Why Ask The Public About Energy?

Energy Learning Curve^TM Introduction

Perhaps no challenge facing the United States today is more dependent on personal conduct and public support than energy. The simple act of pulling out of the driveway every morning has policy implications. Yet perhaps on no other issue is there so much work yet to be done. In Public Agenda’s Energy Learning Curve™ report, conducted in association with Planet Forward, we attempt to examine the public’s attitudes, values and concerns about the tangle of policy challenges, business choices and personal habits that come under the catch-all heading of “energy.”

The blandness of the word “energy” hardly does justice to the challenge. Energy policy represents a “triple threat” of challenges, each daunting in its own right:

• Economics: While the oil price spike of 2008 faded in the global financial crisis of 2009, most analysts say prices will keep going up over the long run. World energy demand is projected to jump nearly 45 percent over the next 20 years, as countries like China and India require more fuel for their booming economies. The United States will face increasing competition for this vital resource.¹
• Oil Dependence: The United States imports about 60 percent of the oil it needs. While most of this comes from close allies like Canada and Mexico, significant amounts come from more problematic nations. Many experts worry this leaves us vulnerable to supply disruptions and yoked to unstable or even hostile regimes.²
• Climate Change: Groups like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warn that it is no longer a question of whether world temperatures increase as a result of global warming; it’s a matter of how much. Changing how we use fossil fuels is fundamental to controlling greenhouse gas emissions.³

Part of the challenge is the fact that they are all interconnected. While it may be possible to ease dependence on imported oil by increasing domestic drilling and utilizing more coal mined in the United States, that may exacerbate the problem of climate change. And while crafting policy to limit carbon emissions may help control climate change, it may adversely affect the economy.

There are some problems, even public policy decisions, that can safely be left to the professionals — experts who spend their lives examining a problem. Energy isn’t one of them. It’s too interwoven into our daily lives. Not only does it touch almost every part of our lives and economy, but the decisions we make now have implications for years.

Yet if we have to start making decisions now, as experts say we should, that just magnifies the problem. The public usually needs time to get up to speed and make up its mind about a problem. Generally speaking, the public passes through a “learning curve” of several stages, from initial consciousness of what the problem is, to “working through” the tradeoffs in different options and then, to “resolution” about solutions. Sometimes that happens quickly; sometimes it can take years or decades. The more complicated the problem, the longer it takes the public to reach resolution. And, as we’ve just noted, the energy problem is particularly complex.

But given what’s at stake, it’s essential that progress up this learning curve accelerate as quickly as possible.

This is a unique challenge to policymakers: the combination of a fast-moving, complex problem and a comparatively slow-moving public trying to come to grips with solutions.

To help cope with this, we’re offering our Energy Learning Curve™, a new way of interpreting opinion data to establish how best to move public opinion forward. Based on the Learning Curve model developed by Public Agenda chairman and social scientist Daniel Yankelovich, the goal is to give policymakers new tools to identify where the public stands in terms of grappling with a problem. We try to identify both the common ground and the major barriers to building public involvement and moving the public up the learning curve to resolution.

Our goal with the Energy Learning Curve™ is to track this progression over time. We will measure the public’s evolving views on specific proposals, of course. We will also try to determine how the public is progressing along the learning curve, and how well Americans are coping with the choices and tradeoffs inherent in this challenge.

There’s a real chance to build consensus

The good news for leaders is that there is significant consensus on solutions that are worth pursuing and also clear direction on strategies that just won’t fly, at least not now. And this consensus stems from segments of the population that come from different starting points on the issue, who emphasize different aspects of the “triple threat.”

Strong majorities of the public support developing alternative energy and say they’re willing to pay more to do so. They strongly believe in the economic potential of “green jobs.” Also, there’s backing for the use of financial incentives to encourage conservation and efficiency. Many are willing to change their behavior to use energy more wisely.

Significant barriers must be overcome

Based on our research, however, there are also several significant barriers to change. First, the public doesn’t want to be pushed. Proposals to force people to change their driving habits with gas taxes, congestion pricing or setting a mandatory floor under fuel prices are all firmly rejected by large majorities.

Perhaps an even larger obstacle is that the public generally doesn’t understand the “triple threat” nature of the problem. They tend to grab onto one or two aspects, such as price or climate change, and deemphasize the rest. But a sound energy policy requires addressing all three parts, and undoubtedly making tradeoffs between them. Right now, relatively few members of the public are ready for that. Indeed, leaders who focus on one aspect of the threat may inadvertently push away potential supporters, instead of building real coalitions.

Another major obstacle to advancing public involvement is the knowledge gap between experts and the public on this issue.

This isn’t uncommon. On many issues, the professionals frame the problem and the solutions in ways that simply don’t resonate with the public. After all, an expert by definition spends his or her life thinking about a problem; only the most committed citizens can say the same.

On energy, however, this problem is particularly acute. In many cases, the public lacks some basic information needed to assess how serious the problems are, and how realistic the solutions. Nearly 4 in 10 can’t name a fossil fuel, and even more can’t correctly name a renewable energy source. Even in areas where majorities of the public know the basic facts, there are disturbingly high levels of “don’t know” responses.

We emphatically reject the idea that citizens have to become experts in order to play a full role in making decisions. You may need to be an expert to craft policy, but you don’t need to be an expert in order to weigh competing values or to set priorities. But this knowledge gap reinforces the simple and natural tendency for experts and the public to talk past each other. Without at least a few key facts — such as how much oil the United States really has, what energy sources actually cause global warming and how long it takes to implement alternative energy plans — the public can’t make sound judgments on what should be done.

The public, of course, is not one solid mass, all at the same point at the same time. Different people grapple with issues at different paces. In this analysis, we identify four groups with distinct starting points, values and frameworks for examining this issue. While none of them truly see the issue as whole, all have distinct approaches to the problem — and there’s a surprising amount of common ground between them, which leaders can use to build coalitions and advance constructive policy.

While the challenges are significant and the hurdles extensive, there’s nothing in our research to suggest that they’re insurmountable. The American public has grappled with other complex challenges. Given committed leadership and the right conditions, the public can come to firm, sound conclusions. Energy is the next big challenge, and given the right circumstances, can be the next success.

This report is based on interviews with a national random sample of 1,001 adults over the age of 18 conducted between January 15 and January 30, 2009. Over 90 survey questions were included, covering each facet of the “triple threat.” The margin of error for the overall sample is plus or minus four percentage points. Click here to see the full survey results.

About Planet Forward

Planet Forward is an innovative, viewer-driven program that debuts on the web first and then moves to television, in a primetime PBS special on April 15 (check local listings for exact show times) and then moves back to the web. Hosted by Emmy Award-winning CNN veteran Frank Sesno, Planet Forward is driven by the power of ideas, as citizens make their case for what they think about the nation’s energy future.

The first Planet Forward program, premiering April 15th on PBS (check local listings for show times in your area), will explore the feasibility of moving rapidly away from fossil fuels. Dispensing with the old top-down model of public affairs programming, in which experts expound to voiceless viewers, Planet Forward’s emphasis is bottom-up, with citizens leading and driving the conversation.

Planet Forward is a co-production of the Public Affairs Project at The George Washington University and Nebraska Educational Telecommunications in collaboration with Public Agenda and Sunburst Creative Group.