican firm” for The Pew Environment Group

“Our surveys consistently find that voters across these three states and five congressional districts support efforts to address global warming and require the use of more clean energy sources,” said Mark Mellman, president of The Mellman Group. “These voters see global warming as a serious threat that is happening now and favor action to reduce carbon emissions.”

It is worth adding that “all respondents heard this argument summarizing the opposition’s strongest case”:

Opponents of the plan say this cap and trade plan is nothing more than a hidden $2,000 per year tax on average families.  This proposal puts a tax on companies which will be passed on to all Americans forcing them to pay more every time they drive, buy groceries, or flip on a light switch. This backdoor tax will make our struggling economic situation worse, costing us hundreds of thousands of jobs and making it harder for average families to survive the recession. And, people in the Midwest and South who rely more on coal will end up paying significantly more for energy. It makes no sense to hurt our own economy as long as China, India, and others continue to build polluting coal plants.

And “after hearing strongly worded messages from both sides,” voters still strongly supported the climate and clean energy bill.

You can find details on the 8 polls here.  The polling reveals the strongest arguments for the climate and clean energy bill and has some interesting implications for messaging, which I will cover in a later post.

Related Post

« »

6 Responses to Voters in Ohio, Michigan and Missouri overwhelmingly support action on clean energy and global warming

  1. Kelley Meck says:

    Dear Mr. Romm,

    Could you do a post reviewing the potential of replacing other fossil fuels w/ so-termed ‘clean’ natural gas? There’s a substantial marketing campaign, which has definitely used direct marketing (I’ve seen DC Metro ads, for example) and I would not be surprised to discover a substantial effort to inject the idea into newspapers and policy think-tanks. (See for example: http://www.theage.com.au/business/step-on-the-gas-to-create-a-carbonfriendly-future-20091109-i5hq.html)

    It didn’t seem all that important to me until I saw the above article bashing Waxman-Markey for ignoring the potential of natural gas. Could we get a cost-effective wedge, or more, of CO2 emissions reductions from natural gas?

    If it isn’t worth a post, maybe you could help me find the right resource to get started?

    Thanks Mr. Romm,

    Kelley

    [JR: Try here.]

  2. Stephan says:

    Global Warming is a serious threat and with a decreasing amount of global warming deniers and opposers to actions being taken, more people start believing in acting against it. Now.

    We all now it is necessary and that we raise our effords and commitment to this fight.

    For more info on the environment, have a look at this Green News.

  3. David B. Benson says:

    Kelley Meck (1) — Natgas is certainly better than coal. For example, even the most modern coal burners have only around 44% thermal efficiency whereas the best natgas combined cycle turbines (CCGTs) obtain 60% thermal efficiency. So long as the price of natgas remains low, electric power utilties will tend to favor CCGT construction over new coal plants.

    That is, of course, only a stop-gap measure since, after all, even natgas fired CCGTs burn fossil carbon and so contribute to the excess carbon problem. This could be remedied by combining a CCGT with an algae farm; the algae farm produces biomethane, replacing the natgas and the exhaust gas is sent back to the algae farm to promote the growth of the microalgae; closed cycle for carbon, hence carbon neutral. Unfortunately, this requires a considerable amount of land when done with open ponds; about 2000 hectares, of which 1200 hectares are the algae ponds, in a sunny climate, to produce enough biomethane to run a 540 MW CCGT full out.

    While some are certainly promoting and building algae frms, none are doing so to produce biomethane. It seems that so far nobody sees this closed carbon cycle as a paying scheme; the fault is that there is currently no price set on emitting carbon dioxide dervied from fossil carbon.

  4. Roger says:

    Let’s get these voters to call their senators to push for supporting AND strengthening the Kerry-Boxer bill!

  5. Roger says:

    Joe, Your blog’s clock’s off, FYI. –Roger

  6. Gboy says:

    You’re right Stephan, Global Warming only shows that it can really affects the climate change of the world. Hopefully we can do something to cure this and prevent it from total damage…