The Huffington Post and NRDC’s Action Fund say yes, and are using this poll to edge congressional-hopefuls towards committed support for green energy.
The poll was run in sixteen different states by Public Policy Polling. The results for the different states are here. The results confirm the skepticism many have of public polling—the framing of the question has an enormous effect on the expressed opinions.
Here is an example question (from a section of Ohio):
Congress is considering an energy bill to move America towards a new energy future including investments in wind and solar power. Supporters say the energy bill will create millions of new jobs, reduce our use of foreign oil, hold corporate polluters accountable and cut the pollution that causes climate change. Opponents say the bill will cost companies money and is like an energy tax that would
actually reduce jobs. Do you agree more with supporters of the energy bill or opponents of the energy bill?
Agree more with supporters………………………. 43%
Agree more with opponents ………………………. 41%
Not sure …………………………………………………. 16%
Emphasis mine. The results aren’t important, there is probably even more support for this particular question in other states. The phrasing of the poll controls the outcome. Support for energy legislation is depicted as “moving America towards a new energy future” — which paints a vague picture of a new, brighter future. Do you like new cars or old cars? Do you want a new cell-phone or to keep your old crummy one?
Next, we hear that the legislation will create millions of jobs – 100% of voters love job creation, particularly during periods of high unemployment, and “holding corporate polluters accountable” invokes a standard outrage against the evil tyrannical corporations, who don’t seem to be getting any credit for powering our homes and businesses.
Now look at what they say the opponents of this legislation claim: “that it will cost companies money” and will reduce jobs. Is this what opponents claim? Many do claim a net loss of jobs because of increased energy prices. But do any reasonable opponents claim that the legislation will only cost companies money? No – they correctly explain that much of these costs will be passed onto consumers, a fact which was not-accidentally left out of the poll. It is phrased as a win-win for the average-Joe, who can stick it to the corporations and maybe get one of those awesome new jobs. When you promise an unrealistic win-win future, and throw in some good old corporate-bashing, you shouldn’t be surprised when people believe it.
Here is a poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs about a year ago, on support for cap-and-trade. It’s all about the phrasing.
“There’s a proposed system called ‘cap and trade’ that some say would lower the pollution levels that lead to global warming. With 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 Unsure
52% 41% 7%
.
“What if a cap and trade program significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly electrical bill by 10 dollars a month? In that case would you support or oppose it?” N=567
.
Support Oppose Unsure
50% 48% 2%
.
“What if a cap and trade program raised your monthly electrical bill by 10 dollars a month but also created a significant number of ‘GREEN’ jobs in the United States? In that case would you support or oppose it?” N=567
.
Support Oppose Unsure
69% 29% 2%
“What if a cap and trade program significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly electrical bill by 25 dollars a month? In that case would you support or oppose it?” N=553
.
Support Oppose Unsure
43% 55% 2%
.
“What if a cap and trade program raised your monthly electrical bill by 25 dollars a month but also created a significant number of ‘GREEN’ jobs in the United States? In that case would you support or oppose it?” N=553
.
Support Oppose Unsure
60% 36% 4%
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org
“What if a cap and trade program raised your monthly electrical bill by 25 dollars a month but also created a significant number of ‘GREEN’ jobs in the United States? In that case would you support or oppose it?”
And thus the rhetoric changed to “job creation” rather than CO2.
We said the opponents of the bill thought it was an energy tax that would reduce jobs, which we think is more than fair given that we disagree; but the poll you cite in preference actually shows that a majority of American people support action on climate change and would even be willing to pay more per month than EPA says the bill would cost (while we think it would actually save money through efficiency) so thanks for using other polling to prove our point.
I didn’t cite the poll as a preferred result, I was pointing out that the phrasing of a poll has an enormous effect on the outcome. Look at the changes when jobs are introduced, when $10 is increased to $25, its enormous.
The phrasing of the poll suggests that only companies will bear the burden: “Opponents say the bill will cost companies money and is like an energy tax that would actually reduce jobs.” This implies that this tax will fall on the companies. I’m not aware of any reasonable interpretation of legislation which attempts to reduce GHG emissions that won’t cost consumers money.
Comments on this entry are closed.