WASHINGTON, June 22 (UPI) -- Americans will pay to lower greenhouse gas emissions, but they prefer government mandates over federal incentives as the way to get there, according to a recent survey.
A large majority of respondents, 85 percent, said they believe climate change has been occurring -- an important statistic considering the role the United States, as the world's largest polluter, will have to play if global temperatures are to be kept from rising, said Jeremy Webb, editor of New Scientist magazine, which co-sponsored the survey along with Stanford University and Resources for the Future.
"Internationally, all eyes, I can tell you, are on the United States," Webb said. "Without the U.S., any solution to global warming will only ever be a partial solution."
But the real test of willingness to mitigate climate change comes down to the bottom line. While survey respondents weren't overly eager to shell out big bucks, they did demonstrate a willingness to help foot the emissions-reduction bill, said Peter Aldhous, San Francisco bureau chief for New Scientist magazine.
"Up to a point, it seems that Americans will accept paying more for environmentally friendly energy," Aldhous said Wednesday at a news briefing.
The survey presented six different government actions that could lower greenhouse gases: three focused on the fuel and transportation sector and three on electricity.
The three options presented for each sector included a government standard requiring a certain amount of fuel or electricity come from non-emitting sources, a tax for oil or power companies on the fuel or electricity they sell that emits greenhouse gases, and a cap-and-trade system that would limit the amount of pollution each oil or power company could generate.
Outcomes remained stagnant at a 5 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, but different respondents saw one of three price options: the highest estimate of how much it could cost to reach that reduction, the lowest estimate and a medium price suspected to be closest to the actual price.
While those who saw higher prices responded less enthusiastically to the proposed policies, 50 percent still said they would vote for government standards on electricity generation, even if it meant nearly doubling the average electric bill, from $85 to $155.
Efforts in the electricity sector received far more support than those in the transportation or fuel sector, and respondents favored government standards over carbon taxes or a cap on emissions, the least popular of all options.
Public leaning toward government standards could be problematic for climate change policy, Aldhous said.
"It does present a significant challenge because policies like this are predicted by many economists to be less cost effective then those such as cap-and-trade," he said.
In general, carbon taxes probably receive the greatest support from economists, said Robert Lempert, senior scientist with RAND Corp., a non-profit research group.
"They tend to see it as simpler to implement because the government already has a mechanism for collecting taxes and a cap-and-trade system would be something new," Lempert told United Press International. "Also, in its simplest form, if you're more concerned about the costs you get a tax."
However, environmentalist communities tend to lean toward a cap-and-trade system because it focuses on a specific emissions target, Lempert said. Under cap-and-trade programs, only a certain amount of emissions are allowed. Although companies can buy other companies' emission shares if they choose, the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions would theoretically stay stagnant.
Some of the public preference for standards may result from general dislike of taxes and confusion over how cap-and-trade programs work.
"People may be worried about the complexity of these other mechanisms," Lempert said. "People clearly don't understand them very well."
Politicians will have to be extremely sensitive to public attitudes as they look for climate change solutions, particularly if they turn to cap-and-trade legislation, said Jon Krosnick, a professor at Stanford University.
"(Some of) my colleagues say, 'Economics is too complicated for the average American ... whether or not the public supports this is irrelevant,'" he told UPI. "But I don't share that belief. The immigration legislation was killed by public opinion just recently ... and that can happen again."
Policymakers would be wise to promote public understanding of these government incentive programs before presenting sweeping reforms, Krosnick said.
"It's far better to recognize the liability that comes with cap-and-trade legislation and to try and educate the American public before you get too far down the road," he said.
Legislation currently in the U.S. House and Senate incorporate all three government options presented in the survey, including a cap-and-trade proposal in the Climate Stewardship Act, sponsored by Rep. John Olver, D-Mass.
"A cap-and-trade system provides participants with the flexibility to find the most cost effective means for reducing emissions," Olver said in a statement released to UPI.
In the end, the public may respond more positively to less-popular strategies than to none at all.
"The vast majority of Americans want Congress to take action to stop global warming and recognize that the cost of inaction is far greater than any costs of progress," Olver said.
--
(Comments to [email protected])
