1 / 13

League of Conservation Voters

A. S. S. O. C. I. A. T. E. S. HART. RESEARCH. League of Conservation Voters. Voters’ Attitudes toward EPA Carbon Regulations and Climate Change. Key findings from survey among likely voters in 11 Senate swing states October 2013. Methodology.

rusty
Télécharger la présentation

League of Conservation Voters

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A S S O C I A T E S HART RESEARCH League of Conservation Voters Voters’ Attitudes toward EPA Carbon Regulations and Climate Change Key findings from survey among likely voters in 11 Senate swing states October 2013

  2. Methodology • Survey among 1,113 likely voters in the following states: • Survey dates: October 9 – 13, 2013 • Margin of error = ±2.9 percentage points for the total sample and higher for subgroups

  3. Three in four voters support EPA’s regulations to set limits on carbon pollution from power plants. The U.S. EPA is proposing regulations that would set limits on the amount of carbon pollution that power plants can release into the air. Do you favor or oppose these regulations to set limits on the amount of carbon pollution power plants can release into the air? Somewhat Strongly Somewhat Strongly Oppose new EPA regulations: Favor new EPA regulations: 74% 73% 73% 24% 24% 23% All voters Obama states Romney states

  4. Solid majorities support the regulations across the electorate, even among Republicans. The U.S. EPA is proposing regulations that would set limits on the amount of carbon pollution that power plants can release into the air. Do you favor or oppose these regulations to set limits on the amount of carbon pollution power plants can release into the air? Favor 65%81% 87%75%69%68% 70%73%71%78% Oppose 32%16% 12%22%28%28% 25%24%25%20% Favor 92%72%58% 92%57%71% Oppose 6%26%38% 6%40%25% MenWomen Age 18 to 34Age 35 to 49Age 50 to 64Age 65/over High school grad/lessSome collegeFour-year college gradsPostgrad education DemocratsIndependentsRepublicans Initial Trial Heat for SenateDemocratRepublicanUndecided

  5. Debate over EPA carbon limits improves generic Democratic Senate candidate’s standing in the trial heat. Initial Trial Heat Trial Heat/EPA Regulation Position Next year, in the election for United States Senate in your state, are you more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate or the Republican? Next year, if the election for U.S. senator in your state are between a Democrat who supports the new EPA regulations to set limits on carbon pollution and a Republican who opposes them, will you be more likely to vote for the Democrat or the Republican? More likely to vote for Democrat More likely to vote for Republican +2 GOP +14 DEM

  6. Jobs, our moral obligation, and public health concerns are all convincing reasons to favor the regulations. Not convinc-ing 16% 19% 17% 21% Proportions saying each is a very or fairly convincing reason to SUPPORT limits on carbon pollution from power plants 63% According to a nonpartisan group, the new EPA pollution safeguards could spark innovation and result in a net increase of 210,000 jobs by upgrading older power plants and increasing energy efficiency. These are good paying jobs that can't be outsourced. (very convincing = 42%) Just like our parents and grandparents handed us a better planet, we have a moral obligation to protect the planet for our kids and grandkids. Asthma rates have doubled in the past 30 years and our kids will suffer more asthma attacks as air pollution gets worse. (very convincing = 44%) We already set limits for arsenic, mercury, and lead pollution, but we let power plants release as much carbon pollution as they want. It's just common sense that we should not allow polluters to release unlimited amounts of carbon pollution. It's time to set a limit for carbon pollution that affects public health. (very convincing = 41%) The new EPA safeguards can form the basis for a strong clean energy economy. Despite the claims of polluters, the truth is that setting these new standards could increase the use of clean energy sources like wind and solar, create more than 200,000 jobs, and save families money on their monthly electric bills. (very convincing = 42%) 58% 57% 55%

  7. Opposition arguments fail to convince majorities to oppose the regulations. Not convinc-ing 30% Proportions saying each is a very or fairly convincing reason to OPPOSE limits on carbon pollution from power plants 47% Every American will feel the effect of these regulations in the form of higher energy bills. The new regulations will force utilities to spend billions of dollars and will drive up the price of electricity, resulting in higher bills for families and forcing small businesses to cut their workforces. (very convincing = 36%) The new EPA regulations are going to kill American jobs. The coal-based electricity industry supports 760,000 jobs in the United States. Enacting these new regulations puts these jobs at risk and will have harmful and lasting consequences for our economy and our families.(very convincing = 28%) These strict new regulations are a new front in Barack Obama's war on coal. Obama continues to side with radical environmentalists and this is yet another new regulation that puts the squeeze on America's coal industry and on middle-class Americans.(very convincing = 26%) Countries like China and India do not follow these kinds of rules for their power plants. So any steps the United States takes will not make much difference in reducing climate change, while putting American companies at a competitive disadvantage compared with Indian and Chinese companies.(very convincing = 23%) 40% 30% 38% 39% 35% 43%

  8. Support for the EPA regulations remains high after both sides are presented. Thinking back on everything we've discussed, would you want your U.S. senator to support or oppose the new EPA regulations to set limits on the amount of carbon pollution that power plants can release into the air? Want senator to support new EPA regulations Want senator to oppose new EPA regulations All voters Obama states Romney states

  9. Pro and con arguments further improve generic Democratic Senate candidate’s standing on the ballot test. More likely to vote for Democrat More likely to vote for Republican Undecided/ No difference Trial Heat Based on EPA Regulation Position Final Trial Heat afterPro-Con Arguments Initial Trial Heat +2 GOP +14 DEM +15 DEM

  10. Overwhelmingly, voters trust the EPA more than Congress on carbon pollution regulations. Who do you trust more to decide whether there should be regulations on carbon pollution, the Environmental Protection Agency or the United States Congress? Environmental Protection Agency United States Congress EPA 86%61%51% 86%47%67% Congress 4%12%21% 4%22% 7% DemocratsIndependentsRepublicans Initial Trial Heat for SenateDemocratRepublicanUndecided All voters Obama states Romney states

  11. Two in three voters believe that climate change is a serious problem. Thinking specifically about the issue of climate change, do you think climate change is a very serious problem, a somewhat serious problem, not that much of a problem, or not a problem at all? All voters Seriousproblem 64% 67% 91% 65% 42% 92% 38% 71% Not aproblem 34% 31% 8% 32% 56% 7% 60% 25% 65% Obama states Romney states Democrats Independents Republicans Initial Trial Heat for SenateDemocrat Republican Undecided 33% Veryserious 39% Not at all 15% Not much/not a problem at all Very/somewhat serious problem

  12. This research confirms ad test evidence that there is a strong offense to be played against climate change deniers. If you heard that a candidate for U.S. Senate in your state denied basic science and said that climate change is not occurring, would this make you more favorable or less favorable to this candidate? More favorable Less favorable All voters Obama states Romney states

  13. Candidates who deny climate change are vulnerable to criticisms about ties to Big Oil and their extreme political agendas. Gives me fairly major concerns about the candidate Gives me very major concerns about U.S. Senate candidate who denies basic climate science/opposes taking any action to address climate change This candidate is closely tied to oil and coal companies and does what is best for them rather than what is best for the public. Big oil and coal companies fund climate change deniers to protect their profits, and this candidate denies the existence of climate change in order to protect his political career. This candidate is someone who puts politics and their extreme agenda ahead of scientific facts.Ninety-seven percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is occurring, yet this candidate rejects science and denies that climate change is happening. 72% 65%

More Related