Our firm recently conducted a survey among 500 likely South Carolina Republican presidential primary voters that shows far more support for limiting carbon emissions as a way to combat climate change than would normally be expected in this conservative state. A majority of these Republicans believes that global warming is probably happening, thinks that carbon emissions should be reduced, and supports a market-based carbon cap. Highlights of the survey include:
1. By more than a six-to-one margin, South Carolina presidential primary voters think the U.S. should take steps to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere. Eighty-one percent think the United States should take steps to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide, or CO2, that is released into the atmosphere by cars, factories, and power plants, while 13 percent disagree and 6 percent do not know.
2. By almost a two-to-one margin, South Carolina presidential primary voters think global warming probably is happening. Fifty-six percent think global warming probably is happening, 29 percent think it probably is not happening, and 15 percent do not know.
3. Despite the fact that these voters disagree about the cause of global warming, a majority says it is possible to reduce its effects. Among those who think global warming probably is happening, 42 percent think it is due more to human activity such as burning fossil fuels and 38 percent think it is due more to the normal cycles in the earth’s environment. When those who think global warming probably is not happening or don’t know are included, 51 percent say that it is due to natural cycles and 30 percent say it is due to human activity. Despite disagreement about the cause, 53 percent say it is possible to reduce the effects of global warming, while 31 percent say it is not possible.
4. A majority of these voters supports a market-based carbon cap to reduce carbon emissions. Following is the exact description of the proposal:
Now I would like to describe a proposal to reduce carbon emissions produced in the United States. The U.S. government would set a cap on overall carbon emissions that are produced by the country’s largest companies. Companies that produce less carbon than their allotment would be able to sell surplus credits to companies that are producing more than their allotment. The proposal would give companies incentives to cut their carbon emissions. The more a company cuts its emissions, the more money it could make.
Based on that description, 53 percent support the proposal and 26 percent are opposed, with 20 percent unsure.
5. Endorsement of a market-based carbon cap by ten major private sector companies enhances support for the proposal. Voters were asked:
Recently, the CEOs of ten major companies, including General Electric and Duke Power, endorsed a market-based proposal to reduce carbon emissions in the United States. Does that information make you more likely to support such a proposal, less likely to support such a proposal, or does it have no effect on your support?
Thirty-seven percent said that information would make them more likely to support the proposal, and only 5 percent said it would make them less likely. Fifty percent said that information would have no effect on their support.
6. Nearly nine out of ten Republican primary voters say environmental issues are at least somewhat important. When thinking about public policy issues, 39 percent say environmental issues are very important, 48 percent say somewhat important, and 11 percent say not too important.
7. John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Newt Gingrich all receive significant early support on the Presidential primary ballot, although with a quarter of the voters still undecided, the race is wide open. McCain currently leads the field with 29 percent, followed by Giuliani with 20 percent, Gingrich with 14 percent, Mitt Romney with 6 percent, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Duncan Hunter with 2 percent each, and Tom Tancredo with 1 percent. Twenty-three percent of voters are undecided.
Republican candidates in South Carolina have more room to discuss limiting carbon emissions than is commonly believed. Eight out of ten Republican primary voters in the state think we should take steps to reduce carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. While about 30 percent are hard-core global warming skeptics, a majority thinks global warming probably is happening, that it is possible to reduce its effects, and that a market-based carbon cap is worth pursuing. That is a far cry from the common assumption about this conservative Southern Republican electorate.
Methodology
The sample for this survey consists of 500 respondents drawn randomly from a list of registered voters who voted in either the 2000 or 2004 Republican presidential primary or the 2002 state Republican primary. Calls were conducted January 24, 25, 27, and 28, 2007. All respondents confirmed they are registered to vote and likely to vote in the 2008 Republican presidential primary. The margin of error is ±4.38 percent.
Demographics of the sample are consistent with past surveys of South Carolina Republican primary voters. By gender, 50 percent of the respondents are male and 50 percent are female. Thirty-five percent are very conservative, 38 percent somewhat conservative, 18 percent moderate, and 5 percent somewhat or very liberal. Thirty-six percent consider themselves to be part of the conservative Christian political movement, also known as the Religious Right. Forty-one percent are 49 years old or younger, 29 percent are 50 to 64 years old, and 28 percent are 65 or older. Forty-one percent live in the Upstate, 33 percent in the Midlands, and 25 percent in the Lowcountry.
This entry was posted on Friday, February 2nd, 2007 at 1:06 pm and is filed under Cap and Trade, Climate Change, Politics/Government . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 2nd, 2007 at 2:58 pm
What is a “market-based cap?” Is that kind of like a market-based “five year plan?” It sure sounds like it when we talk about people’s “allotments.”
Where were the questions that ask people what they are willing to sacrifice, such as:
Would you be willing to drive 50% less reduce temperatures less than a few tenths of a degree Celsius? [If we jointed Kyoto (and if Europe were complying with the Kyoto Protocol) it would only avert 0.07 of a degree Celsius temperature increase by 2050.]
Would you be willing to pay double current prices for gasoline to meet the carbon cap?
Would you be willing to only use compact fluorescent lamps in your house instead of incandescent light bulbs.
And so on.
Who doesn’t want to have less carbon dioxide emissions if they are free? Who doesn’t want to have carbon dioxide emissions if we can have other people pay for them? How would these results change if people had to actually pay the increased taxes and costs these plans entail. Worse yet, these plans are all cost and no environmental benefit.
February 2nd, 2007 at 7:05 pm
I agree. It’s easy to support an aggressive strategy if the implications are not discussed. Are people really prepared to pay off the power plants they are using now, but want to close because they produce carbon and pay for new nuclear or gas plants at the same time to replace them?
I too would like to see the polling results of would you like to pay double for electricity to address global warming?
February 2nd, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Some questions for the informed;
1. Does CO2 produced in China affect the whole world ?
Answer,(yes, and since China does not have to stop polluting, any small filtering in the USA is like peeing in the ocean.)
2. Does the Sun heat the Earth ?
Answer, (yes, and NASA says that the surfaces of Mars and the Moon have been on the rise.)
3. Where does the increased heat on Mars come from ?
Answer, (the Sun.)
In conclusion, I wouldn’t base my political future on junk science and the Al Gore scare campaign. Try using your brains for a change.
February 3rd, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Amador: Regarding point 2, I would be interesting in reading more. Could you provide a reference to the relevant data?