Poll: Americans More Likely to Vote For a Candidate Who Supports Conservation and Efficiency

  • Published on August 13th, 2008

Despite the fact that a plurality (less than half) of Americans favor a pro-nuclear-energy candidate, more say they would rebuff a candidate who wants to build nuclear power plants than say this about any of nine other possible energy reforms, according to a new Gallup Poll.

The poll, conducted over July 25-27 found that Americans seem more prepared to support candidates who focus on demand-side management (consumer conservation of energy), raising fuel efficiency standards, increasing government spending on alternative fuels, establishing price controls on gasoline, imposing a windfall profits tax on oil companies, and easing restrictions on offshore drilling.

The two positions receiving the strongest “Less Likely to Vote For” percentages – “Building more nuclear power plants” and “Suspending the federal gas tax for several months” – are both positions Senator McCain has strongly endorsed throughout the summer.

gallup poll shows americans prefer a candidate who supports efficiency and conservation

Related Posts:

About the Author

is the founder of ecopolitology and the executive editor at LiveOAK Media, a media network about the politics of energy and the environment, green business, cleantech, and green living. When not reading, writing, thinking or talking about environmental politics with anyone who will listen, Tim spends his time skiing in Colorado's high country, hiking with his dog, and getting dirty in his vegetable garden.
  • Girls are still gonna pick the convertible over the Prius, any day of the week.

  • Tim:

    As always, the phrasing of the question is an important part of polling.

    Despite my atomic activism, I would have been measured in the 12% of the people who apparently were neither "more likely" nor "less likely" to vote for a candidate who said they would build more nuclear plants.

    Building plants is not something that the president can do. He could try to influence policies to enable others to build plants, he could use his bully pulpit to help explain why clean, emissions free sources of electricity are a good thing, and he could streamline the regulatory path that is currently scheduled to take 4-5 years to complete.

    He could also let the public in on a long obscured truth – we have been safely handling the byproducts of nuclear power plants for more than 60 years without harming anyone – there is no need to spend massive amounts of money to solve what is not a pressing problem.

    Those kinds of actions would cause me to be "more likely" to vote for a particular candidate.

  • Pingback: politikly.com | politics and world news()

  • Druter

    Laughable, simply laughable. Do you actually think that who you vote for is who gets elected. Corporate masters control your country top to bottom. Including who gets elected, windfall taxes will never be levied, conservation will never be policy. These two strategies would take money out of the pockets of big business and the ruling elite. Get used to it