GOOD

Americans Are Willing to Pay More for Clean Energy

But don't expect your energy bill to go up anytime soon.


Opponents of renewable energy often attack solar and wind power for being more expensive, believing that coal and natural gas are simply too cheap not to burn. But a new study shows that not only do most Americans support clean energy, they’re willing to pay $162 more each year in electricity bills if it means more of the country’s power comes from wind and solar power plants.

The germ of this study came from President Obama’s State of the Union speech in 2011, when he called for Congress to pass a clean energy standard that would require 80 percent of the country’s power to come from clean energy sources by 2035. The idea caught the attention of Matthew Kotchen, one of the study’s three authors. At the time he wondered, “What does clean energy actually mean, and is there support for it?”


Kotchen’s a professor at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, which also houses the school’s project on climate change communication. The project regularly surveys Americans about their views on climate change, and with the help of its director, Anthony Leiserowitz, Kotchen developed and added questions to the survey about this particular issue. Survey participants were asked if they supported or opposed a clean energy standard, which was presented in one of three ways: as promoting renewables alone, renewables and natural gas, or renewables and nuclear power. Participants were also told the standard would increase their annual household electricity bill; the dollar figure they were given varied randomly from $5 to $155 per year, in increments of $20.

In almost every combination, no matter how the survey defined clean energy or how much clean energy cost, the majority of respondents supported the clean energy standard. People were more enthusiastic about a standard that supported renewables alone than one that also supported natural gas or nuclear. And the more it cost, the less enthusiastic they were: The study characterizes the trend as a "modest decline in support as costs increase." But the researchers could say that, on average, Americans were willing to accept a 13 percent hike in their electricity bills, paying $162 more per year.

Kotchen and his colleagues weren’t only interested in the average American, though. They were interested in whether Congress would pass legislation putting in place this kind of standard. And so they used at a technique common in political science and economics to predict how legislators will vote on a policy. They looked at the median voter in each state and district; if that median voter was more likely to support a policy than not, the researchers assumed that the representative or senator would vote for the policy. Using that model, they found that, in this Congress, a clean energy standard that raised electricity costs $162 a year would not pass. To pass at all, they found, the standard would have to cost the average household much less. To pass the Senate, it could only add $59 to annual electricity costs. To pass the House, it could only add $48.

The reason that for this drop is simple: Republicans don’t support the policy. The survey research showed that, when predicting who will support a clean energy standard, "political party matters a lot," says Kotchen. The result is that there’s a huge difference in what the average American is willing to pay to support clean energy and what Americans as represented in Congress are willing to pay to support clean energy.

"If you're interested in climate change and energy policy in the United States, one of the take homes is, coming up on an election year, it's really important who gets elected," Kotchen says. "Just changing the House and Senate by a few members makes a huge difference in whether policies like this are likely to pass or not."

Photo via (cc) Flickr user vassilisonline

Articles
via Real Time with Bill Maher / YouTube and The Late Late Show with James Corden / YouTube

A controversial editorial on America's obesity epidemic and healthcare by comedian Bill Maher on his HBO show "Real Time" inspired a thoughtful, and funny, response by James Cordon. It also made for a great debate about healthcare that Americans are avoiding.

At the end of the September 6th episode of "Real Time, " Maher turned to the camera for his usual editorial and discussed how obesity is a huge part of the healthcare debate that no one is having.

"At Next Thursday's debate, one of the candidates has to say, 'The problem with our healthcare system is Americans eat shit and too much of it.' All the candidates will mention their health plans but no one will bring up the key factor: the citizens don't lift a finger to help," Maher said sternly.

Keep Reading Show less
Politics

There is no shortage of proposals from the, um, what's the word for it… huge, group of Democratic presidential candidates this year. But one may stand out from the pack as being not just bold but also necessary; during a CNN town hall about climate change Andrew Yang proposed a "green amendment" to the constitution.

Keep Reading Show less
test
Me Too Kit

The creator of the Me Too kit — an at home rape kit that has yet to hit the market — has come under fire as sexual assault advocates argue the kit is dangerous and misleading for women.

The kit is marketed as "the first ever at home kit for commercial use," according to the company's website. "Your experience. Your kit. Your story. Your life. Your choice. Every survivor has a story, every survivor has a voice." Customers will soon be able order one of the DIY kits in order to collect evidence "within the confines of the survivor's chosen place of safety" after an assault.

"With MeToo Kit, we are able to collect DNA samples and other tissues, which upon testing can provide the necessary time-sensitive evidence required in a court of law to identify a sexual predator's involvement with sexual assault," according to the website.

Keep Reading Show less
Health

Villagers rejoice as they receive the first vaccines ever delivered via drone in the Congo

The area's topography makes transporting medicines a treacherous task.

Photo by Henry Sempangi Senyule

When we discuss barriers to healthcare in the developed world, affordability is commonly the biggest concern. But for some in the developing world, physical distance and topography can be the difference between life and death.

Widjifake, a hard-to-reach village in northwestern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) with a population of 6,500, struggles with having consistent access to healthcare supplies due to the Congo River and its winding tributaries.

It can take up to three hours for vehicles carrying supplies to reach the village.

Keep Reading Show less
Health
via Keith Boykin / Twitter

Fox News and President Trump seem like they may be headed for a breakup. "Fox is a lot different than it used to be," Trump told reporters in August after one of the network's polls found him trailing for Democrats in the 2020 election.

"There's something going on at Fox, I'll tell you right now. And I'm not happy with it," he continued.

Some Fox anchors have hit back at the president over his criticisms. "Well, first of all, Mr. President, we don't work for you," Neil Cavuto said on the air. "I don't work for you. My job is to cover you, not fawn over you or rip you, just report on you."

Keep Reading Show less
Politics