Coal money talks, public ignores

Poll shows 86 percent of public wants a five-year halt on new coal plants

Posted by Ted Nace (Guest Contributor) at 3:00 PM on 09 Jul 2008

Read more about: energy | coal | advertising | renewable energy

Shortly before the July 4 holiday, Opinion Research Corporation released a poll entitled "Opinions About Gas Prices and U.S. Energy Independence" [PDF] which shows -- drum roll please -- that the public, by a three-to-one margin, is either "very angry" or "somewhat angry" about gasoline prices.

While gas prices grabbed the headlines, the poll also happened to ask a number of questions about coal, and the answers were both interesting and surprising: The percentage of people who said they opposed new coal plants was actually higher than the percentage expressing outrage over gas prices. When asked whether "America should commit to a five-year moratorium on new coal-fired plants," the response was:

Strongly or somewhat agree:

June 2008: 86 percent
September 2007: 84 percent

Strongly or somewhat disagree:

June 2008: 13 percent
September 2007: 13 percent

Don't know:

June 2008: 2 percent
September 2007: 3 percent

Does this poll suggest that the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity's $40 million "clean coal" ad campaign has been a total waste of money? If I were one of the companies that ponied up the money, I would be wondering what I'd gotten for my millions.

For those who think that power companies simply don't care about wasting money, it's worth noting that most power companies actually don't belong to ACCCE. In fact, out of the 150+ power companies in the United States, only 21 belong to ACCCE (and nine of those are rural electric co-ops). Most of ACCCE's members are coal mining and transportation companies -- not power companies. While power companies are moving quickly to embrace wind power, concentrating solar power, and other options, for coal mining companies there's really nothing else to do with all those lumps except to burn 'em up. With nothing much to lose, these companies will no doubt keep paying for more ads.

For story: Coal money talks, public ignores
14 Comments | Post a Comment

huh

You mean money can't buy you anything in America?

The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more

by Erik Hoffner at 6:20 PM on 09 Jul 2008

Push Poll

I'm sure there is some significance to this poll. However, any poll that gets responses in the 80 to 90% range is probably a push poll. I took a look at the questions in the linked report and, indeed, a number of key questions include the "right answer" in the question and some questions lead to the desired answer in the next question.

Far from the worst I've ever seen, but it is a push poll.

by KenG at 7:23 PM on 09 Jul 2008

I suspected that, JMG

Thanks for taking the time to look into it. We have to stop using coal, but we also have to resist the urge to stretch the truth to achieve our goals. Push polls damage the credibility of those who solicit them, providing ammunition for opponents.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 7:49 PM on 09 Jul 2008

My bad, Ken

Kudos.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 7:52 PM on 09 Jul 2008

This was not a push poll

KenG - You're right in your instinct to question any poll that provides a response above 80%, but please don't call this a "push poll." A push poll, according to both Pollster.com and SourceWatch, is a political tactic in which propaganda, rumors, and misinformation are spread among the public under the guise of a "poll." An example is the "poll" conducted in South Carolina on behalf of the Bush campaign in 2000 in which voters were asked: "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?"

The Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted for Civil Society Institute does not fit that definition. First, it was done by a well respected polling group with a 70-year track record. If rouge elements inside Opinion Research have decided to join forces with radical environmentalists using Karl Rove tactics, I'm sure their management would like to know. Opinion Research Corporation has now posed the exact same question on three separate occasions to samples of over 1,000 people each time. The longitudinal repetition increases the credibility of the results.

But leaving aside the loaded term "push poll," is this a biased poll? Let's look at the question and the results. The full question was:

"Please tell me how much you agree or disagree with the following statement: 'A national energy strategy based on phasing in of new technologies and phasing out of carbon based energy sources would require specific actions. America should commit to a five year moratorium on new coal-fired plants and instead, focus on aggressive expansion of wind, solar and other renewable energy sources. Tax and other incentives should be provided for all new construction to help reduce energy consumption. Homeowners should get incentives to make their homes more energy efficient and to help reduce energy demands. Would you say you strong agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree, or don't know."

This question was asked in September 2007, February 2008, and June 2008. The results in June 2008 were: strongly agree 49%, somewhat agree 37%, somewhat disagree 7%, strongly disagree 6%, and don't know 2%. In September 2007 the results were: strongly agree 44%, somewhat agree 40%, somewhat disagree 7%, strongly disagree 6%, and don't know 3%.

One thing is clear--the support for the statement did not weaken between September 2007 and June 2008, despite a large pro-coal advertising campaign conducted in the interim. That was one point of my article, and I think the poll results prove it out. Even if we were both to agree that the question is biased, the wording did not change from one survey to the next so at least we're comparing apples to apples, something that the shifting sands of poll question phrasing typically render impossible. If anything, the pro-moratoriuim position seems to have firmed up a wee bit during that period, though the difference is close to the 2% margin of error of a survey of this size (1,003 respondents in September 2007; 1,005 respondents in June 2008).

But I think what you're really getting at is the idea that putting the question of a coal moratorium in the context of increased renewables constitutes a degree of bias. If so, I certainly see your point. In response, I would say that every poll on energy has to deal with context--there's simply no way around that. And consequently, depending on how the facts are presented, the public will be pushed one way or another. Should the question mention global warming? Should it mention the possibility of power shortages? Should it mention alternatives or leave them out? Should it present the idea of a coal moratorium in isolation? These questions have no simple answer. The litmus test, I think, is whether the policy context is factually sound and reasonably likely to be implemented. And I do think that the poll passes that test.

Help build coalSwarm-- a shared informational resource on coal and alternatives to coal.

by Ted Nace at 10:52 PM on 09 Jul 2008
[ Parent ]

Wait a minute!

Look at the full question asked! It was much more leading than simply inquiring whether Americans want a moratorium on coal-fired plants. It clearly was intended to lead the respondents toward the conclusion they wanted.

Here's the question in its entirety:

"Please tell me how much you agree or disagree with the following statement: A national energy strategy based on phasing in of new technologies
and phasing out of carbon based energy sources would require specific actions. America should commit to a five year moratorium on new coal-fired
plants and instead, focus on aggressive expansion of wind, solar and other renewable energy sources. Tax and other incentives should be provided for
all new construction to help reduce energy consumption. Homeowners should get incentives to make their homes more energy efficient and to help
reduce energy demands."
http://behindtheplug.americaspower.org/

by davidACCCE at 9:55 AM on 10 Jul 2008

One more thing

In case you're wondering why is it a bad idea to advocate banning new coal-fired power plants...

If we had abandoned the use of lamps in this country 30 years ago, we never would have developed the compact fluorescent light bulb. The only way that you can develop technology is if there's a need for it, and if we're not building coal plants here in the United States, where's the drive to develop clean carbon-capture technology? There has to be the marketplace for the technology in order to drive development of the technology.

Developers planning new power plants know they'll have to operate the facility for about 30 years to pay off the costs. Developers know that sometime within that timeframe, there is going to be a regulatory requirement for plants to capture and store carbon. They are planning for that technology to come about, and current plans for new power plant make sure that the schematics leave room for the carbon-capture control of the future to be installed.

by davidACCCE at 9:59 AM on 10 Jul 2008

Silly argument

Dear David of ACCCE:

Regarding your claim that "current plans for new power plants make sure the schematics leave room for the carbon-capture control of the future to be installed," that's like me saying I'm building my driveway to be "Prius ready." It's meaningless unless the costs of such hypothetical retrofits have actually been taken into account.

In fact, considering such costs is exactly what evey power plant developer is RESISTING, in regulatory hearing after regulatory hearing. In North Dakota, for example, the coal industry actually pushed through a law that explicitly prohibits regulators from taking potential carbon regulation into account as a factor to consider in new plant permitting decisions.

As for your claim that we need more conventional coal plants in order to create a "marketplace" for carbon capture retrofit technology, don't the 500 existing coal plants already constitute such a market?

Help build coalSwarm-- a shared informational resource on coal and alternatives to coal.

by Ted Nace at 11:16 AM on 10 Jul 2008
[ Parent ]

Wow

Build dirty coal to create a market for clean coal! Interesting.

How will we ever develop cancer treatments unless we give people cancer to create a demand for the treatments?

grist.org

by David Roberts at 11:54 AM on 10 Jul 2008

Clean coal is here today (some of it)

There have already been technology demonstrations of greenhouse gas emissions control for existing power plants. For example, American Electric Power has already announced the commercial deployment of these technologies at two of their larger older units.

But for widespread deployment, it will take time. The widespread deployment of ANY new technology takes time -- just ask the folks in the wind and solar industries.

Hundreds of clean coal research and demonstration projects across the country have created a whole new range of white-collar coal jobs.

In fact, there is over $6 billion in clean coal research underway right now in 41 states -- even ones not normally associated with coal production.

And coal is already 70 percent cleaner, per unit of energy produced, than in 1970:
http://www.americaspower.org/The-Facts/70-Percent-Cleaner ...

by davidACCCE at 12:55 PM on 10 Jul 2008
[ Parent ]

ACCCE

Hmm. David from ACCCE sounds very interested in new coal technologies.

How is Futuregen coming?

"American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity's Web site. As you might have guessed, we are pro-coal and proud of it. Not only does coal keep America's lights on, it keeps everything else that needs electricity running"
http://www.cleancoalusa.org/

by rsmith02 at 1:10 PM on 10 Jul 2008

What This Poll Means

While it's great to know that a large majority of Americans want to at least temporarily ban new coal plants, this reminds me of other environmental issues: broad support, but very shallow. If Americans were asked whether they'd be willing to actually sacrifice something -- say a few hours of TV daily -- in order to clean up the air, reduce mercury pollution, lessen damage from mining, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that cause global warming, then we'd have a meaningful result.

by Wolverine at 1:38 PM on 10 Jul 2008

Shallow or real?

"While it's great to know that a large majority of Americans want to at least temporarily ban new coal plants, this reminds me of other environmental issues: broad support, but very shallow. "

Environmentalism isn't synonymous with sacrifice, except to certain eco-machocists who think it is and then decry the state of the world when others, unsurprisingly, aren't eager to embrace deprivation.

Using a clothes line isn't a sacrifice- it takes slightly longer but my towels come out smelling better.

Using a CFL lightbulb isn't a sacrifice.

Paying a few bucks a month so the power plants have scrubbers isn't a sacrifice- not being able to breathe is the sacrifice.

Unplugging appliances isn't a sacrifice, just a habit.

by rsmith02 at 2:16 PM on 10 Jul 2008

To the question about FutureGen...

We still believe that the government should honor its initial commitment to build a FutureGen demonstration plant in Mattoon, Ill. That is... the Mattoon project should not have been scrapped to pursue other projects. If we're serious about meeting CO2 reduction goals, we should be doing MORE, not LESS.

But despite what you may have heard or read, the FutureGen project has not been canceled. Even though President Bush decided not to include FutureGen in his budget proposal, Congress has the final say on funding. The discussion on FutureGen simply moves to Capitol Hill.

Here's the latest news on that:
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2008/07/09/futureg ...

by davidACCCE at 2:29 PM on 10 Jul 2008
[ Parent ]

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.