VOLUME 98, NUMBER 5 DECEMBER 2010
The People Speak Poll:
Area residents concerned about energy costs but less so about global warming
Most area residents are at least somewhat concerned about increases in energy costs and,
accordingly, most say they have taken steps to conserve energy. That’s according to the latest People
Speak poll of 395 residents of Southeast Wisconsin, which also shows that most citizens in the region
are willing to pay more for fuel efficient cars, appliances, and homes, and that most support certain tax
incentives to conserve energy or lessen reliance on non-renewable energy sources.
Global warming or climate change also is at least somewhat of a concern for a majority of survey
respondents, with 26% reporting they “worry a lot about it.” Area residents appear less worried about
climate change than those who live elsewhere in the United States, however, as a similar national poll
found 71% having some worry, including 32% with a lot of worry. (Chart 1).
The latest People Speak also finds a sharp increase in the percentage of respondents who feel jobs
and economic development are the most important issues facing the region. The environment ranks
low as a concern for most citizens, as it has in each of the four People Speak polls (Table 1).
Table 1: What do you feel is the most important Chart 1: How much do you worry about global
issue facing the seven-county Milwaukee region? warming or climate change?
% responding… Nov '10 June '10 Feb '09 Sept '09
jobs 45 23 35 26
economic development 10 2 9 13
property taxes 6 10 13 17
schools/education 4 12 7 4
transportation 4 5 3 3
health/health care 4 3 5 8
government waste/ 3 6 4 4
crime/violence 3 6 3 7
social welfare/poverty 2 2 1 3
environment 1 2 1 2
other 14 19 19 15
Public Policy Forum Research by: In Partnership with:
633 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 406 Anneliese Dickman, Research Director The Center for Urban Initiatives and Research
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203 Rob Henken, President
414.276.8240
www.publicpolicyforum.org Research
funded by:
and
2
Data and methodology
The 15-minute People Speak telephone survey
was conducted by the Center for Urban Initiatives
and Research at the University of Wisconsin-
Milwaukee (CUIR) between November 4-12,
residents of the City of Milwaukee. The age of the
2010. Respondents were selected by random
survey respondents also is not representative of
digit dialing of exchanges and cell phone numbers
the region’s population. The survey responses
located in Milwaukee, Waukesha, Washington,
were weighted to better reflect the region on
and Ozaukee Counties. The survey contained nine
these measures, but the weighting did not
opinion and policy questions, plus several
significantly change the results. The unweighted
questions about the respondent’s demographics
responses are presented in this Research Brief.
and characteristics. Only adults over age 18 were
surveyed. The survey’s margin of error is plus or minus
3.15 at a confidence level of 95% – meaning that
The 395 completed surveys are fairly
there is a 95% probability that the survey results
representative of the four-county Milwaukee area
are accurate within 3.15 percentage points in
population of 1.5 million, although the survey
either direction. When reporting results for all
sample over-represents the white population and
survey respondents, non-responses and “don’t
under-represents the African-American
know” responses are included; however, when
population in the region (Table 2). This is likely
analyzing differences between subgroups of
because the survey also under-represents
respondents, these types of responses are
Table 2: Representativeness of the survey excluded unless specified.
Nov. 2010 Region* Comparisons to national polling data refer to a
Milwaukee County 47% 62% poll of 1,001 U.S. residents conducted by Public
Agenda in January,2009. The results can be
Ozaukee County 8% 6% found at www.publicagenda.org/reports/energy.
Waukesha County 30% 25%
The People Speak is a tracking poll and is
Washington County 14% 8% conducted at regular intervals throughout the
City of Milwaukee resident 22% 38% year. The People Speak is designed and analyzed
College or post college graduate 46% 31%
by the Public Policy Forum in partnership with
CUIR and The Business Journal Serving Greater
Homeowner 78% 64% Milwaukee. Previous polls were funded by The
Income over $50,000 47% 54% Richard and Ethel Herzfeld Foundation and the
Income under $25,000 15% 21% Argosy Foundation. This poll was funded by
Godfrey & Kahn, SC.
Parent 27% 32%
Female
For the complete results of the November
52% 52%
2010 poll, as well as previous polls, please visit
White 82% 77% the poll's homepage at:
African-American 9% 16%
www.peoplespeakpoll.org
Under age 50 32% 58%
*Regional data from the 2008 American Communities Survey one-year
estimates, U.S. Census Bureau.
3
Energy concerns
Table 3: Concern varies with income
Survey respondents are concerned about % responding “worried a lot” Above $35,000 Less than
potential energy costs and the nation’s reliance on $75,000 to $35,000
oil. They are less concerned about climate change $75,000
(Chart 2). Increases in the cost of gasoline 26% 42% 43%
Global warming or climate 20% 28% 38%
However, whether someone is worried about change
these issues varies with his or her income. Table Having an economy that is too 32% 53% 52%
dependent on oil
3 shows that higher-income respondents are
Increases in the cost of electric- 29% 46% 53%
much less likely to feel very worried about energy ity
costs, reliance on oil, or climate change. Increases in the cost of natural 31% 52% 49%
gas or oil to heat your home
Chart 2: How worried are you about...
Energy conservation actions
Increases in the cost of natural
gas or oil to heat your home
42 44 These concerns about energy costs are
Increases in the cost of related to respondents’ willingness to take
44 41 action to conserve energy.
electricity
Having an economy that is too
39 44 Chart 3 shows that most respondents report
dependent on oil
Global warming or climate
recently having purchased energy-efficient
change
30 26 light bulbs and having turned down the air or
Increases in the cost of heat at home. Roughly half of respondents
49 36 have recently bought an energy-efficient
gasoline
appliance, and many have bicycled or walked
0 20 40 60 80 100 instead of driving at some time during the last
six months.
worry somewhat worry about it a lot
Lower income respondents and residents of
the City of Milwaukee are more likely to have
carpooled, taken public transit, or bicycled or
Chart 3: In the past 6 months, have you done any of the
walked recently. Lower income respondents
following?
are slightly less likely to have purchased
energy efficient light bulbs or household
appliances recently.
Installed solar panel 7
In addition, respondents’ actions vary with
Bought efficient appliance 49
the amount they worry about climate change
Bought efficient lightbulbs 82 or energy prices. Those less worried about
climate change generally are not as likely to
Taken public transit 17
have taken actions to conserve energy
Carpooled to work 17 recently (Chart 4, next page).
Bicycled or walked instead … 44
Turned down heat or AC 86
0 20 40 60 80 100
4
Survey respondents also were asked about Chart 4: Percent having recently done the following...
their willingness to take or support other
actions to improve the country’s energy
Installed solar panel
situation.
Bought efficient appliance
Chart 5 shows that while most of the
respondents are willing to take certain energy Bought efficient lightbulbs
-saving actions, those who are not worried Taken public transit
about climate change are less willing to take
these actions. In particular, just under half of Carpooled to work
all respondents (46%) are unwilling to use Bicycled or walked instead of driving
public transit more than half the time, but
60% of those not concerned about global 0 20 40 60 80 100
warming are unwilling to do so.
not worried about global warming all
Chart 6 indicates that differences based
on opinions about climate change persist
when respondents are asked whether they Chart 5: Percent responding “not willing to do it”
are willing to pay for alternative energy or
whether they would support the construction Buying energy efficient
of another nuclear power plant in Southeast appliances
Wisconsin. While at least half of all Buying a hybrid or electric car
respondents indicate a willingness to pay
more for energy from renewable sources or Buying a more fuel efficient car
for development of alternative energy Using public transit more than
sources, fewer are willing to do so among half the time
those not worried about climate change. A
Cutting back on leisure driving
new nuclear power plant in the region
garners little support from any type of
0 20 40 60 80 100
respondent.
not worried about global warming all
Chart 6: Percent responding “not willing to do it”
Paying higher taxes to fund
development of alternative
energy sources
Pay more for energy from
renewable sources
Supporting construction of
nuclear power plant
0 20 40 60 80 100
not worried about global warming all
5
Knowledge of renewable energy Table 4: Top five responses, knowledge of
energy sources
To test area residents’ knowledge of
renewable energy, survey respondents were What energy sources do you think of when you think
about…
asked to name types of fossil fuels and types of
renewable energy sources. Respondents were Fossil fuels Renewable energy
asked to provide up to three answers. Chart 7 Coal 43% Wind 51%
indicates that knowledge of energy sources does
not vary significantly by type of energy source. Oil 40% Solar 42%
Natural gas 19% Water 14%
When asked to name types of fossil fuels, 64%
of respondents provided responses that are Gasoline 17% Garbage/biomass 5%
entirely correct by including one or more of the Diesel 2% Geothermal 4%
following: coal, diesel, gasoline, natural gas, or oil. Note: Respondents could provide up to three answers.
The most common responses are coal, (43%) and
oil (40%), as shown in Table 4. Twenty-two
percent of respondents indicated they did not Chart 7: Knowledge of energy sources
know any fossil fuels or declined to answer the
question. The rate of correct responses to this
question on a national survey is 45%.
When asked to name renewable energy
sources, 60% of respondents answered entirely
correctly, listing one or more of the following:
biofuels, ethanol, garbage/biomass, geothermal,
solar, water, wind, or wood. The most common
responses are wind (51%) and solar (42%), as
also shown in Table 4. Twenty-five percent of
respondents said they did not know any sources
of renewable energy or declined to answer. The
national rate of correct responses is 55%.
When the results of the two questions are
combined, 45% of all Southeast Wisconsin
respondents are able to name both fossil and
renewable energy sources entirely correctly.
Ozaukee County residents are the most
knowledgeable about types of energy sources, as
are respondents with higher incomes and
homeowners.
For the most part, respondents who have
greater knowledge of energy sources do not differ
from those who are less knowledgeable in their
concerns about energy costs or climate change,
nor in the actions they have taken or are willing to
take to address energy issues.
6
Energy policy favor tax credits for purchasing fuel efficient cars
(85%), a reduction in the speed limit (52%), and
Respondents were asked whether they favored requiring utility companies to get 25% of their
several energy policy proposals. The opinions of energy from renewable, non-polluting sources
area residents mostly are in line with national (91%). The only proposal the majority of liberals
opinions for proposals cited in both the People do not support is building another nuclear power
Speak and a recent national survey (Table 5). plant in Wisconsin.
Tax incentives for individuals and businesses to Business owners do not favor requiring
reduce their energy consumption generally are businesses to get 25% of their energy from
supported, as is building more transmission lines renewable sources by 2025 (43%) or the monthly
in order to utilize more alternative energy sources. limit on household energy consumption (36%).
Reducing the speed limit to 55 miles per hour
garners very little support. When asked whether they consider themselves
to be Democrats, Republicans, or independents,
When asked whether they consider themselves those self-identifying as Republicans are more
to be liberal, moderate, or conservative, those who supportive of tax benefits for businesses reducing
consider themselves liberal support a monthly their energy use (87%) than are business owners
surcharge for households exceeding energy themselves (77%). They also are more supportive
consumption limits (60%) at a much higher rate of new transmission lines (63%) than business
than survey respondents overall (39%). Those owners (55%).
who identify as liberals also are more likely to
Table 5: Opinions regarding possible energy policy proposals
% favoring... all national business liberal Republican
owner
Tax rebates to individuals who reduce household energy use 79% 81% 64% 85% 73%
Tax benefits for businesses that reduce energy use 84% 79% 77% 90% 87%
Building another nuclear power plant in SE Wisconsin 55% 55%* 68% 45% 65%
Surcharge on utility bill if monthly energy limit is exceeded 39% 41% 36% 60% 33%
Tax credit for people who purchase hybrid or fuel efficient 66% 73% 58% 85% 52%
Requiring cars sold in Wisconsin to be more fuel efficient 66% na 53% 90% 50%
Requiring utility companies to get at least 25% of energy from 69% na 57% 91% 53%
renewable sources
Requiring businesses to get at least 25% of their energy from 62% na 43% 81% 45%
renewable sources by 2025
55 mph speed limit on highways 38% na 26% 52% 30%
Building more transmission lines so more energy can come 75% na 55% 88% 63%
from renewable sources
Note: Question wording has been edited for space. *National poll asked about more nuclear power plants in the U.S.
7
Energy policy trade-offs Table 6: Agreement with energy trade-offs
Survey respondents also were asked four % agreeing… Demo- Republi- busi-
questions regarding specific energy policies that crat can ness
would involve trade-offs between conservation or owner
environmental gains and higher costs. Electric companies should 81% 41% 53%
be required to generate
In general, most respondents say they are more energy from renew-
willing to support policies aimed at improving fuel- able, non-polluting energy
efficiency for cars and homes, even if it will result sources, even if this in-
in higher prices for those items (Chart 8). creases the cost of energy
Developers should not be 27% 38% 45%
Survey respondents also say they are willing to
required to build more en-
pay more for renewable energy, though most do ergy-efficient homes, if it
not go so far as to support a ban on new coal- makes new homes more
burning power plants in Wisconsin. expensive
Business owners and Republicans are less likely Even though coal is an inex- 55% 24% 34%
to support trade-offs than citizens in general, while pensive fuel, the state
Democrats are more supportive than most citizens should ban new coal-
(Table 6). The most dramatic difference in opinion burning power plants, be-
is in regard to a requirement that electric cause of the greenhouse
companies be required to generate more energy gases they emit
from renewable sources, even if this would
increase energy costs. Over 80% of Democrats Automakers should be re- 79% 49% 53%
agree with this statement, as do slightly more than quired to produce cars with
greater fuel-efficiency, even
half of business owners (53%), but less than half of
if it will make cars more ex-
Republicans agree (41%). pensive
Chart 8: Agreement with energy trade-offs
Automakers should be required to produce cars with greater fuel-
efficency, even if it will make cars more expensive 64
Even though coal is an inexpensive fuel, the state should ban new
coal-burning power plants, because of the greenhouse gases they 41
emit
Developers should not be required to build more energy-efficient
homes, if it makes new homes more expensive 32
Electric companies should be required to generate more energy
from renewable, non-polluting energy sources, even if this 60
increases the cost of energy
0 20 40 60 80 100
% agreeing
8
Tracking public opinion Chart 9 also shows that the Kenosha-Racine-
Milwaukee commuter rail proposal has seen a
The People Speak is a tracking poll, measuring decline in support since the original People Speak
change in public opinion over time on a set of in September 2009, though the decline has not
questions asked in each survey. For the five been as steep and has varied somewhat from
tracking questions included in the November 2010 survey to survey.
poll, change in opinion from the previous poll in
June 2010 was negligible. Opinions have changed Support for higher user fees to finance local
dramatically on some questions, however, since the government also has declined considerably over
inaugural People Speak poll in September 2009. the past year, from 47% in favor in September
2009 to 37% today (Chart 10).
For example, in September 2009, roughly half
of survey respondents (54%) favored high-speed There is no real difference in opinion
rail between Chicago, Milwaukee, and Madison. regarding increased user fees among the counties.
Today, just over a third of respondents (36%) are However, with regard to support for increased
in favor (Chart 9). sales taxes to fund local government (in return for
lower property taxes), 45% of Milwaukee County
When analyzed on a county basis, residents of residents are in favor, compared to 34% of
Milwaukee County are more likely to be in support Waukesha County residents. Fifty-six percent of
of high-speed rail (46%), while support in City of Milwaukee residents favor that approach.
Washington County is the lowest at 21%. Our
small sample size of City of Milwaukee residents An increase in the gasoline tax to fund
shows that 57% support high speed-rail. transportation improvements is not supported in
any of the region’s counties, nor has it been in any
of the four People Speak polls.
Chart 9: Opinion on regional rail, % favoring...
Chart 10: Opinion on tax and user fee policies, % favoring...