News

  • Nation
  • World Updates
  • Courts
  • Parliament
  • Columnists
  • Opinion
  • Honours List

Wednesday December 19, 2007

Vested interests, not people, oppose clean energy

MIDWEEK
By BUNN NAGARA


AMONG the myths of the energy debate is that renewable, non-fossil energy costs more and so is unpopular.

Policy dinosaurs like the US government then argue that to represent the people’s wishes they have to reject international standards like those in the Kyoto Protocol. This alienates them from other nations as well as from their own people.

It also hides some key facts: renewables are not necessarily more expensive, most people still prefer renewables even if they are costlier, and strong vested interests in big oil and fossil fuels influence governments like the Bush administration.

For many years, US polling data shows clear majorities preferring cleaner fuels even if they cost more.

In 1992 before Kyoto, just prior to Rio, a USA Today poll showed 58% of Americans wanted Bush to “sign the treaty if it harms our economy now, but helps the environment in the long run.” They were also prepared to pay higher fuel bills.

In 1996, the Sustainable Energy Coalition found between 75% and 3% of US nationals were willing to pay between 2% and 20% more for their electricity if it came from renewables like solar, wind, wave and geothermal sources.

The following year, a Mellman Group poll in August and another by the Pew Trust in November found that while most Americans were prepared to pay more for petrol at the pumps if it meant a cleaner environment, not many favoured cost increases in the form of a tax.

Mellman also found that 60% believed stricter new regulations would be worth the costs. In late 1997 a New York Times poll found 67% of Americans believed that reducing greenhouse gases would make the US economy more competitive.

In the same year, an Ohio University study also found 68% of Americans willing to pay higher fuel costs for a cleaner environment. This was confirmed by Mellman again the following year.

In 1998 a Wirthlin poll found most Americans would pay US$1,000 (RM3,350) more for fuel per household each year to curb global warming. The next year, Wirthlin found 68% believed economic growth need not be sacrificed for a cleaner environment.

In 2001, a Los Angeles Times poll found that 73% wanted government action to require auto makers to produce more efficient vehicles, even if this led to more expensive cars. Time/CNN then rephrased the question as a check, and 55% still favoured such policy.

Time/CNN also found 54% of Americans wanted “tough government action to help reduce global warming” even if this meant some inflation, although higher unemployment was not so readily acceptable.

An exception came in March 2001 when Time/CNN asked about increased fuel costs to cut pollution and offset global warming. Only 48% said they would accept it but 49% said no, at a time of increasing fuel prices and slowing economic growth.

Several polls by CBS/New York Times and Harris Interactive in 2001, 2002 and 2005 saw increasing majorities of Americans agreeing that environmental protection was so important that “standards cannot be too high” and necessary policies must be passed “regardless of cost.”

Two polls by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (2004, 2005) saw growing majorities optimistic about policies to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and decreasing minorities pessimistic about them.

Last year the Shelton Group found 76% of Americans wanted power companies to offer renewable energy, with 56% willing to pay more. People were also becoming more aware of the issues, with 64% saying more information was necessary.

Much the same applies in other developed countries. During the Bali conference this month, IBM Global Energy and Utilities Industry found 67% of people in Australia, Britain, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands and the United States willing to pay more for clean energy.

Germans are most environmentally aware, Australians most willing to pay more, and Americans were ready to pay the most, up to 20% more, for energy and other consumer products without harmful pollutants including nuclear radioactivity.

Yet the US population, while consuming and polluting most, is also least informed among the six countries surveyed. Clearly more information is needed, particularly for the government.

  • E-mail this story
  • Print this story