EDF/Luntz Research

            I want to add a very brief note on a survey done by my friend Frank Luntz for the Environmental Defense Fund.  EDF and Frank offered the idea last week to the media that the survey confirmed that people (Voters?  It was unclear who they surveyed.) supported climate change legislation.  Well, I don’t think that is quite message the respondents were sending.  Here is what I learned from reading just the Powerpoint presentation provided.

             First, there is limited agreement on something even as rudimentary as whether climate change is happening.  Only a third of respondents offered that climate change was “definitely” occurring.  On a second time through, just 35% agreed with the statement that the “science is settled”.

             Second, respondents rejected carbon neutrality as an important metric in favor of energy efficiency (mentioned by 47% of respondents, compared to just 12% who favored “carbon neutral”).  I am not exactly sure how this rejection of the buzzword of the day supports EDF’s position.

             Third, not surprisingly, rhetoric about saving the world for our children is less important than reducing our dependence on imported oil.  I am pleased to see that EDF has finally come to this conclusion.  We have been asking which is more important (addressing climate change or reducing dependence) for about 5 years now in our surveys, and the answers typically hover around 3 to 1 for reducing dependence on imported oil.

            As part of that thread, EDF asked which should be our most important environmental and economic goal going forward.  Again, ending dependence on foreign fuels (including Canadian?) was the number one answer (48%).  But, distressingly for EDF, that sentiment was almost entirely driven by self-identified Republicans (60%!).  Democratic respondents split evenly between ending dependence (36%) and “saving our planet from destruction” (35%), which, given the margin of error, means they finished even.

          Consequently, to access this particular set of talking points, the environmental community is going to have to convince Republicans that the environmentalists are really concerned about the long-term national security implications of being overly dependent on imported oil.  That may be a challenge given the environmental community’s historical aversion to nuclear power, domestic development of oil and gas, its strenuous efforts to close coal-fired powerplants, and its nascent efforts to strangle fuels based on corn.

             Finally, when asked which phrase they preferred, respondents offered that “reliable technology” was the most appealing, despite being able to choose from a list that included “green technology”, “clean technology”, and “sustainable technology”.  In that same vein, when asked to choose what adjective they preferred in front of “jobs”, respondents overwhelmingly selected “American” (53%) and overwhelmingly rejected “green” (6%!!).

             In sum, from what has been made public, the Luntz-EDF survey confirms what we have said all along:  people want reliable American energy, American jobs, and they are not sure what to think about climate change.