Roughly 60% of Independents say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supported easing restrictions on off-shore drilling, according to a recent Gallup survey (figure above). But the survey also shows that there's an even stronger positive response when Americans are asked about voting for a candidate who favors establishing tax incentives to reward energy conservation; who favors raising fuel mileage standards; or who favors authorizing a $150 billion dollar investment in the development of renewable energy technology.
Yet off-shore drilling remains a winning message for McCain since it is the one dimension of the two candidate's energy proposals that he can draw a contrast on.
Investing in nuclear energy, on the other hand, doesn't generate nearly as much of an enthusiastic response from voters, with only 47% of all Americans saying they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who backed expanded nuclear power, and only 48% among Independents (figure below).
Whoever is elected president, nuclear energy is likely to be a battle. The more hardline environmental groups are likely to strongly protest the inclusion of nuclear in any energy bill, potentially paralyzing the legislative process.
Environment
Politics
Comments
Nuclear power has such a bad image and "radiation" scares people so much that I think acting rationally on the issue will be very, very difficult for the public. There clearly are concerns (such as storage) but in general radiation is considered differently from other toxic materials.
Add in the "not in my backyard" to even wind farms and its going to be difficult to help Americans solve their energy problem. My sense is that most Americans love the idea of producing energy (whether it be wind, solar, etc.) so long as it isn't near them. Which means lots of power plants in sparsely populated states unless they have pretty vistas in which case the public is against that too.
Posted by: Clark | August 18, 2008 6:58 PM