Roger Caiazza
According to Pew Research, Americans still want renewable energy, but support is waning.
Pew Research Center June 27, 2024
How Americans View National, Local and Personal Energy Choices
Most Americans want more renewable energy, but support has dipped. Interest in electric vehicles has also declined
By Alec Tyson and Brian Kennedy
The planet’s continued streak of record heat has spurred calls for action by scientists and global leaders. Meanwhile, in the United States, energy development policy is being hotly debated on the national and local levels this election year. How do Americans feel about U.S. energy policy options, and what steps are they willing to take in their own lives to reduce carbon emissions? A new Pew Research Center survey takes a look.
Among the major findings:
There’s been a decline in the breadth of support for wind and solar power. The shares who favor expanding solar and wind power farms are down 12 percentage points and 11 points, respectively, since 2020, driven by sharp drops in support among Republicans.
Interest in buying an electric vehicle (EV) is lower than a year ago. Today, 29% of Americans say they would consider an EV for their next purchase, down from 38% in 2023.
Still, a majority of Americans (63%) support the goal of the U.S. taking steps to become carbon neutral by 2050. When asked which is the greater priority, far more Americans continue to say the country should focus on developing renewable energy than fossil fuel sources (65% vs. 34%).
The survey, conducted May 13-19 among 8,638 U.S. adults, finds a fairly modest share of U.S. adults (25%) say it’s extremely or very important to them personally to limit their own “carbon footprint.” Far more give this middling or low priority.
These findings illustrate how large shares of Americans back more renewable energy that would decrease overall carbon emissions. Still, this general orientation does not necessarily translate into strong commitment to reducing personal carbon emissions or interest in buying an EV.
Maybe it is just me but the lead sentence claim that record heat is spurring action smacks of bias. I checked the description of how they did the survey to see if my concerns were warranted:
Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand Americans’ views of energy issues. For this analysis, we surveyed 8,638 U.S. adults from May 13 to 19, 2024.
Everyone who took part in the survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way, nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology.
Here are the questions used for this report, along with responses, and its Methodology.
The questions used for the survey were not overtly biased. Nothing like “In order to save the planet from imminent doom are you in favor of solar farms?” My only reservation is that these questions were part of a bigger survey, so it is not clear if previous questions primed the pump towards climate impact alarm. One other point is that the methodology was different from most surveys. Instead of a phone survey the Pew Research Center has established the American Trends Panel “a nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults who participate via self-administered web surveys.” I have no opinion if this affects survey results.
Rather than just provide the results of the survey the Pew website description addresses the question of what’s behind the declines in support for wind and solar.
Declines in public support for renewable energy have been driven by Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, whose support started to fall sharply after President Joe Biden took office in early 2020.
- 64% of Republicans say they favor more solar panel farms, down from 84% in 2020.
- 56% of Republicans say they favor more wind turbine farms, a 19-point drop from 2020.
Over this same time period, views among Democrats and Democratic leaners on these measures are little changed, with large majorities continuing to support more wind and solar development.
In some cases, gaps between Republicans and Democrats over energy policy now approach the very wide partisan divides seen over the importance of climate change.
In May 2020, Democrats were 26 points more likely than Republicans to say the country’s priority should be developing renewable energy (91% vs. 65%). Four years later, that gap has ballooned to 49 points, due almost entirely to changing views among Republicans – 61% of whom now say developing fossil fuels like oil, coal and natural gas should be the more important priority.
However, the authors do admit that it is not just political affiliation:
But changes in attitudes about policies that would reduce carbon emissions are not solely the result of more negative views among Republicans. For instance, the share of Democrats who say they are very or somewhat likely to consider an EV for their next car purchase has declined from 56% to 45% in the last year. And the share of Democrats who call climate change a very big problem for the U.S. has declined from 71% in 2021 to 58% today.
New York’s Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) mandates massive changes to the energy choices of New Yorkers that require action today. I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 400 articles about New York’s net-zero transition. One over-riding conclusion based on my work and discussions with others who share my concerns is that the majority of New Yorkers have no clue what is coming at them.
Nationally the mandates and potential impacts are much less imminent, I believe that a big part of the decline in support of wind and solar is increased knowledge. The survey includes more detailed questions regarding solar developments – Would solar development make the landscape unattractive, take up too much space, bring in more tax revenue, and lower the price you pay for electricity. I believe that answering those questions requires personal knowledge and in my personal experience it has only been in the last several years that I have seen solar developments. Having seen them I doubt many would think they are attractive and do not take up too much space. The more knowledge people have the lower the favorability in my opinion.
The survey also addresses electric vehicles.
Amid a major policy push at the federal level for electric vehicles, Americans are unenthusiastic about steps that would phase out gas-powered vehicles.
In March of this year, the Biden administration announced a rule aimed at dramatically expanding EV sales. Overall, 58% of Americans say they oppose these rules that would make EVs at least half of all new cars and trucks sold in the U.S. by 2032. Republicans overwhelmingly oppose this policy (83%). Among Democrats, 64% support these rules to expand EV sales, while 35% say they oppose them
In support of my belief that knowledge spurs skeptical concerns note the following results for a question about EV reliability:
As more people hear about electric vehicle experiences the reality of problems with the technology become evident.
The survey also included questions about personal carbon footprints.
Discussions about reducing carbon emissions often include the everyday actions people can take to reduce the amount of energy they use. One-in-four Americans say it is extremely or very important to them personally to limit their own “carbon footprint.” Larger shares say this is either somewhat (42%) or not too or not at all (32%) important to them.
There is one important aspect of energy choice that was not included in the survey. What about the costs? The follow up questions for wind and solar development included a question asking whether respondents thought that those developments would reduce electricity prices. There were also questions about electric vehicle cost to purchase and refuel them. Nothing about overall costs was included. I have yet to see a poll that indicates that people are willing to pay much for the energy transition being forced down our throats.
The description of the survey claims that “large shares of Americans back more renewable energy that would decrease overall carbon emissions.” It also admits that “this general orientation does not necessarily translate into strong commitment to reducing personal carbon emissions or interest in buying an EV”. If the willingness to pay aspect had been incorporated into the poll, I have no doubts that support for wind and solar would drop significantly. I am confident that as more people become aware of the hidden costs of renewable energy the inevitable result will be much less support.
Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York. This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
News Tip
This made the Britan paper, Randal Cobb, NFL long time star has major tesla fire in garage.
More and more are seeing the scam…
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/06/27/nfl-randall-cobb-survives-tesla-charger-house-fire/
All over US news also
He didn’t know how dumb it is to charge a Tesla in his garage?
“Fire investigators have yet to confirm whether or not the Tesla charger was the cause.” Probably the car battery but the point is they don’t know yet so why the headline? Just because the climate zealots jump to conclusions doesn’t mean skeptics should as well.
Very nice Roger. I have never taken or seen a poll I thought was totally legitimate. Here is the problem I have with polls like this. These questions were asked with the assumption that the information the poll takers have received over the years was forthright and truthful. If they received their information from the government or mainstream media then they have been grossly misinformed.The other problem I have is there was no mention of whether reducing CO2 would lower the average global temperature. Isn’t that the whole reason for lowering CO2? We have spent trillions of dollars in the name of fighting global warming. Shouldn’t we see some progress after spending all that money? CO2 emissions haven’t gone down and average global temperature hasn’t gone down.That is a lot of money, a whole lot of actual good stuff could have been accomplished with that kind of money. It is issues like this that people need to understand and be polled on.
There is the “Bradley effect”, where people tell the pollster what they think the pollster wants to hear, after Tom Bradley, the black mayor of Los Angeles got significantly fewer votes than the polls showed.
I would question how representative any self selected volunteers are in a survey. It does avoid the common source of error of people not answering auto dialed calls.
Ever since phone systems included “Caller ID”, I have not answered a ringing phone without knowing and wanting to talk to the person. The description of the survey method and sampling sounds nice, but if people like me will not engage, then there are problems.
The directions of change seem reasonable but there are nuances that go unrecognized. For example, I know folks with Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) and anything that appears to be on Trump’s agenda – they are against it. Their thought processes do not go beyond this.
I’ve stopped answering my phone–if I don’t know the caller. I’m a Trump supporter that isn’t polled. Trump supporters do not poll well. Now if we can get them to the polls. Gun owners don’t vote–what stupid nonsense! I have voted in every election–even though I live in the People’s Republic of Washington State. I’m also a lifetime NRA member.
I’m not an NRA member since guns isn’t my thing- but a friend who is the president of a local gun club gave me some NRA stickers to put on my truck. He said “it’ll reduce the chance of anyone breaking into or damaging your truck”. So far, he’s right. 🙂
I dropped out of the NRA a few years back when they seemed to have lost focus and good taste. Now I see:
“LaPierre and three other current and former NRA leaders are facing a lawsuit that alleges they violated nonprofit laws and misused NRA funds to finance their lavish lifestyles.”
I haven’t decided to re-join, yet.
We screen all calls by ID. If unknown they have to start a conversation with the recorder. We might pick up or not. Most do not leave a message so no idea.
Probably the most persistent is from online wine purchases and providing a telephone number. I get up to six calls a day from one very persistent wine dealer. I have blocked more than a dozen of the numbers they use and they still keep coming. I know because the first 4 digits are always the same.
Pew Research should now be considered entirely unreliable. They recently changed a survey report in which the original clearly indicated how badly black people in the US believe in conspiracy theories about how they are being intentionally held back to read as if the results support the idea that historical and current racism is to blame. Of course this came after a backlash from the usual suspects to the original report.
That’s a summary of what they did, so for those that need the receipts here’s a podcast that reads out the changes made (of course there’s also critical commentary) so you can hear the changes made for yourself.
Kind of sad really as I used to expect Pew Research to be one of the better ‘pollsters’ in terms of their designs and questions asked (they rarely cared about your feelings…e.g. they did a survey on the attitudes of Muslims to various things including if suicide bombing is justified…you’d be SHOCKED at the results. Though you’ll have to go looking for that one yourselves)
Poor form replying to myself but to clarify that is “Muslims in the US”
The key to assessing the worth of any poll is to look firstly at who commissioned / paid for the poll.
If the actual poll results weren’t supportive of the client’s preferred position, you would never be seeing the poll results published.
how badly black people in the US believe in conspiracy theories
what does badly believe mean?
very little belief?
very much belief in something that is false?
something else (please enlighten)?
Granted poor choice of words…but listen to the first 5 min of the podcast and characterize it how you like…
But let’s go with ‘very much believe in something that isn’t just false but unbelievable as a basic premise (e.g. a ‘conspiracy’)’ (e.g. >50% of black people believe corporations are selling them expensive stuff on purpose to bankrupt them)
And they buy stuff they don’t need to bankrupt themselves??
youcantfixstupid!!
It’s as old as time. Invent a fear. Get salvation with our cost-free solution or damnation without. Blast out propaganda for decades.
Of course people swallow it as long as it costs nothing. Their BS detectors kick in when they see they have skin in the game. The polls just show this playing out in real time.
Good one, corky. An investor-owned utility conducted a survey a number of years ago and found a lot of support for renewables. When they put out a program for people to sign up for the costlier program, the response was almost negligible, even for those that responded positively to the survey. When asked, the people said they liked it as long as it did not cost them more. Real proof of this premise.
Actually real knowledge is the premise of that scenario.
If TRUMP! signed and executive order requiring every new car sticker and every gas pump and every power bill to list every tax and every transfer of money from one source to another as required by CAFE or other regulations, like calories must be listed on food, soon people would realize how much “unreliables” and EVs are costing US, individually.
Gas taxes noted on the pump MUST include a note that EVs don’t pay for road upkeep also.
Of course with the end of Chevron, he would just need to make congress pass a law requiring all of that. Leave all the existing regulations in place for 6 months after this new law is in place and all such notices have been given, THEN pass the law eliminating all the restrictions and subsidies and CAFE in its entirety and then let the PEOPLE see the difference in the cost of gas, and cars, and electricity and natural gas and heating oil and etc. So a year later, the mid term elections, the Republicans can run on quantifiable RESULTS.
Re: polls. Methodology can slant the results one way or another. Along with whomever is paying for the poll, of course.
From the article: “The planet’s continued streak of record heat”
Every climate alarmist story starts out with this lie.
Are you guys in Australia experiencing “record heat”?
I didn’t think so.
So who are these authors talking about?
Exactly.
The hyperlinked article for the claim of “continued streak of record heat” cites 12 straight months of record-high temperatures. However, it fails to acknowledge that the data that is the basis for such claims has been artificially impacted (increased) by Urban Heat Island influence on official temperature monitoring stations over the last 100 years of so.
UHI-distortion of reported land surface temperatures is a problem that exists around the world.
I find it interesting how high the support for “Carbon Neutral by 2050” is. It seems that as long as something feels far in the future, such goals are fine. And few understand just what “carbon neutral” would mean to their lives. And then, a fair part of the population expects that they won’t be around in 2050 so don’t care about the pain it takes to be carbon neutral.
(*) There was an interesting form of this phenomena some years back during the Y2K days. When techies told people there was a year 2039 bug in UNIX systems, you could see the wheels spinning as people were asking themselves the question, “Do I plan to be around in 2039 so do I care?”
2038, actually.
It might have been “do we care?” for the general public and business managers, but not we techies.
It only applied to much older versions of UNIX, or sloppy coding. It was well known, and in many cases the 2038 checks were done along with the Y2K checks. If necessary, the code changes were made along with the few Y2K changes.
The UNIX vendors had already fixed it in their own systems.
As it turns out, Linux has largely replaced the proprietary UNIX systems.
Apart from network equipment, which largely uses one of the free BSD UNIX versions.
California has just declared that railroad locomotives used to hail passenger trains in the state must be zero-emission by 2029 (!). Locomotives used in freight trains must comply a few years later. Ludicrous and delusional. Very, very expensive even if it was possible.
Folks are in favor of these feel-good ideas without consideration of the feasibility or the cost.
California’s economy is going to come to a grinding halt in the not-too-distant future because of the stupidity of California Democrats.
One bad decision after another from the California governor and the California Democrat legislature.
These guys are living on a completely different planet; Bizarro World. It’s amazing how Democrats get it wrong every time.
“Americans still want renewable energy”
Sure, it’s beat into their heads all day every day that it’ll be cheaper, provide zillions of high paying jobs and save the planet! What’s not to like about that propaganda, other than it’s “the big lie” of the century.
It’s basic human nature. If a problem doesn’t affect me directly it’s not a problem. A perfect example is illegal immigration. As long as the only people directly affected are the poor schmucks on the Texas border then it’s not really a problem for someone on Marthas Vineyard. But send 50 illegals there and suddenly it’s HUGE problem because it affects them directly. The same thing will happen with Local Law 97 in NYC. It all sounds so noble what with saving the planet and all, but when people actually start having to shell out their money to meet the mandates or fines then reality bites them in the ass and maybe saving the planet isn’t all that important. If folks think there’s a housing crisis in NYC now, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Many people are still under the belief that renewable energy will be cheap and are clueless about the devastating impacts of intermittent generation, particularly the loss of industry to the China’s and India’s of the world.
Does not appear the survey addressed nuclear as an alternative to fossil fuel or renewables.
There is growing resistance to these climate policies because people don’t want green products, laws and regulations shoved down their throats, particularly when these will cost them more money and force them into making lifestyle changes. And when they look at population increases, longer life expectancies, rising agricultural outputs, declining global poverty levels and infant mortality rates plus increasing worldwide GDPs, they scoff at the climate crisis theory as just being another government and environmentalist scare strategy.
I was very concerned about my carbon footprint so I gave up fire walking.