The Numbers
A Run at the Latest Data from ABC's Poobah of Polling, Gary Langer
Gary Langer is director of polling at ABC News, where he's covered the beat of public opinion for nearly 20 years - conducting and analyzing ABC News polls, evaluating data from other sources and setting the news division's standards for poll reporting. Langer has won two Emmy awards for ABC's reporting of public opinion polls in Iraq, and The Numbers blog was honored this year as winner of the 2008 Iowa Gallup Award for Excellent Journalism Using Polls.
ARCHIVES
SUBJECT INDEX
RECENT POSTS
- Views on the Terror Trials
- Sarah Palin: Rogue for President?
- Chasing Feathers
- Tomorrow's Elections: An Obama Referendum?
- Schwarzenegger's Nastygram: One in 10 Billion?
- Executive Pay? Cut Away
- Pols, Polls and Pushback
- On Nuclear Iran, Diplomacy and Sanctions are Preferred to Hostilities
- Polling, Politics and Nobels
- The War in Afghanistan: Reassessment, Eight Years On
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Emission Standards: Watch the Pothole
May 19, 2009 8:23 AM
Public opinion is broadly on the side of the stricter auto emissions and fuel efficiency standards the Obama administration’s announcing today. But there's one possible pothole: the price.
In a poll we did last summer, 78 percent of Americans favored tougher fuel efficiency standards for cars; it was about the same in a Marist poll last month, and indeed has been at that level for many years. In a poll of our own last month, meanwhile, 75 percent favored federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to reduce global warming; 54 percent "strongly" supported such regulations, a high level of strong support.
But these views do look price sensitive. In our ABC/Post poll last month 77 percent expressed concern that regulation of greenhouse gases could raise prices. And when an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll last month asked about requiring companies to cut greenhouse gases "even if it would mean higher utility bills for consumers to pay for the changes," support was much lower, 53 percent.
We lack recent data specifically on the impact of cost on support for fuel efficiency standards. But back in 2003, a CBS poll found initial support at 76 percent, declining to 59 percent (still a good majority) if it meant it would cost more to buy or lease a car. That, though, was a pre-recession reading.
Questions - both substantively and in the spin contest - include how much the policies in fact cost and whether and how vehicle price increases might be offset. An administration official last night said the new policies should cost an average of $600 per vehicle, but also said that’ll be offset by lower fuel consumption. For a car bought on a 60-month loan, he said, it ought to be a wash.
Again, costs - and how they're perceived - can matter. In our poll on environmental issues last summer, 59 percent supported a cap and trade system to cut greenhouse gas emissions. That held about steady, 57 percent, if the program worked but also raised electricity bills by $10 a month. But if it raised bills by $25 - even if it significantly cut emissions - support fell under half, to 47 percent.
May 19, 2009 in Environment and Energy | Permalink | User Comments (6)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Cap and Trade is a joke, as big a scam as we've seen recently. Jsust se the standard and a schedule to accomplish it.
Posted by: azcowboy | May 19, 2009 11:35:31 AM
Another thought: with great fuel efficiency won't people drive more? Which will offset the pollution control and probably increase road maintenance?
Posted by: Hal | May 19, 2009 11:57:43 AM
In order to make the cars they (government) want us to drive, they will have to make them lighter and have tires with low rolling resistance. Don't even think of driving one on wet roads or even in the winter. The engines will have to be low powered. Getting on the freeway or even any road with a truck coming up behind will be dangerous, as you won't be able to accelerate fast enough. The things that the president and congress are trying to do are not and have never been authorized by The Constitution.
Posted by: yeoldgrump | May 19, 2009 1:13:15 PM
There has been very little attention placed on the enviornment for the past 8 years. All of the resources have been pumped into a war that was not necessary. So let us come together and put all of our efforts on correcting the mistakes of the past administration. Let us not dwell on who's fault it was, but how we can all pitch in and make a difference. As the residents of Broken Arrow, OK are doing. We are recycling even though our trash collector do not have curb side sorting. Every little bit helps!
Posted by: Mrs. C. H. Osborne | May 19, 2009 2:31:37 PM
Ok, we need better mileage and less emissions but is now the best time. The ‘big 3’ are losing billions each quarter and they say they won’t be profitable until 2011, tack in billions more to retool, redesign and manufacture and now we are in 2012/14? All this has to be in place by 2016? How? Who is going to keep funding the companies? What is this going to do to the Jap, Korean and European companies?
It sometimes seems that our new president tries to so the “right” thing before it is thought out to a logical conclusion (Gitmo closing, pictures to enflame, Tribunals to judge). What else will be acted upon before all the impacts are known?
Posted by: Joe S | May 19, 2009 5:07:04 PM
This could have been done 30 years ago. President Carter was out front with this issue in the 1970's. Higher mileage and carbon reduction with save tons of money for our country. What has the Republicans done for the benefit of our nation over the decades......Nothing. But has done plenty for themselves by way of their pockets
Posted by: tychisum | May 20, 2009 4:49:14 PM
Post a comment
