Public Opinion Quarterly Advance Access originally published online on May 23, 2008
Public Opinion Quarterly 2008 72(2):364-388; doi:10.1093/poq/nfn019
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Polls—Trends
Public Opinion on Energy Policy: 1974–2006
Address correspondence to Fay Lomax Cook; e-mail: flc943{at}northwestern.edu.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 TOP Abstract Defining the Energy SituationAttitudes Toward Traditional...Citizens' Priorities on Energy...Looking to the FutureNotesAppendixReferences |
|---|
In recent years, energy policy has become an increasingly salient political issue in the United States. Rising gas prices, coupled with regional energy shortages and a growing recognition of the connection between U.S. energy supplies and national security, have led to calls for legislative action. Part of developing a national energy policy lies in understanding public opinion about existing energy sources, public support for various energy strategies, and what the public might be willing to do in order to conserve energy and reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil. In this review, we report trends in public opinion from 1974 through 2006 on traditional energy sources, alternative energy sources, and citizens’ priorities on energy alternatives. The polls show that concern about the U.S. energy situation is as high now as it was during the nation's energy crises of the 1970s. While attitudes about traditional sources of energy are strongly influenced by current economic conditions, citizens are increasingly receptive to alternative sources of energy (e.g., nuclear energy). Citizens also support policy changes that involve the government encouraging conservation through energy efficient appliances, vehicles, and homes and offices. The public voices a growing frustration with President Bush’s, and the Congress’s, handling of the nation's energy problems, and they express a desire for leadership in finding long-term solutions to the nation's energy dilemmas.
As gas prices across the United States soar to record levels, instability rocks the Middle East, and fears about global warming reach beyond the scientific community, citizens express increasing concern about U.S. energy alternatives. A recent poll showed Americans citing "gas prices and energy costs" as the "most important economic issue facing the country."1 Despite an abundance of rhetoric on energy policy from both political parties, as well as the passage of two important energy bills in 2005 and 2007, critics maintain that the U.S. still lacks a truly comprehensive approach (Friedman, 2008
).2 Part of developing and implementing a national energy strategy lies in understanding public opinion about existing energy sources, public support for various energy strategies, and what the public might be willing to do in order to conserve energy and reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil. In this review, we report trends in public opinion from 1974 through 2006 on traditional energy sources, alternative energy sources, and citizens’ priorities on energy alternatives.3 Figure 1 shows the number of survey questions in Roper's IPoll database including the word "energy" for each year between 1970 and 2006. The wide variation in questions over time appears to stem from pollsters asking more questions when the energy situation is salient in the media—e.g., when energy supplies are tight and prices relatively high. Prior to the first energy crisis in 1973, public opinion questions about energy were virtually nonexistent; however, as oil prices rose, and citizens became increasingly worried about U.S. energy supplies, so too did the number of poll questions about energy. 4 Survey questions about energy peaked in 1979 following the second energy crisis and the partial-meltdown of the Three-Mile Island nuclear plant outside Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Through the early years of the Reagan presidency, as energy costs declined, fewer poll questions were asked about energy. Notwithstanding the temporary rise in questions about energy following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the ensuing Persian Gulf War in 1991, the downward trend in the number of survey questions about energy continued unabated throughout the remainder of the decade. Some gaps in the trend data we report stem from this paucity of questions as well as from a lack of identically worded questions about energy. By 2001 concerns about U.S. energy prices and supplies led to a renewed interest in measuring public opinion about energy—an interest that has continued to the present.5
|
|
Defining the Energy Situation |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractDefining the Energy SituationAttitudes Toward Traditional...Citizens' Priorities on Energy...Looking to the FutureNotesAppendixReferences |
|---|
Responses to three questions asked by pollsters since the 1970s help to describe how the public sees the energy situation in the United States. They have to do with how serious members of the public think the energy situation is, whether they think the United States is likely to face a critical energy shortage during the next five years, and the extent to which they blame various groups (Congress, oil companies, oil exporting nations, etc.) for energy problems. A large proportion of Americans recognize the seriousness of the energy situation facing the United States, as can be seen in the data presented in table 1. Although majorities of the public have long-held "very" or "fairly serious" concerns about the U.S. energy situation, beginning in 2001 the percent defining the energy situation as "not too serious at all" declined. Following the nation's second energy crisis, in June of 1979, 24 percent of Americans still believed that the energy situation was "not too serious"; however, by March of 2006, the percent of the public offering that opinion had fallen to 7 percent. Thus, somewhat more citizens define the U.S. energy situation as serious today than during the energy shortages of the 1970s (although slightly fewer say "very serious").
|
Prospective evaluations of the likelihood of facing a "critical energy shortage" in the near future seem to be heavily influenced by economic conditions. The data in table 2 indicate that during the energy shortages of the 1970s the public was extremely pessimistic about future energy supplies; however, amidst the steady decline in crude oil prices in the early 1980s, Americans’ attitudes changed. Cheap and abundant energy erased memories of long lines at the gas pump, and fears of an impending energy crisis dissipated. This optimism would fade by the end of the decade following the meltdown of a nuclear reactor at Chernobyl, the Exxon Valdez spilling 11 million gallons of oil off the coast of Alaska, and the United States’ leadership in the Persian Gulf War. By 1990 concern about critical energy shortages had risen back to the high levels of 1975. In most years from 2001 to 2006, with prices for crude oil setting record highs annually, a majority of the public were concerned about critical energy shortages.
|
Beginning in the mid-1970s, pollsters began to ask respondents how much blame various groups deserve for the "country's current energy problems" (or for "high energy costs" or "the current energy crisis"). As can be seen in table 3, depending on the year, from a quarter to more than a third of the public blames the Administration, the Congress, electric companies, and oil exporting nations, and about a fourth blame American consumers themselves. However, by a wide margin, citizens view oil companies as the main culprit for energy problems. Farhar (1994a
) suggests that resentment toward oil companies may stem from "seeds of mistrust" which were "planted during the mid to late seventies when the oil embargo strained the adaptive capacity of the nation's oil production and delivery infrastructure" (p. 605). While this may still be true, it seems likely that blaming oil companies for current energy problems stems from resentment over high gasoline prices. While this is understandable given the financial squeeze many Americans feel at the gas pump, it may also suggest that the public does not understand the market forces underlying rising energy costs. Furthermore, if the public believes that energy problems arise largely from profiteering by oil companies, they may be less willing to curb consumption. In October of 2005, only 37 percent of citizens blamed "growing international demand" for "high energy costs," and even fewer assigned responsibility directly to American consumers (22 percent). Conversely, 62 percent of the public attributed a "great deal of blame" for energy costs to oil companies.6
|
|
Attitudes Toward Traditional Sources of Energy |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractDefining the Energy SituationAttitudes Toward Traditional...Citizens' Priorities on Energy...Looking to the FutureNotesAppendixReferences |
|---|
Smith (2002
) defines traditional energy sources as oil, coal, and natural gas. Utilizing data from California samples, Smith finds that attitudes about traditional energy sources are influenced by current economic conditions. In the 1970s, when the energy crisis was at its peak, attitudes on energy development and production were relatively favorable; however, as world petroleum prices stabilized and gasoline prices declined so too did the public's willingness to support the development of these resources (Smith 1995, 1998). Moving from regional to national samples yields fewer trends on opinion toward traditional sources of energy. In fact, the only frequently asked question that we were able to find about traditional sources of energy has to do with public support for opening the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska for oil and gas exploration. The data are presented in table 4.Similar to the findings from regional polls in California, the public's attitudes seem to be at least partially influenced by current economic conditions. From the early 1990s through early 2005, the public voiced opposition to drilling for oil in ANWR, with only two exceptions; however, shortly after crude oil prices topped $60 per barrel in July of 2005, the public's views on drilling in ANWR shifted to narrow majorities supporting such action. Record high crude oil prices appear to have shifted public support on whether or not to open ANWR to oil and gas exploration.
|
Although the data on traditional energy sources suggest that attitudes may be strongly influenced by economic conditions, more research must be done to determine exactly what the public knows about traditional energy sources and how attitudes change as citizens are exposed to accurate information. For example, the United States gets a majority of its electricity from burning coal, and although the amount of domestic coal reserves is large enough to power the country for hundreds of years, we know virtually nothing about public opinion on coal as an energy resource. Are citizens aware of the abundance of domestic coal reserves? Would the public be supportive of burning coal if it could be done in an environmentally friendly manner? Unfortunately, answers to such questions are elusive. In many ways this is a remarkable research gap.
Alternative energy sources
With the exception of attitudes toward nuclear energy, very little has been asked by polling organizations about alternative energy sources.7 Although more work must be done to determine public knowledge and support of other alternative energy sources, we find a fairly large number of questions about nuclear energy.
Figure 2 (see also table 5) shows that in the mid-1970s the majority of Americans favored the building of more nuclear power plants in the United States, but following the partial meltdown of Three-Mile Island (TMI) nuclear reactor outside of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on March 28, 1979, public opinion shifted dramatically against the use of nuclear power (Rosa and Dunlap 1994; Rosa and Freudenburg 1984; Page and Shapiro 1992).8 In July of 1977, 58 percent of the public favored "building more nuclear power plants" as a way to "deal with the energy crisis" while only 27 percent opposed; however, by July of 1986, two months after the disaster at Chernobyl, only 24 percent supported the construction of more nuclear plants while 69 percent opposed—a remarkable change in attitudes following these tragic events. Over the past 15 years, majorities have continued to oppose the construction of "more nuclear power plants." As table 6 details, two-thirds of the public reported opposition in 2005.
|
|
|
The important point to note, however, is that opposition declines when the public is provided with a rationale for building nuclear power plants—e.g., to "solve America's energy problems" or "to use nuclear power to generate electricity" (tables 7 and 8). The trend detailed in table 8 is striking. Immediately following the disaster at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant on April 26, 1986, public support for constructing nuclear plants to generate electricity stood at 34 percent. However, since 1999, polls show that a majority now favor the construction of nuclear plants for the generation of electricity.
|
|
Similarly, the percentage of citizens expressing support for the "government promoting the increased use of nuclear power" (table 9) and support for constructing a nuclear plant "in your area" (table 10) appear slightly on the rise, although there remains more opposition than support. table 11 shows that fears about the dangers associated with global warming may lead to support for public polices that increase the nation's reliance on nuclear power. In 2006, 61 percent of the public said they would support the "increased use of nuclear power as a source of energy in order to prevent global warming." The lesson that should be derived from these data is that question wording is important. When questions go beyond simply asking about building more nuclear power plants to asking about building nuclear power plants for particular humanitarian purposes, the public's support increases.
|
|
|
|
Citizens’ Priorities on Energy Options |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractDefining the Energy SituationAttitudes Toward Traditional...Citizens' Priorities on Energy...Looking to the FutureNotesAppendixReferences |
|---|
In recent years, survey organizations have begun to examine citizens’ priorities on energy options. The trends appearing in this section are from data collected between 2000 and 2006, a period when energy supplies were tight and gas prices high. Because of the high cost of energy, a majority of the public values conservation by citizens of existing energy over efforts to expand production of more oil, gas, and coal (tables 12 and 13). Support for conservation versus production is remarkably stable in the face of increasing energy costs, and the third column of table 13 shows that only a small minority of the public volunteered that conservation and production are of equal importance.9
|
|
Although the public values conserving energy, it places less emphasis on protecting the environment as energy costs rise (table 14). With crude oil prices escalating to over $70 per barrel in the summer of 2005, a growing majority of citizens expressed a desire to develop new energy sources as opposed to protecting the environment. Unfortunately, this question may pose a false dichotomy ("protecting the environment or developing new sources of energy") and mask support for both expanding production and protecting the environment.
|
Facing record high gasoline prices, the public nonetheless places a higher priority on finding a long-term solution to the nation's energy dilemmas as compared to focusing on temporary solutions that might lower gas prices (table 15). Concomitantly, when asked if they favor or oppose possible government policies to address America's energy supply, large majorities favor "requiring better fuel efficiency standards for cars, trucks, and SUV’s," offering tax cuts and federal money for R & D to "develop wind, solar, and hydrogen technology," and "spending more on subway, rail, and bus systems." table 16 shows that support for the "increased use of nuclear power" or "giving tax cuts to energy companies to do more oil exploration" pales in comparison to priorities associated with conservation or the promotion of alternative fuels. Although citizens clearly do not favor rationing gas as a way to "reduce the country's dependence on imports of Middle East oil" (table 17), a large majority of the public (79 percent) does support consumers switching to more fuel-efficient vehicles (table 18).
|
|
|
|
Between January of 2001 and August of 2005, the price for crude oil skyrocketed from about $30 per barrel to over $70. In order to cope with the associated increase in gas prices, a growing majority of citizens report "driving less to save money on gas" (table 19). table 19 also shows that many Americans have begun to shop around for lower gasoline prices, adjust the temperature in their houses so as to save money on utility bills, and change their travel plans to avoid driving longer distances. On the other hand, only a minority of the public reports purchasing "a car that gets better gas mileage" or "car pooling or ride sharing more often" as a result of increased transportation costs.
|
|
Looking to the Future |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractDefining the Energy SituationAttitudes Toward Traditional...Citizens' Priorities on Energy...Looking to the FutureNotesAppendixReferences |
|---|
When the newly elected 110th Congress took office on January 4, 2007, one of the top items on its agenda was to provide leadership in developing and implementing a comprehensive energy bill. Over the past six years, Americans have expressed a growing frustration with both the Bush administration and Congress's handling of the energy situation (tables 20 and 21). Approval of President Bush's handling of the energy situation has declined, as has trust in Republican leadership on energy. Of course, part of this decline may be related to the decline of the President's overall approval due to perceived mismanagement of the war in Iraq and an unpopular proposal to add private accounts to Social Security. By February of 2006, disapproval of the Bush administration's handling of energy policy ranged between 55 percent and 60 percent disapproving with only 27–30 percent approving, depending on the poll. Disapproval of the incumbent President's handling of the energy situation may have contributed to the perception that the Democratic Party can be trusted to handle "dealing with the nation's energy problems" more than Republicans (table 21).
|
|
As we move toward the future, what energy policies might we expect to be promoted by the next President of the United States? Will public opinion influence the direction of energy legislation? Unfortunately, very little data have been collected on policies the public desires. Two recent polls offer a snapshot of citizens’ attitudes on several potential alternatives (tables 22 and 23). table 22 shows strong support for tax incentives for the development of alternative fuels and drilling for oil in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico. The public remains skeptical of short-term solutions to energy problems such as giving $100 rebate checks to citizens as a way to "cushion the effects of higher gas prices" or "relaxing environmental standards for gasoline and automobiles." Citizens are also opposed to mandating higher gas prices as a way to encourage conservation. Policy changes that involve the government encouraging conservation through energy efficient appliances, vehicles, and homes and offices enjoy broad appeal (table 23). Future research must determine what citizens are willing to do insofar as making behavioral adaptations necessary to curb energy consumption if we hope to move beyond political rhetoric and toward solutions to our national and world energy dilemmas.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
Table 22 Looking Toward the Future. Policy Options that Would Help or Hurt the "Long-Term Energy Situation in the United States." Fox/OD: "I’m going to read you a list of items, for each one please tell me if you think it will help or hurt the long-term energy situation in the United States...
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
Table 23 Looking Toward the Future. Support for Actions to Regulate Energy Production/Consumption. ABC News/Time Magazine/Stanford University: "For the next items, please tell me for each one whether it's something government should require by law, encourage with tax breaks but not require, or stay out of entirely..."
|
Notes |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractDefining the Energy SituationAttitudes Toward Traditional...Citizens' Priorities on Energy...Looking to the FutureNotesAppendixReferences |
|---|
|
Appendix |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractDefining the Energy SituationAttitudes Toward Traditional...Citizens' Priorities on Energy...Looking to the FutureNotesAppendixReferences |
|---|
The survey results reported in this article were obtained from searches of the iPOLL Databank and other resources provided by the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut (http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu).
|
Footnotes |
|---|
TOBY BOLSEN is with Northwestern University, 626 Library, Evanston, IL 60208, United States. FAY LOMAX COOK is with Northwestern University, 2040 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208, United States. Toby Bolsen is a doctoral student in the Department of Political Science and a Graduate Fellow in the Institute for Policy Research, both at Northwestern University. Fay Lomax Cook is director of Northwestern University's Institute for Policy Research and a professor of human development and social policy in the School of Education and Social Policy. They are grateful for inspiration and support to Dr. Brad Moore, Vice President for Research, and to the Office for Research at Northwestern University. They are also grateful to Jamie Druckman who was generous and timely with helpful suggestions and useful comments.
1 July 21–24, 2006 NBC/Wall Street Journal. 
2 The most recent legislation, The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, was signed into law by President Bush on December 19, 2007.
3 The most recent review of public opinion trends on energy appearing in POQ focused on the period between 1975 and 1990 (Farhar 1994a). Initially we planned to limit our analysis to the years following the most recent published review on energy; however, in a few cases we chose to include data from the 1970s and 1980s in order to compare opinions over a longer period.
4 Part of this increase in questions is due to the fact that it was only in the mid-1970s, after 1973, that polling began to really proliferate. We thank Robert Y. Shapiro for making this observation.
5 We hypothesized that the huge increase in the number of questions about energy in 2001 was related to the terrorist attacks of 9–11; however, a month-by-month inspection of Roper's Ipoll database revealed a decline in the number of question about energy following the September 11th attacks. The sharp upturn in energy questions began in the Spring of 2001 and early summer months, when crude oil prices were on the rise and residents of California began experiencing energy shortages and rolling blackouts.
6 Note that the percentages we give for October 2005 do not add to 100% because the questions reported in table 3 ask the respondents about each possible source of blame separately and do not ask respondents to choose only one culprit from a list.
7 This situation has not changed much since 1994 when Farhar (1994b) pointed out in a briefing to the Department of Energy: "almost no data were available on alternative fuels. Most people appear not to know much about them. No conclusions are possible on alternative fuels and policy; this is a research gap" (p. 227).
8 Page and Shapiro (1992) suggest that the precipitous decline in support for nuclear energy following TMI may have been, in part, a result of inflated levels of support for nuclear power prior to the accident, due to a pronuclear bias in the media.
9 The "equal importance" response is not one that is offered in the question but is volunteered. Had the question included this as a response option—more respondents might have said "both."
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractDefining the Energy SituationAttitudes Toward Traditional...Citizens' Priorities on Energy...Looking to the FutureNotesAppendixReferences |
|---|
Farhar Barbara C. "Trends: Public Opinion about Energy." Public Opinion Quarterly (1994) 58(Winter Issue):603–32.
Farhar Barbara C. "Trends in U.S. Public Perceptions and Preferences on Energy and Environmental Policy." Annual Review of Energy and the Environment (1994) 19:211–39.
Friedman Thomas L. "Dumb as we wanna be." New York Times (2008) April 30.
Page Benjamin I., Shapiro Robert Y. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans’ Policy Preferences (1992) Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Rosa Eugene A., Dunlap Riley. "Nuclear Power: Three Decades of Opinion." Public Opinion Quarterly (1994) 58:295–325.
Rosa Eugene A., Freudenburg William R. "Nuclear Power at the Crossroads." In: Public Reactions to Nuclear Power: Are there Critical Masses?—Freudenburg William R., Rosa Eugene, eds. (1984) Boulder, CO: Westview. 18–19.
Smith Eric RAN. Energy, the Environment, and Public Opinion (2002) Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.
Smith Eric RAN. How Political Activists See Offshore Oil Development: An In-Depth Investigation of Attitudes on Oil Development (1998) Camarillo, CA: U.S. Minerals Management Service.
Smith Eric RAN. "Evolving California Opinion on Offshore Oil Development." Ocean and Coastal Management (1995) 26:41–56.[CrossRef]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. Ansolabehere and D. M. Konisky Public Attitudes Toward Construction of New Power Plants Public Opin Q, September 1, 2009; 73(3): 566 - 577. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||