A Report from National Surveys on Energy and...

IntroductionThe transportation sector looms increasingly large in American greenhouse gas emissions and in the question of addressing climate change. Long second to the electricity sector among American emissions, transportation took the top spot in 2016 and this trend appears likely to continue in coming years. Unlike electricity, American transportation emissions have not achieved significant reductions over the past decades (see Figure 1). While overall emissions associated with the transportation sector are still below levels seen from 1999-2008 due in large part to increased fuel economy standards and older cars and trucks reaching the end of their life, the economic rebound and relatively low gas prices since the Great Recession has resulted in Americans driving more miles2 and purchasing larger vehicles.

This report examines American attitudes about policies that could reduce emissions from the transportation sector. We use time-series data to consider shifts in support for policies that require auto makers to sell more fuel-efficient vehicles, and how that support shifts when a price tag for vehicle purchase is applied to such policies. We also consider how American support for increasing gasoline excise taxes as a way to reduce driving and transportation-based emissions has changed over time. Furthermore, we discuss American support for providing tax rebates for purchasing electric vehicles, and recount past NSEE polling on support for providing similar rebates for hybrid electric vehicles.

Figure 1: US greenhouse gas emissions by economic sector, as % of all emissions

10%

0

20%

30%

40%

Transportation Electricity generation Industry

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016200720062005200420032002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990

Commercial ResidentialAgriculture

Source: See Note 1

NSEE @10Since 2008, the University of Michigan and Muhlenberg College have conducted the National Surveys on Energy and Environment (NSEE), a biannual national opinion survey on energy and climate policy. To celebrate the tenth anniversary of the survey, throughout 2018, NSEE will be releasing a series of reports highlighting the breadth of topics we have covered over the past decade. These reports present time-series data on how American attitudes about energy policy and climate change have changed from 2008 to 2017, as well as comparisons to Canadian opinion, collected through a parallel survey conducted by researchers at the University of Montreal. You can find previous reports in this series at: www.closup.umich.edu/nsee

Fuel Economy, Electric Vehicle Rebates, and Gas Taxes: 10 Years of Transportation Policies in the NSEE

A Report from

National Surveys on Energy and EnvironmentIssues in Energy and Environmental Policy Number 38 | July 2018

Authors Sarah B. Mills • Natalie B. Fitzpatrick • Barry G. Rabe • Christopher Borick • Erick Lachapelle

University of Michigan

http://www.closup.umich.edu/nsee

2 www.closup.umich.edu/nsee

National Surveys on Energy and Environment

A Majority of Americans Support Increasing Fuel Efficiency Standards One way to reduce vehicle emissions is to make cars more efficient—burning less fuel for every mile traveled. In the US, this has primarily been achieved through the use of fuel economy standards on new vehicles. The first federal standards on vehicle fuel efficiency were set by Congress in 1975, and remained largely unchanged until 2007, when Congress raised the standard to 35 miles per gallon (mpg).3 Five years later, in 2012, the Obama Administration again increased the standard to 54.5 mpg.4 The Trump Administration, however, has announced plans to possibly roll back this standard.5

Over the last decade, the NSEE has found strong support among the American public for increasing fuel economy standards. On the first two waves on which the question was asked—in 2008 and 2009—a full three-quarters of Americans said they supported increasing fuel efficiency standards even if doing so would increase the cost of a new vehicle (see Figure 2). NSEE polls in the spring and fall of 2012 respectively found 73% and 76% support for such an increase when specifically linked to the 54.5 mpg standard subsequently set by the Obama Administration in August of that year.

NSEE surveys after the Obama-era increase have also found majority support for increasing the standard. The Fall 2017 NSEE found 69% of Americans were supportive of increasing fuel efficiency standards, even if they raised the price of vehicles. The most recent NSEE survey in April and May 2018 finds that support has fallen 5 points over the last six months, with 64% of Americans now saying they support the 54.5 mpg standard. Likewise, when asked specifically if they support or oppose the Trump Administration’s move to reverse the Obama-era standard, a majority (54%) say they would oppose a roll-back (see Figure 3).

3


Figure 2. Support/opposition to increased vehicle fuel efficiencya

10%

17%

33%

36%

22%

12%

6%

15%

59%

9%

52% 36%

11%

10%

39%

39%

24%

9%

8%5% 4% 9%

9%

13%

13%6% 6%

12%

44%

29%

Fall 2012 (n=916)

Spring 2012 (n=713)

Fall 2009 (n=967)

Fall 2008 (n=602)

Fall 2017 (n=929)

Spring 2018(n=750)

Strongly support

Somewhat support

Not sure

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose

25%

Source: Fall 2008, Fall 2009, Spring 2012, Fall 2012, Fall 2017, and Spring 2018 NSEE waves. Survey data tables for all NSEE waves are available at http://closup.umich.edu/national-surveys-on-energy-and-environment

Figure 3. Support/opposition to EPA proposal to lower federal fuel efficiency requirementsb

18%

17%

16%

36%

14%

Strongly support

Somewhat support

Not sure

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose

Source: Spring 2018 NSEE Note: n=748

a Question text (Fall 2008, Fall 2009, Fall 2017): “There have been a number of ideas proposed for how state governments can reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. For each idea that I mention please tell me if you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the proposed ways states can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. State governments should require auto makers to increase the fuel efficiency of their vehicles even if it increases the cost of the vehicle.”

Question text (Spring 2012, Fall 2012): “In order to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases a number of methods have been considered. For each of the methods of reducing greenhouse gas emissions that I mention please indicate if you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose that option. Next a policy to reduce greenhouse gases by increasing the average fuel economy of new vehicles from the current rate of 30.2 miles per gallon to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.”

Question text (Spring 2018): “In 2012, the federal government increased the average fuel economy of new cars and trucks from 30.2 miles per gallon to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose this fuel economy requirement?”

b Question text: “Recently the Environmental Protection Agency initiated a process to lower the fuel efficiency standards established in 2012. Under this proposal automakers would not have to meet the standards of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose this proposal to lower the federal fuel efficiency requirements?”



Gap in Support for Fuel Economy Standards Widens, then Narrows, based on Party, Stance on Climate ChangeThroughout the course of the last decade, fuel economy standards have enjoyed wide support across the political spectrum. On each of the six times the question has been asked, an outright majority of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans have said they support increasing fuel standards, often by wide margins (see Figure 4).

In Fall 2008, for example, Republicans in support of increasing fuel efficiency outnumbered those in opposition to such a policy nearly 3-to-1 (71% versus 25%, respectively, for 46% net support). Between Fall 2009 and Fall 2012, Republican support diverged from Democrats and Independents, though in each of those waves, a majority of Republicans still said they supported increased efficiency. This diverging trend stopped in Fall 2017, as net support among Republicans slightly increased while net support among Democrats and Independents fell precipitously. In the latest wave (Spring 2018), the gap narrowed even more to just 8 points, as net support among Democrats fell to an NSEE-low of 51%, while net support among Republicans rose to a near-high 43%.

The NSEE finds a similar trend based on attitudes about climate change. Across all waves, a majority of Americans who said they believe there is evidence that the earth is warming—regardless of whether they believe that warming is caused by human activity or natural patterns—also said they would support increased fuel economy standards (see Figure 5). As is common, there has been less support for increased fuel efficiency standards among those who do not believe that the earth is warming. However, on all but the Fall 2017 wave, supporters have outnumbered or equaled opponents to such a policy. Indeed, on the most recent wave, 61% of those who doubt climate change is occurring say they support the Obama-era fuel efficiency standards, compared to only 30% who say they oppose these standards.

This one of the reasons that the gap in attitudes on fuel economy standards between climate skeptics and climate change adherents is at an NSEE low. A bigger contributor, though, is the decline in support among those who believe in climate change. On the latest NSEE survey, for example, 70% of those who believe climate change is caused by primarily by human activity say they support the current fuel standard; support among this group averaged 87% over the previous five waves, and had been as high as 94% in Fall 2012.

Figure 4. Net support for increased vehicle fuel efficiency, by political partya

20%

0

40%

60%

80%

100%

Democrat

Independent

Republican

Spring 2018

Fall 2017

Fall 2012

Spring 2012

Fall 2009

Fall 2008

Source: Fall 2008, Fall 2009, Spring 2012, Fall 2012, Fall 2017, and Spring 2018 NSEE waves

Note: See Note 6 on page 20 for the sample size for each of the groups shown in the figure.

5


Figure 5. Net support for increased vehicle fuel efficiency, by stance toward climate changesc&d

20%

-20%

0

40%

60%

80%

100%

Spring 2018

Fall 2017

Fall 2012

Spring 2012

Fall 2009

Fall 2008

Climate change caused by human activity

Climate change caused by a combination of human activity and natural patterns

Climate change caused by natural patterns

Climate is NOT changing

Source: Fall 2008, Fall 2009, Spring 2012, Fall 2012, Fall 2017, and Spring 2018 NSEE waves

Note: Stance toward climate change is a combination of belief in climate change and cause of climate change

Note: See Note 7 on page 20 for the sample size for each of the groups shown in the figure.

It is unclear why this gap in attitudes about fuel economy standards would be narrowing, especially at a time when it is becoming increasingly politicized in Washington. When asked specifically about the Trump Administration’s proposal to roll back standards, there are differences based on political party and stance on climate change, but not as stark as the NSEE often finds. While a majority of Democrats (64%) oppose the roll-backs, Republicans are fairly even split, with 45% in favor of the roll-backs and 41% opposed (see Figure 6). Similarly 20% of those who believe in anthropogenic climate change support the roll-backs, while 32% of those who do not believe climate change is occurring oppose the roll-backs.

Figure 6. Support/opposition to EPA proposal to lower federal fuel efficiency requirements, by political party and stance on climate changeb,c&d

19%

13%

17%

29%

22%

22%

23%

18%

15%

27%

24%

20%

13%16%

10%

16%

48%

18%

18%

40%

11%

15%

55%

10%

25%

35%

21%

15%11%9% 10% 13% 15% 18%

20%

15%

13%

Climate change

caused by natural

patterns (n=88)

Climate change

caused by a combination

of human activity and

natural patterns (n=168)

Climate change

caused by human activity (n=257)

Republican (n=164)

Independent (n=227)

Democrat (n=223)

Climate is NOT

changing (n=112)

Strongly support

Somewhat support

Not sure

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose

c Question text (belief in climate change): “From what you’ve read and heard, is there solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past four decades?”d Question text (cause of climate change): “Is the earth getting warmer because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, or mostly because of natural patterns in the earth’s environment?” While asked as a two-option close-ended question (i.e., human activity or natural patterns), interviewers record when respondents volunteer that climate change is a “combination of human activity and natural patterns.”



More Americans Prefer Federal Emissions Standards, but Support California Exceeding Federal MinimumWhen the federal government decided in the 1960s that it would address air pollution—including that caused by vehicles—the state of California was given the ability to apply for a waiver to exceed the federal emissions standards given the severity of the state’s air pollution problems. This special status largely was conferred to recognize California’s efforts, begun in the 1940s, to alleviate the particularly acute air pollution problems present in the state that are linked to vehicle emissions. Over the course of the last 50 years, the federal government has granted more than 120 California waiver requests, 85 of which were applied to light duty vehicles.8 The law further allows other states to then choose to adopt the more aggressive standard and, in turn, many of these California standards have frequently evolved into the national standard over time. President Trump and leading aides have begun to question whether California should be allowed to set vehicle emissions standards that exceed federal standards, while also expressing concern that these standards may be too difficult for auto manufacturers to maintain if they are to remain competitive.

When specifically asked about California’s special status with respect to the vehicle emissions standards, a majority of Americans said that they support continuing allowing California to seek waivers both in Spring 2017 (56%) and Spring 2018 (61%), as respectively shown in Figures 7 and 8. As might be expected, support is stronger in California and the other 13 states that have embraced California’s standards than in the rest of the US. However, there was still majority support among residents of states that haven’t adopted CA standards during those years (see Figures 7 and 8).

There are also some partisan differences on this issue. On the Spring 2017 survey a plurality (48%), but not a majority of Republicans said they supported the approach, compared to 60% of Democrats (see Figure 7). In Spring 2018, that partisan gap has widened, but largely as a result of increased support among Democrats (66%) for California being allowed to maintain its current standard. Republican support for this approach, at 49%, is statistically the same as that measured the previous year (see Figure 8).

Figure 7. Support/opposition to allowing California to exceed federal vehicle emissions standards, by state approach and political partye

9%

24%26%

22%

22%

11%

25%

33%

16%

38%

31%

25%

12%

18%

27%

11%

22%

24%27%

12%12%

10%14% 17% 12% 10% 17%

14%

24%

36%

Independent (n=231)

Democrat (n=282)

Other states

(n=523)

States that have

adopted CA standards

(N=312)

Overall (n=836)

Republican (n=215)

Strongly support

Somewhat support

Not sure

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose

Source: Spring 2017 NSEE

Note: States that have adopted CA standards is based upon GreenCarReports (2017). States that have adopted CA standards are: CA, CT, DC, DE, MA, ME, MD, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT, WA

e Question text: “For the last 50 years, a federal law has given California the ability to set stricter standards for vehicle emissions than those set in Washington, DC. This has regularly resulted in California’s standard becoming the national one over time. Would you say you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the policy that allows California to set stricter standards for vehicles?”

7


Figure 8. Attitudes on whether California should be allowed to maintain its existing vehicle emissions standards, by state approach and political partyf

38%

49%

19%

71%63%61%

25%

61%

25%23%

14%14% 14% 14% 10% 13%

20%

66%

Independent (n=225)

Democrat (n=224)

Other states

(n=491)

States that have

adopted CA standards

(N=243)

Overall (n=745)

Republican (n=163)

Should be allowed

Not sure

Should not be allowed


Apart from examining support for the California waiver, the NSEE has asked more generally about which level of government should adopt emissions policies, finding that a plurality of Americans say that they prefer both the federal and state governments to require auto makers to increase the fuel efficiency of new vehicles (see Figure 9). Among those who would prefer only one level of government involved, over three times as many would prefer federal rather than state action. This is entirely consistent with other NSEE results on Americans’ attribution of responsibility for climate action more generally: Americans think all levels of government have a responsibility to act, though they see a larger role for higher levels of government.9

Figure 9. Preferred level of government for vehicle fuel economy standardsg

20%

5%

48%

25%

9% 3%

18%

5%

45%

23%

Fall 2010 (n=916)

Fall 2009 (n=956 )

Federal

State

Not sure

Neither

Both federal and state

Source: Fall 2009 and Fall 2010 NSEE waves

f Question text: “For the last 50 years, a federal law has given California the ability to set stricter standards for vehicle emissions than those set in Washington, DC. If the federal government were to lower the fuel efficiency requirement for automakers California has stated that it will seek to maintain its existing vehicle emissions standards for new cars and trucks sold in the state. Do you think that California should or should not be allowed to maintain this standard if the federal government lowers the national standard?”g Question text: “Next I’m going to provide you with a list of policies that can be used to limit the emission of greenhouse gases. For each option that I mention please tell if the policy should be adopted ONLY by the federal government, ONLY by your state government, by BOTH the federal and state governments or should NOT be adopted by any government: Require auto makers to increase the fuel efficiency of their vehicles to reduce greenhouse gas emissions even if it increases the cost of the vehicle.”



Most Americans Not Price-Sensitive to Increased Vehicle Fuel Standards The most frequently asked NSEE question about fuel economy standards asks about support for the policy “even if it increases the cost of the vehicle.” However, the NSEE has also asked about price-sensitivity to specific price points—a 5% increase in the price of a new car in Spring 2012, and a 10% increase in the price of a new car in Fall 2012. On both surveys, respondents were first asked about their baseline support for increasing fuel efficiency standards with no cost specified. Then, those same respondents were immediately asked a second question to gauge their support with the specified cost increase.

In the 5% and 10% cost-increase scenarios, overall support for fuel efficiency standards dropped just 10- and 11-percentage points, respectively. This drop is significantly less than the 18-point drop in support for a renewable energy mandate with the same cost increase,10 but comparable to the 8-point drop in support for a carbon tax with a similar 10% price tag.11 Notably, however, and in contrast to the finding for the carbon tax question, the NSEE finds there is still majority support (65%) for increasing vehicle fuel efficiency even with a specified cost (see Figure 10a).

Applying a cost-premium to new cars has a similar effect across the political spectrum, reducing support by 10 to 15 percentage points (see Figure 10b for Fall 2012, and Appendix A for Spring 2012). However, because Republicans were slightly less likely to support the baseline policy with no cost attached, this led to bare-majority (51%) Republican support in Spring 2012 and only 44% Republican support in Fall 2012. Given that Republican support for fuel economy standards is higher in recent fieldings compared to 2012, it is plausible that a majority of Republicans might support a fuel efficiency standard with a known cost if the question were asked again.

9


Figure 10a. Support/opposition to increased vehicle fuel efficiency, with and without a cost specifiedh

18%

12%

38%

27%

44%

30%

33%

13%

15%

29%

9%

9%

9% 9% 6% 5%

12%

6%

59%

17%

Cost 10% (n=915)

No cost (n=916)

Cost 5% (n=715)

Spring 2012 Fall 2012

No cost (n=713)

Strongly support

Somewhat support

Not sure

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose

Source: Spring 2012 and Fall 2012 NSEE waves

Figure 10b. Support/opposition to increased vehicle fuel efficiency, with and without a cost specified, by political partyh

18%13%

26%

36%

36%

31%

8%11%

41%

11%

51%

79%

15%

61%

4%

10%

21%

30%

17%

8%3%3%

2% 1%

4% 5% 7% 8%

7%

38%

29%

No cost (n=192)

Cost 10% (n=283)

No cost (n=282)

Cost 10% (n=312)

Democrat Independent Republican

No cost (n=312)

Cost 10% (n=192)

Strongly support

Somewhat support

Not sure

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose

Source: Fall 2012 NSEE

h Question text (no cost): “Next I would like to ask you your views on a number of policies that have been proposed to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. For each of the policy options that I mention, please indicate if you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose that option. Now, a policy to reduce greenhouse gases by increasing the average fuel economy of new vehicles from the current rate of 30.2 miles per gallon to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.”

Question text (5%): “Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose increasing the average fuel economy of new vehicles from the current rate of 30.2 miles per gallon to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, if it raised the price of new cars by about 5%?”

Question text (10%): “Next I would like to ask you your views on a number of policies that have been proposed to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. For each of the policy options that I mention, please indicate if you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose that option. Next a policy that increases the average fuel economy of new vehicles from the current rate of 30.2 miles per gallon to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, if it raised the price of new cars by about 10 percent.”



Americans More Supportive of Vehicle Standards Framed as “Efficiency” Rather than Low EmissionsAs is the case with many policies, how fuel economy standards are framed can significantly impact public support for them. The Fall 2008 NSEE asked the same respondents about their support for requiring increased “fuel efficiency of vehicles” versus requiring vehicles to “emit less greenhouse gases.” While there is overall majority support for both, the question framed as fuel efficiency garnered 12-percentage points higher support, with a full majority (52%) of Americans strongly supporting the policy framed in this way (see Figure 11). By comparison, only 35% of the same respondents say they strongly support vehicle policies aimed at greenhouse gas emissions.

The NSEE finds decreased support—or strength of support—for the greenhouse gas-framed policy regardless of the respondents’ stance toward anthropogenic climate change. The effect on overall support is most notable among Americans who say that the climate is not changing or who attribute climate change primarily to natural patterns. While a majority of both of these groups say they support a vehicle standard when framed as energy efficiency, support for a greenhouse-gas framed policy falls over 20 percentage points for both groups, leading to less-than-majority support. Even among those who say climate change is primarily caused by human activity, strong support for increased vehicle standards framed as a greenhouse gas policy drops 19 points compared to an efficiency-framed policy, though support for both the efficiency- and greenhouse-gas framed policies exceed 80%. This suggests that even among those who are receptive to climate-based arguments, respondents are even more likely to support fuel economy standards that invoke an “efficiency” frame.

Figure 11. Support/opposition to increased vehicle standards based on policy framing, by stance on climate changea&i,b&c

18%21%

30%

44%

19%

13%

23%

24%

17%

23%

34%

36%

35%

19%

4%9%

51%

8%

47%66%52%

24%

8%11%

18%

12%

35%

29%

18%

10%

50%

5%7%

33%33%

8%

7%5%3%7%5%

3%

5% 11% 6% 9% 3%1%

7%

34%

40%

Fuel efficiency

(n=81)

Emit less greenhouse

gases (n=182)

Fuel efficiency

(n=182)


gases (n=147)


Overall Climate change caused by a combination of human activity and

natural patterns



Fuel efficiency

(n=146)


gases (n=602)

Fuel efficiency

(n=602)

Emit less greenhouse gases (n=80)

Fuel efficiency

(n=100)


gases (n=101)

Strongly support

Somewhat support

Not sure

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose


i Question text (emit less greenhouse gases): “There have been a number of ideas proposed for how state governments can reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. For each idea that I mention please tell me if you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the proposed ways states can reduce greenhouse gas emissions: State governments should require vehicles sold in their state to emit less greenhouse gases even if it increases the cost of the vehicle.”

11


High Support for Tax Incentives for Electric Vehicles, even among Climate Skeptics In response to increased vehicle fuel economy standards, vehicle technologies have greatly evolved over the course of the NSEE’s 10-year history. When the NSEE launched in 2008, hybrid fuel vehicles were just becoming mainstream. The Fall 2008 survey found 73% of Americans said they supported state governments providing a tax break to individuals who purchased these vehicles. This support for hybrid rebates included 66% of Republicans and 56% of Americans who said that the climate is not changing (see Appendix B).

In more recent times, the survey has focused on electric vehicles, as their potential role in American transportation has expanded. The Fall 2016 survey finds similarly high support (71%) for providing rebates to businesses and households that purchased electric vehicles. Again, this support spans political parties and the range of views about climate change (see Figure 12). While support is highest among Democrats (76%) and those who say climate change is occurring (77%), 56% of Republicans and 52% of those who doubt the climate is changing also support rebates for electric vehicles.

Figure 12. Support/opposition to offering rebates to purchasers of electric vehicles j,b

26%

12%

29%

27%

14%

9%

39%

34%

42%

35%

38%

33%

16%

10%

22%

30%

32%

13%

11%

9%

3%4% 3% 5% 4% 6%

10%

10%

44%

32%

Independent (n=294)

Democrat (n=310)

Climate is NOT

changing (n=157)

Climate is changing (n=659)

Overall (n=940)

Republican (n=214)

Strongly support

Somewhat support

Not sure

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose


j Question text: “There have been a number of ideas proposed for how governments can reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. For each of the following policy options I read please indicate if you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose that option. Next, offering rebates to business and households that purchase electric vehicles.”

Attitudes about Ethanol

The Renewable Fuel Standard, established in the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005, and related policies

have led to a 300% increase in the domestic production of ethanol.12 In that time, the climate benefits of

bio-based fuels have been widely-debated among environmentalists, as have their impacts on global

food markets. Earlier waves of the NSEE have found the American public to be less conflicted about

ethanol. The Fall 2008 NSEE found 60% of Americans supported increased state government support for

the development of ethanol. Subsequent surveys in 2009 and 2010 find a majority of Americans want both

the federal and state governments to set renewable fuel standards for the transportation sector; less than

25% say that neither level of government should set a mandate on the use of ethanol or other biofuels.



Canada Corner : Broad Support for Increasing Fuel Efficiency Standards for Vehicles in CanadaSince 2011, the Canadian Surveys on Energy and the Environment (CSEE) have fielded a number of identical questions in concert with the NSEE. These surveys provide a unique comparative perspective on public attitudes toward climate change and energy issues in Canada and the United States. Comparison of these two energy-intensive, tightly integrated economies has revealed striking differences and intriguing similarities in the attitudes held by residents living in these neighboring federations.

Like the US, about a quarter of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) are generated from the transportation sector, the lion’s share of which come from passenger and freight travel. In the context of rising emissions from this sector since 1990, the province of Quebec became the first Canadian province to follow California’s lead in strengthening its emissions standards for light vehicles in 2010. Following some controversy, Quebec’s adoption of the made-in-California standard initiated a domino effect with other provinces quickly following suit. By April 2010, the Conservative government—supported by a rainbow of interests drawn from the environmental movement and Canada’s auto industry—ultimately followed the lead of the provinces, citing the importance of a “continental wide” policy and of working with the United States. Since Canadian law now includes a direct reference to the EPA rule, efforts in the United States to roll back the EPA standards now threaten to weaken Canadian vehicle fuel efficiency regulations.

While the CSEE has not polled directly on the willingness of Canadians to support the adoption of California standards, it has asked a number of different questions gauging Canadian attitudes toward climate policy over the years. The data consistently show that among a range of GHG mitigation options for the transportation sector, increasing taxes on gasoline is opposed by a majority of Canadians, while increasing the average fuel economy of new vehicles is among the most supported policies. For instance, data from the Fall 2016 CSEE allow us to compare support for increasing fuel economy standards relative to offering rebates for the purchase of electric vehicles. Though both policies enjoy majority support, rebates for the purchase of electric vehicles is somewhat more controversial, especially in certain regions of the country where the difference in support between the two policies is relatively large (e.g., Alberta). On the other hand, very few Canadians, regardless of region, oppose fuel economy standards (see figure below). This is in contrast to US data, where support is lower on both policies than in Canada, but where rebates for the purchase of electric vehicles has received slightly more support than increased fuel economy standards. Thus, while citizens in both countries are at odds with Trump Administration plans to roll back fuel economy standards, this may be felt most acutely among the Canadian public.

Support/opposition in Canada to offering rebates to purchasers of electric vehicles and increasing fuel economy standards, by region

19%

13%

59%

7%

70%

4%4%4%4%

6% 5%4%

24%

22%23%

18%

15%

26%

24%

23%

32%

22%

71%

30%

59%

48%

47%

8%

9%

40%

30%

30%

22%

55%

17%

66%

35%

21%

4% 2%

20%

56%

5%

7%

30%

EV rebates (n=155)

Increasing fuel

economy (n=132)

EV rebates (n=132)

Increasing fuel

economy (n=466)

EV rebates (n=466)

Increasing fuel

economy (n=283)

EV rebates (n=283)

Quebec Ontario Alberta British Columbia

Increasing fuel

economy (n=155)

Strongly support

Somewhat support

Not sure

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose1%1%2%1%

3%2%

1% 3%

Question text: “Now I'd like to hear your views on a number of ideas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and stabilize the climate. For each idea that I mention, please tell me if you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the following government policies.”

(EV rebates) “Offering rebates to business and households that purchase electric vehicles.” (Increasing fuel economy) “Regulations increasing the average fuel economy of new vehicles.”

Source: Fall 2016 CSEE

13


High American Opposition to Increase in Gas Tax Apart from requiring or incentivizing more fuel-efficient vehicles, another policy option to reduce transportation sector emissions is to increase the cost of gasoline by applying a tax, thereby driving down purchase and use. In fact, each of the fifty states and the federal government have levied a tax on gasoline since the mid-1930s, though only in recent decades have these taxes been discussed as a way to curb emissions. Instead, for most of their history, gas tax revenues have been used to fund general government services or, more commonly, transportation infrastructure.

Despite Americans’ familiarity with such a policy, the NSEE has consistently found that most are opposed to increasing the gas tax. The highest support for a gas tax increase in the survey’s 10-year history came in Fall 2009, but even then only 30% of Americans said they supported it (see Figure 13a). Instead, on five of the seven waves, more than half of Americans strongly opposed a gas tax increase, including 68% who strongly opposed such a proposal on the Spring 2013 survey. While none of these data attach a price tag to the increase, a Fall 2013 split-sample experiment found a 25 cent per gallon price further decreased support from 17% in the no-price baseline to 11%.13

Given the high levels of overall opposition, it is perhaps unsurprising that there has consistently been net opposition among all political affiliations, with those opposed to the policy outnumbering those in support (see Figure 13b). Over the last decade, Democrats have oscillated between 10% and 60% net opposition, while Republicans have instead posted net opposition between 60% and 95%.

Furthermore, though one’s stance on anthropogenic climate change is often the strongest predictor of their attitudes toward climate policy, even those who attribute climate change primarily to human activity are reticent to support a gas tax increase. On the Spring 2013 wave, only 28% of those who believe in anthropogenic climate change said they would support a gas tax increase compared to 69% who opposed an increase—41% net opposition (see Figure 13c). It was only on the most recent fielding of the question—on the Fall 2017 NSEE—that this group posted net support for a gas tax increase.

Figure 13a. Support/opposition to gas tax increasek

17%

11%

18%

11%

22%

63%

18%

46%

6%

15%

8%

11%

13%

10%

12%

62%

19%

23%

40%

5%

15%

60%

17%14%

68%

61%

1%7%4% 3%

2% 2%7%

16%

11%4%

Fall 2013 (n=461)

Spring 2013 (n=853)

Spring 2012 (n=719)

Spring 2011 (n=709)

Fall 2009 (n=963)

Fall 2008 (n=602)

Fall 2017 (n=456)

Strongly support

Somewhat support

Not sure

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose

Source: Fall 2008-Fall 2017 NSEE waves

Notes: Fall 2013 was asked as a split sample, with half of respondents being given additional information about the cost of a gas tax. Only the half who did not receive information about the cost are included here.

In Fall 2017, respondents were given the option to choose “neither support nor oppose.” In this figure, those responses (6%) are combined with those who volunteered that they were “not sure” (1%). Furthermore, this question was part of an experiment, and so only those in the

control “non-treatment” group are included. As a result, the percentages may not match the data tables on the NSEE website.

k Question text: “There have been a number of ideas proposed for how state governments can reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. For each idea that I mention please tell me if you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the proposed ways states can reduce greenhouse gas emissions: State governments should increase taxes on gasoline in order to reduce consumption.”Question text (Spring 2011, Spring 2012): “In order to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases a number of methods have been considered. For each of the methods of reducing greenhouse gas emission that I mention please indicate if you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose that option. Next, a policy to reduce greenhouse gases by increasing taxes on gasoline.”Question text (Fall 2017): “I’m going to read off some proposed policies that would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For each idea that I mention please tell me if you strongly support, somewhat support, neither support nor oppose, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the proposed ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. State governments should increase taxes on gasoline in order to reduce consumption.”



Figure 13b. Net support for gas tax increase, by political partyk

-80%

-100%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0

20%

Democrat

Independent

Republican

Fall 2013

Spring 2013

Fall 2017

Spring 2012

Spring 2011

Fall 2009

Fall 2008

Figure 13c. Net support for gas tax increase, by stance toward climate changek,b&c

-80%

-100%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0

20%

Fall 2013

Spring 2013

Fall 2017

Spring 2012

Spring 2011

Fall 2009

Fall 2008


Climate change caused by a combination of human activity and natural patterns



Source: Fall 2008-Fall 2017 NSEE waves

Note: See Note 14 on page 21 for the sample size for each of the groups shown in the figures.

15


Gas Tax Less Popular than Carbon TaxTo put the opposition toward a gas tax in context, it is instructive to consider how these attitudes compare to those associated with that “other” tax intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: a carbon tax. Indeed, a gas tax might be thought of as a carbon tax on a specific energy sector.

Figure 14 provides a head-to-head comparison of the four NSEE survey waves in which the very same respondents were asked about their support for increasing a gas tax and, separately, increasing taxes on carbon-based fuels. In each of these instances, there is a statistically-significant difference between the responses, with Americans considerably more opposed to a gas tax increase.

Another area in which responses vary between a gas tax and a carbon tax is on which level of government ought to levy an increased tax. Most Americans who are open to either a gas tax or a carbon tax would like to see it at both the federal and state levels (see Figure 15). However, among those with a preference for a single level of government to levy the tax, more prefer that a carbon tax be leveled at the national level while there are equal numbers who would prefer a federal-only or state-only gas tax.

Figure 14. Support/opposition to a gas tax and a carbon tax, by survey wavek&l

21%

17%

30%

11%

18%

17%

46%

20%

27%

13%

31%

11%

48%

60%

15% 13%

5%

17%

11%

11%

19%

23%

8%

16%

61%

14%

25%

52%

19%

10%7%

40%

1% 4% 3% 7% 7% 9%

36%

9%

18%

Gas tax (n=719)

Carbon tax (n=709)

Gas tax (n=709)

Carbon tax (n=936)

Fall 2009 Spring 2011 Spring 2012 Fall 2017

Gas tax (n=963)

Carbon tax (n=718)

Gas tax (n=456)

Carbon tax (n=455)

Strongly support

Somewhat support

Not sure

Somewhat oppose

Strongly oppose

Source: Fall 2009, Spring 2011, Spring 2012, and Fall 2017 NSEE waves

Note: In Fall 2017, respondents were given the option to choose “neither support nor oppose.” In this figure, those responses are combined with those who volunteered that they were “not sure”. Furthermore, this question was part of an experiment, and so only those in the

control “non-treatment” group are included. As a result, the percentages may not match the data tables on the NSEE website.

l Question text (Carbon tax, Fall 2009): “Another way to lower greenhouse gas emissions would be to increase taxes on carbon based fuels such as coal, oil, gasoline and natural gas. Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose this type of system?”

Question text (Carbon tax, Spring 2011, Spring 2012): “In order to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases a number of methods have been considered. For each of the methods of reducing greenhouse gas emission that I mention please indicate if you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose that option. A policy to reduce greenhouse gases by increasing taxes on all fossil fuels.”

Question text (Carbon tax, Fall 2017): “I’m going to read off some proposed policies that would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For each idea that I mention please tell me if you strongly support, somewhat support, neither support nor oppose, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the proposed ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The federal government increasing taxes on carbon based fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas.”



Figure 15. Preferred level of government to levy a gas tax and a carbon tax, by survey wavem

42%

5%

34%

12%8%

26%

8%

54%

9%

25%

8%

49%

10% 3%

11%5%

42%

7%

31%

11%

Fall 2010 (n=916)

Fall 2009 (n=956 )

Fall 2010 (n=916)

Gas tax Carbon tax

Fall 2009 (n=956)

Federal

State

Not sure

Neither

Both federal and state

Source: Fall 2009 and Fall 2010 NSEE waves

m Question text (Gas tax): “Next I’m going to provide you with a list of policies that can be used to limit the emission of greenhouse gases. For each option that I mention please tell if the policy should be adopted ONLY by the federal government, ONLY by your state government, by BOTH the federal and state governments, or should NOT be adopted by any government: Increasing taxes on gasoline to reduce consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.”

Question text (Carbon tax): “Next I’m going to provide you with a list of policies that can be used to limit the emission of greenhouse gases. For each option that I mention please tell if the policy should be adopted ONLY by the federal government, ONLY by your state government, by BOTH the federal and state governments, or should NOT be adopted by any government. Increasing taxes on all fossil fuels to reduce consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.”

Report Highlight: Americans Don’t Know Much about the Gas Tax

Though Americans have a strong (oppositional) reaction to gas taxes, data from Fall 2012 found

that they are generally unfamiliar with the specifics of the federal gas tax. When asked a multiple

choice question about the current cost of the tax, 69% volunteered that they didn’t know—and of

those who answered, the results suggest that most were just guessing. Another 59% volunteered

that they didn’t know if the excise tax had been increased under the Obama Administration, and

among those who thought there had been a change, most (50%) thought there had been a large

increase (rather than a modest increase or a decrease), despite the fact that the gas tax has remained

a steady 18 cents per gallon since 1993. More is included in the full report available online at:

http://closup.umich.edu/issues-in-energy-and-environmental-policy/1

17


Negative Reaction to Gas Tax May be Due to Revenue UseOne possible explanation for the comparatively low support for a gas tax may be linked to how existing gas tax revenues are used. The NSEE has conducted extensive research finding that public attitudes about a carbon tax are sensitive to policy design, specifically about how tax revenues would be used. The NSEE generally finds that Americans are more likely to support a carbon tax when they are told revenues would be reinvested in clean energy programs or that the program would be revenue neutral, as opposed to being given no details on revenue use.15

The Fall 2012 NSEE found that a plurality (34%) of Americans say they would prefer revenues from an increased federal gas tax go toward renewable energy research (see Figure 16), while there was also support for using revenues to reduce the federal deficit (19%) and providing tax rebate checks to all citizens (9%). Notably, support for the most common use of funds from existing gas taxes—highway and bridge repair—is very low (7%). The high opposition to the question about an increased gas tax in which no revenue use is specified, then, may be a reaction to an assumption that it would merely be an expansion of the existing (non-preferable) policy design.

Figure 16. Preferred use of revenue from an increased gas taxn

10%1%

19%

21%

34%

9%

7%Repeal the tax

Use all of the funds created by the tax to provide tax rebate checks to all citizens

Use all of the funds created by the tax to cover Department of Defense costs to keep open oil shipping lanes in the Middle East

Use all of the funds created by the tax to support highways and bridge repair

Not sure

Use all of the funds created by the tax for renewable energy research

Use all of the funds created by the tax to reduce the federal deficit

Source: Fall 2012 NSEE (n=916)

n Question text: “If the federal government increased the federal excise tax on gasoline, which of the following options do you prefer?”



ConclusionAs the transportation sector overtakes the electricity sector as the largest domestic source of greenhouse gas emissions, the NSEE finds a broad base of support for some policies aimed at reducing transportation sector emissions. Over the last decade, the surveys have found majority support among Americans across the political spectrum for increasing fuel economy standards. This support persisted even after Obama-era increases to the standard and more recent moves by President Trump to roll back such requirements. Perhaps surprisingly, rather than seeing a partisan-based divergence in opinion, the gap between Democrats and Republicans on support for increased fuel economy standards has actually narrowed on the most recent survey. Furthermore, a plurality of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum support the ability of California to apply for waivers to exceed federal fuel economy standards, an issue which the Trump Administration has also called into question.

Regardless of how the issue is settled, the NSEE finds support for fuel economy standards is relatively robust to pricing effects, and that support for standards may be further increased if the policy is framed as fuel efficiency rather than as an emissions reduction tool. Beyond fuel economy standards, the NSEE finds similarly broad support—even among climate skeptics—for tax incentives to encourage the purchase of electric vehicles.

This does not necessarily mean, however, that there is carte blanche support for all policies aimed to reduce emissions from the transportation sector. Though a tax on gasoline is assessed both by the federal government and in each of the 50 states, the surveys have found consistently strong opposition among Americans for increasing taxes on gasoline. Until the most recent NSEE wave, this strong opposition was true even among Americans who believe in anthropogenic climate change, who otherwise tend to be the most supportive of climate policy. This distaste for the gas tax, particularly among those who believe in climate change, may be a consequence of how the revenues from the tax are used: Americans would prefer revenues go to funding renewable energy programs rather than their current most common use of fund highway and bridge repair.

19


MethodsThe NSEE is a biannual telephone survey of a random sample of adult (age 18 and over) residents of the United States. The sample size, balance of landline and cell phone numbers, and response rate varies from wave to wave. Methodological details about each of the survey waves are available on the CLOSUP website: www.closup.umich.edu/nsee.

The CSEE have (to date) been conducted concurrently with the Fall wave of the NSEE. Like the American surveys, the CSEE surveys use random digit dialing (RDD) of landline and cell phones to generate a probabilistic, nationally representative sample of adult (18 and over) residents of Canada. The sample size, balance of landline and cell phone completes, and response rates vary from wave to wave and have been compiled on the CLOSUP website: www.closup.umich.edu/nsee.

Funding, Financial Disclosure, and Research TransparencyFunding for the NSEE surveys to-date has been provided by general revenues of the University of Michigan Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy, and the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion. The authors did not accept any stipend or supplemental income in the completion of the survey or the reports from this survey. The NSEE is committed to transparency in all facets of our work, including timely release and posting of data from each survey wave, including providing online access to NSEE survey instruments, data tables, and downloadable datasets.

AuthorsSarah B. Mills ([email protected]) is a Senior Project Manager in the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP)

in the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan.

Natalie B. Fitzpatrick ([email protected]) is a Research Area Specialist in the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP) in the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan.

Barry G. Rabe ([email protected]) is J. Ira and Nicki Harris Professor of Public Policy at the University of Michigan’s Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, and Director of CLOSUP.

Christopher Borick ([email protected]) is Professor of Political Science at Muhlenberg College and Director of the Muhlenberg Institute of Public Opinion.

Erick Lachapelle ([email protected]) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Montreal.



Notes1. U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2017, January 19). Power sector carbon dioxide emissions fall below transportation sector

emissions. Retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=29612

2. U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics. (n.d.). Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (Millions): January 2000 to March 2018. Retrieved from https://www.transtats.bts.gov/OSEA/SeasonalAdjustment/

3. Union of Concerned Scientists. (2017, December 6). A brief history of U.S. fuel efficiency standards. Retrieved from https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/fuel-efficiency/fuel-economy-basics.html#.WvmRtWdGmNo

4. The White House Office of the Press Secretary. (2012, August 28). Obama Administration finalizes historic 54.5 MPG fuel efficiency standards [press release]. Washington, DC: The White House. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/28/obama-administration-finalizes-historic-545-mpg-fuel-efficiency-standard

5. Davenport, C., & Tabuchi, H. (2018, March 29). E.P.A. prepares to roll back rules requiring cars to be cleaner and more efficient. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/29/climate/epa-cafe-auto-pollution-rollback.html

6. The sample size for each of the groups shown in Figure 4 is:

Fall 2008

Fall 2009

Spring 2012

Fall 2012

Fall 2017

Spring 2018

Democrat 197 343 230 312 271 225

Independent 150 308 188 282 266 228

Republican 150 240 171 192 217 164

7. The sample size for each of the groups shown in Figure 5 is:

Fall 2008

Fall 2009

Spring 2012

Fall 2012

Fall 2017

Spring 2018

Human activity 146 239 169 268 327 258

A combination 182 306 215 218 164 168

Natural patterns 81 80 66 114 106 89

Climate is NOT changing 100 188 170 193 170 112

8. Upton, E. & Van Heeke, T. (2018). Federalism and California’s role in light-duty & heavy-duty vehicle emissions standards. Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy, 36. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://closup.umich.edu/issues-in-energy-and-environmental-policy/36/federalism-and-californias-role-in-vehicle-emissions-standards/

9. Mills, S. B., Fitzpatrick, N. B., Rabe, B. G., Borick, C., & Lachapelle, E. (2018). Should state and local governments address climate change? 10 years of climate federalism in the NSEE. Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy, 34. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=29612

https://www.transtats.bts.gov/OSEA/SeasonalAdjustment/

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/28/obama-administration-finalizes-historic-545-mpg-fuel-efficiency-standard

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/28/obama-administration-finalizes-historic-545-mpg-fuel-efficiency-standard

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/29/climate/epa-cafe-auto-pollution-rollback.html

http://closup.umich.edu/issues-in-energy-and-environmental-policy/36/federalism-and-californias-role-in-vehicle-emissions-standards

http://closup.umich.edu/issues-in-energy-and-environmental-policy/36/federalism-and-californias-role-in-vehicle-emissions-standards

21


Local, State, and Urban Policy at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://closup.umich.edu/issues-in-energy-and-environmental-policy/34/should-state-and-local-governments-address-climate-change-10-years-of-climate-federalism-in-the-nsee/

10. See Question 31 on Fall 2012 NSEE data tables at http://closup.umich.edu/national-surveys-on-energy-and-environment/nsee-data-tables/nsee-2012-fall/#Q31


12. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2018, June). Table 10.3: Fuel ethanol overview [table]. EIA Monthly energy review. Retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec10_7.pdf


14. The sample size for each of the groups shown in Figure 13b is:

Fall 2008

Fall 2009

Spring 2011

Spring 2012

Spring 2013

Fall 2013

Fall 2017

Democrat 197 344 247 230 316 163 139

Independent 151 309 184 189 228 155 117

Republican 149 240 186 173 193 93 99

The sample size for each of the groups shown in Figure 13c is:

Fall 2008

Fall 2009

Spring 2011

Spring 2012

Spring 2013

Fall 2013

Fall 2017

Human activity 145 236 158 171 229 113 179

A combination 181 308 148 214 232 110 71

Natural patterns 80 77 77 67 62 55 47

Climate is NOT changing 100 188 223 154 184 116 82

15. Fitzpatrick, N. B., Rabe, B. G., Mills, S. B., Borick, C., & Lachapelle, E. (2018). American opinions on carbon taxes and cap-and-trade: 10 years of carbon pricing in the NSEE. Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy, 35. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://closup.umich.edu/issues-in-energy-and-environmental-policy/35/american-opinions-on-carbon-taxes-and-cap-and-trade-10-years-of-carbon-pricing-in-the-nsee/

http://closup.umich.edu/issues-in-energy-and-environmental-policy/34/should-state-and-local-governments-address-climate-change-10-years-of-climate-federalism-in-the-nsee/



https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec10_7.pdf

http://closup.umich.edu/issues-in-energy-and-environmental-policy/35/american-opinions-on-carbon-taxes-and-cap-and-trade-10-years-of-carbon-pricing-in-the-nsee/





Appendix ASupport/opposition to increased vehicle fuel efficiency, with and without a cost specified, by political party

Spring 2012 Democrat Independent Republican

No Cost Cost 5% No Cost Cost 5% No Cost Cost 5%

Strongly support 53% 33% 49% 37% 39% 28%

Somewhat support 34% 42% 27% 33% 22% 23%

Somewhat oppose 2% 12% 9% 13% 18% 20%

Strongly oppose 3% 7% 9% 12% 16% 23%

Not sure 7% 5% 6% 6% 5% 8%

N 230 230 188 190 171 173


23


Appendix BSupport/opposition to state governments giving individuals who purchase hybrid fuel vehicles a tax reduction

Fall 2008 Overall Democrat Independent Republican

Strongly support 46% 49% 46% 39%Somewhat support 27% 33% 23% 27%Somewhat oppose 9% 5% 11% 10%

Strongly oppose 14% 8% 15% 21%Not sure 5% 5% 5% 3%

N 602 196 151 149


Climate change is caused by human

activity

Climate change is caused by a combination of

human activity and natural patterns

Climate change is caused by natural

patterns


Strongly support 60% 44% 42% 30%Somewhat support 25% 35% 17% 26%Somewhat oppose 5% 9% 10% 16%

Strongly oppose 5% 8% 25% 25%Not sure 3% 4% 6% 3%

N 146 182 81 100




Reports from National Surveys on Energy and EnvironmentAs Americans Experienced the Warmest May on Record Their Acceptance of Global Warming Reaches a New High (July 2018)

Federalism and California’s Role in Light-Duty & Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emissions Standards (July 2018)

American Opinions on Carbon Taxes and Cap-and-Trade: 10 Years of Carbon Pricing in the NSEE (June 2018)

Should State and Local Governments Address Climate Change? 10 Years of Climate Federalism in the NSEE (March 2018)

Coal, Natural Gas, and Pipelines: 10 Years of Fossil Fuels in the NSEE (February 2018)

A Majority of Americans Support Net Energy Metering (September 2017)

Strong Public Support for State-level Policies to Address Climate Change (June 2017)

Moving the needle on American support for a carbon tax (March 2017)

Fewer Americans Doubt Global Warming is Occurring (August 2016)

American Views on Fracking (May 2016)

American Attitudes about the Clean Power Plan and Policies for Compliance (December 2015)

Acceptance of Global Warming Rising for Americans of all Religious Beliefs (November 2015)

Acceptance of Global Warming Among Americans Reaches Highest Level Since 2008 (October 2015)

Belief in Global Warming Among Americans Gradually Increases Following the Winter of 2015 (July 2015)

Cap-and-Trade Support Linked to Revenue Use (June 2015)

Widespread Public Support for Renewable Energy Mandates Despite Proposed Rollbacks (June 2015)

Acceptance of Global Warming Among Americans Moderately Increases in Late 2014 (February 2015)

Public Support for Regulation of Power Plant Emissions Under the Clean Power Plan (January 2015)

Public Opinion on Hydraulic Fracturing in the province of Quebec: A Comparison with Michigan and Pennsylvania (October 2014)

Public Perceptions of Shale Gas Extraction and Hydraulic Fracturing in New York and Pennsylvania (September 2014)

Public Views on a Carbon Tax Depend on the Proposed Use of Revenue (July 2014)

American Acceptance of Global Warming Retreats in Wake of Winter 2014 (June 2014)

Public Opinion on Climate Change and Support for Various Policy Instruments in Canada and the US (June 2014)

The Decline of Public Support for State Climate Change Policies: 2008-2013 (March 2014)

The Chilling Effect of Winter 2013 on American Acceptance of Global Warming (June 2013)

Public Opinion on Fracking: Perspectives from Michigan and Pennsylvania (May 2013)

NSEE Findings Report for Belief-Related Questions (March 2013)

NSEE Public Opinion on Climate Policy Options (December 2012)

All NSEE reports are available online at: http://closup.umich.edu/national-surveys-on-energy-and-environment/

25


University of Michigan

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP), housed at the University of Michigan’s Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, conducts and supports applied policy research designed to inform state, local, and urban policy issues. Through integrated research, teaching, and outreach involving academic researchers, students, policymakers and practitioners, CLOSUP seeks to foster understanding of today’s state and local policy problems, and to find effective solutions to those problems.

web: www.closup.umich.eduemail: [email protected]: @closupphone: 734-647-4091

The Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion (MCIPO) was founded in 2001 with a mission to conduct scientific based research related to public opinion at the local, state and national level.

Since its founding the MCIPO has focused its attention on measuring the public’s views on electoral and public policy issues with a concentration on environmental and health matters. The MCIPO regularly partners with academic, governmental and non-profit entities with the goal of providing high quality measures of public opinion that can inform the development of public policy and improve the understanding of the attitudes, knowledge and beliefs of Americans.

Web: https://www.muhlenberg.edu/main/aboutus/polling/Email: [email protected]: 484-664-3066

Regents of the University of Michigan

Michael J. BehmGrand Blanc

Mark J. BernsteinAnn Arbor

Laurence B. DeitchBloomfield Hills

Shauna Ryder DiggsGrosse Pointe

Denise IllitchBingham Farms

Andrea Fischer NewmanAnn Arbor

Andrew C. RichnerGrosse Pointe Park

Katherine E. WhiteAnn Arbor

Mark S. Schlissel(ex officio)

http://www.closup.umich.edu

mailto:[email protected]

A Report from National Surveys on Energy and...

Documents

Transcript of A Report from National Surveys on Energy and...