Poll'er opposites

Options Toolbox

Search Let's Be Frank

Comments No Comments have been posted about this item. If you are a subscriber to SNL Interactive, please login to post a comment to this blog. If you do not subscribe to this service and would like to begin a free trial, click here. Comment Policy

About Let's Be Frank A principal with Bracewell and Guiliani's government affairs practice, Frank Maisano offers his insight on energy politics.

With the Senate driving fully into climate change this week, one thing became imminently clear: There are polls that show clear support for cap-and-trade legislation … or was that clear opposition?

If things are a little muddled, let's go to replay review. That's right, on climate there is a poll that tells you just about anything and everything.

Let's review the bidding.

Last week alone, three polls emerged. First, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press released a survey showing that a declining percentage of Americans believe human activities are contributing to rising global temperatures. However, the poll added that more respondents support carbon dioxide controls than oppose them, even if it may mean higher energy prices.

Then, CNN/Opinion Research released a survey showing 60% of the public expressed support for a cap-and-trade proposal that would "limit the amount of greenhouse gases that companies could produce in their factories or power plants." Democratic climate supporters trumpeted these figures as justification for moving forward swiftly, conservatively complained about the questions.

Finally, a poll conducted by NBC and The Wall Street Journal said exactly the opposite: In fact, people's opinions about cap-and-trade had lost ground, with 48% supporting, a six-point drop from April.

So this mixed bag of information (a nearly even viewpoint is expressed) is only the last week in a long line of polls over the past few years that has earned polling companies tons of money but told us relatively little about opinion on climate issues, other than what the poll payers wanted us to hear.

We have seen dozens of polls over the past year that tell us nothing particularly helpful for reading tea leaves. In October, the Pew Research Center reported Americans fared better at naming the latest Supreme Court justice or identifying conservative talk host Glenn Beck than at citing the name of the plan to control greenhouse gas emissions that is favored by President Barack Obama. In September, the Environmental Defense Fund released a poll in the three of the most competitive Democratic-held congressional districts (Indiana's 8th District, North Carolina's 11th District and Virginia's 5th District) saying public opinion was overwhelmingly in favor of climate legislation (I suspect they didn't do any town meetings).

Meanwhile in August, while voters were revolting at local town meetings, separate environmentalist-sponsored polls by Beneson Strategy Group (voters in 16 battleground states found that 63% supported the House-passed climate bill, while 30% oppose it), the Mellman Group (55% agreed with the need to take action, while 34% said they opposed action for fear that it would lead to job losses and hurt the economy) and Zogby for the National Wildlife Federation (71% of likely voters supporting the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454, with 28% opposed) all said there is overwhelming support for controversial climate legislation.

On the other side of the fence, Republicans continually wave around a June Rasmussen poll that says the House-passed bill will hurt the U.S. economy.

Finally, at several points in the year, different polls showed Americans are skeptical about a cap on greenhouse gas emissions even though they think something should be done. In line with several other surveys, in March, researchers from Yale University and George Mason University reaffirmed this view, finding that global warming ranked near the bottom of concerns when compared to topics such as the economy and illegal immigration.

So what does this really mean? It means that polls on climate change just don't work. Chalk it up to the complexity of the issue, the focus of the voter, their interest in things they can't control and the complexity of understanding weather vs. climate change. They can't see emissions reductions over 50 or 100 years, but can see increases in energy costs, economic dislocation of manufacturing jobs, an expansion of new "green jobs" or the resistance of global competitors such as China that resist participation.

Unfortunately, it really does matter. For a preview of why and how, one only need to back at 1993-1994, but also to the Nov. 3 governor's race in Virginia.

In '93-'94, Republicans hammered moderate Democrats over the "Btu" tax vote, and it was one of the key reasons they paid a dear price at the polls, losing nearly 30 incumbent members and dozens more open seats. In Virginia, gubernatorial candidate Republican Bob McDonnell has been clobbering his opponent, Democrat Creigh Deeds, on the issue. Despite Deeds saying he opposes the bill, he is polling badly, raising concerns among Democrats in red states that even opposing the climate legislation may not be enough.

Clearly, this leaves us with one certain conclusion. The only poll that matters is not one that comes for any interest group on either side of the debate. It is the "poll" each senator takes to make his/her best calculation of constituents' views. It then will play out in their vote. By the noise from key Senate fence-sitters (you know who they are), the outlook isn't very good.