[1]. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Protecting the environment is so important that requirements and standards cannot be too high and continuing environmental improvements must be made regardless of cost.
Responses: Harris Interactive
Aug 2005
CBS/NYT
Nov 2002
CBS/NYT
Jan2002

CBS/NYT
March 2001
Agree 74% 57% 56% 61%
Disagree 24 36 39 33
Don't know/No answer 1 7 5 6
         
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Protecting the environment is so important that requirements and standards cannot be too high, and continuing environmental improvements must be made regardless of cost. Strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree
     
Responses:    
Strongly agree 37%  
Somewhat agree 29  
Somewhat disagree 19  
Strongly disagree 12  
Don't know/Refused 3  
Organization: Wirthlin Worldwide
Sample Size: 1005
Dates: Oct 20, 2000 to Oct 23, 2000
   

 

[1a]. STATEMENT: As you may know, a bill to address the problem of climate change has been introduced in Congress by a Democratic and a Republican Senator. This bill would set specific limits on the amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that large companies can emit. This bill has gone through several drafts. The following questions talk about a draft that would require that by the year 2010, the US would reduce its emissions to what they were in the year 2000, and by 2020 to what they were in 1990.

Q. Just based on what you know, do you favor or oppose having such limits on how much greenhouse gases large companies can emit?
  6/05 6/04
Favor
83% 81
Oppose 13 16
(No answer) 4 3
     
Q. If in fact it appears that it would likely cost $15 a month for an average household, would you favor or oppose enacting such a bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
     
  6/05 6/04
Favor
68% 67%
Oppose 28 30
(No answer) 4 4
     
[2]. Question: President Bush has not yet signed an international treaty that would take steps to slow down global warming. Some of Bush's advisors say the treaty will harm our economy. Should Bush sign the treaty if it harms our economy now, but helps the environment in the long run?
Yes 58%
No 26
Don't know 15
Refused 1
   

Organization: Gordon S. Black Corporation / U.S.A. Today
Population Size: 1000
Date: MAY 7, 1992

 

[3]. Question: What if signing the treaty (an international treaty that would take steps to slow down global warming) would not significantly harm the economy, but would increase the cost of gasoline and electricity. Should (President) Bush sign the treaty?
Yes 58%
No 33
Don't know 9
Refused *
* = less than .5 percent  
   

Organization: Gordon S. Black Corporation / U.S.A. Today
Population Size: 1000
Date: MAY 7, 1992

 

 

[3a]. As you may know, when Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, existing power plants were exempt from meeting modern pollution standards with the hope that these plants would be replaced, but many of these old plants are still in use. I'm going to read you a pair of statements about this proposal. Old coal-burning plants should be required to meet the same environmental standards as newer power plants because these old plants are responsible for most of the pollution and we will not be successful at reducing air pollution until these older, dirty plants are cleaned up. These standards can be met through investments in cost-effective technology. Coal-burning power plants produce a large amount of the energy in this country and putting more regulations on them will raise the cost of power and lead to higher utility bills for consumers. Some power plants could be forced to close down which would reduce our energy supplies at a time when we desperately need them and would put people out of work. Now, do you favor or oppose the proposal to require power plants to meet newer standards? (If favor/oppose, ask:) (Would that be favor/oppose much or somewhat?)
Responses:
 
Favor much 41%
Favor somewhat 37
Oppose somewhat 8
Oppose much 5
Don't know/refused 9
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research And The Tarrance Group
Beginning date: MAR 13, 2002 Ending date: MAR 19, 2002

 
[4]. Would you personally be willing to support tough government actions to help reduce global warming even if each of the following things happened as a result or wouldn't you be willing to do so?...Your utility bills went up
Responses:  
Yes 47%
No 49
Not sure 4
   
Organization: Time/C.N.N./Harris Interactive
Population: National adult
Dates: MAR 21, 2001 to MAR 22, 2001
 
   
If in fact it appears that it would cost and extra $50 a month for an average household, would you favor or oppose signing the Kyoto treaty?
Responses:  
Favor 36%
Oppose 52
Oppose treaty regardless of cost
[volunteered] 2
Favor signing treaty no matter what it costs
[volunteered] 0.1
Don't know/refused 10
Organization: Program on International Policy Attitudes
Sample Size: 648
Dates: February 13-17, March 15-17, April 16-20, 1998
 

[5]. How willing would you be to pay $X more per month to buy environmentally clean energy such as solar and wind power from your electric utility company in order to cut down CO2 emissions?
Responses: Willing
$5 73%
$10 75
$20 64
Organization: The Mellman Group
Sample Size: 1,000
Dates: SEP 8, 1998 to SEP 14, 1998
 

[6]. Electric companies, gas companies, and oil companies cause air pollution when they produce electricity and fuel for people to use. If these companies change the methods they use so that they produce less air pollution, it will cost them more money, and this will cause the price of electricity, gas, and oil to go up. The more prices go up, the more air pollution could be prevented. Would you be willing to pay any more money each month for electricity, gas, and oil in order to reduce the amount of air pollution that these companies produce? (If yes, ask:) About how much more money would you be willing to pay each month for electricity, gas, and oil?
Responses:
Yes: $1-4 6%
Yes: $5-9 11
Yes: $10-29 33
Yes: $30 or more 18
No   22
Don't know   1
Refused   9
Organization: Ohio State University Survey Research Unit
Sample Size: 688
Dates: SEP 15, 1997 to OCT 5, 1997
   

[7]. Still on the same issue, I will now read you the opinions of two different people, let's call them Wilson and Brown. After listening to both, please tell me which comes closest to describing how you feel. Wilson: Is worried that new pollution standards will result in increased costs for gasoline, energy, and many consumer products which would add up to more than $1000 a year for the average American household. He believes that this is too much for just a 5% reduction in pollutants targeted in the Kyoto protocol. Brown: Believes that some increases in the cost of gas, energy, and consumer products are expected and worth the price if it can reduce the threat of global warming and other negative effects of global pollution. Would you say your opinion is more like Wilson's or more like Brown's? (If Wilson/ Brown, ask:) Would you say exactly like Wilson/Brown or just somewhat like Wilson/Brown?
Responses:  
Exactly Wilson--does not want increased costs 9%
Somewhat Wilson--does not want increased costs 30
Somewhat Brown--increased costs expected 45
Exactly Brown--increased costs expected 15
Neither (vol.) 1
Don't know/Refused 1
Organization: Wirthlin Worldwide
Sample Size: 1010
Dates: SEP 11, 1998 to SEP 14, 1998
 

[8]. Would you be willing to pay 5 cents more per gallon of gasoline if it would significantly reduce global warming, or wouldn't you?
Subpopulation: Asked of Form 1 half sample
Responses:  
Yes 73%
No 24
Don't know/Refused 3
Organization: Princeton Survey Research Associates
Sample Size: 1200
Dates: NOV 12, 1997 to NOV 16, 1997
 
   
Would you be willing to pay 25 cents more per gallon of gasoline if it would significantly reduce global warming, or wouldn't you?
Subpopulation: Asked of Form 2 half sample
Responses:  
Yes 73%
No 24
Don't know/Refused 3
   
Organization: Princeton Survey Research Associates
Sample Size: 1200
Dates: NOV 12, 1997 to NOV 16, 1997
 

[9]. (I'm going to list some of the specific proposals that have been made to decrease the use of oil, coal, and gasoline in order to reduce the threat of global warming. For each item I read, please tell me if you favor or oppose each one. If you aren't sure how you feel about any specific item, just say so and we will go on.)... Increase the tax on gasoline by 10 cents per gallon and earmark the money for research and development of alternative fuels and technologies. (If favor or oppose, ask:) Do you strongly favor/oppose or only somewhat favor/oppose? Subpopulation: Asked of Form B 1/5 sample
Responses:  
Strongly favor 25%
Somewhat favor 23
Somewhat oppose 13
Strongly oppose 36
Don't know 3
Organization: The Mellman Group
Sample Size: 800
Dates: AUG 11, 1997 to AUG 14, 1997
 

[10]. Would you be willing to pay an extra 25 cents per gallon of gas to reduce pollution and global warming?
Responses:

 
Yes 48%
No 49
Not sure 3
Organization: Harris Interactive
Samnple Size: 1025
Dates: MAR 21, 2001 to MAR 22, 2001
 

 

[10a] Q. Assuming that it would cost more to buy or lease a car, would you approve or disapprove of the government requiring car manufacturers to meet higher fuel efficiency standards than they do now?
Approve
77%
Disapprove 20
(No answer) 3
   
Organization: PIPA, Jan 2005  

Would you approve or disapprove of the government requiring car manufacturers to meet higher fuel efficiency standards than they do now?
  PIPA June 2004 CBS/NYT Sept 2003
Approve
82% 76%
Disapprove
17 18
No answer/DK 2 6
     
What if that meant it would cost more to own or lease a car, then would you approve or disapprove of the government requiring car manufacturers to meet higher fuel efficiency standards than they do now?
  PIPA June 2004 CBS/NYT Sept 2003
Approve
63% 59%
Disapprove
36 32
No answer/DK 2 10
     
In the CBS/NYT poll, only those respondents that said “approve” in the previous question, received this question as a follow-up.

 

[11]. There has been an increase in the sale of sport utility vehicles and other large automobiles around the country. These cars use more gas per mile than other automobiles. Environmental groups say the government should require the auto industry to improve fuel efficiency for SUVs to help the country meet its energy needs. The auto industry says that doing so would raise the price of new cars. Based on this, do you support or oppose government action to require improved gas mileage for SUVs?
Responses:
 
Support 73%
Oppose 21
Don't know 6

Organization: Los Angeles Times
Sample Size: 813
APR 21, 2001 to APR 26, 2001
 
   
Should the federal government require improvements in fuel efficiency for cars and trucks even if this means higher prices and smaller vehicles or don't you think it should do so?
Responses:  
Yes 55%
No 40
Not sure 5

Organization: Harris Interactive
Sample Size: 1025
Dates: MAR 21, 2001 to MAR 22, 2001
 

[12]. (Would you personally be willing to support tough government actions to help reduce global warming even if each of the following things happened as a result or wouldn't you be willing to do so?)...There was a mild increase in inflation
Responses:  
Yes 54%
No 39
Not sure 7


Organization: Harris Interactive
Sample Size: 1025
Dates: MAR 21, 2001 to MAR 22, 2001

 
   
(Would you personally be willing to support tough government actions to help reduce global warming even if each of the following things happened as a result or wouldn't you be willing to do so?)... Unemployment increased
Responses:  
Yes 38%
No 55
Not sure 7


Organization: Harris Interactive
Sample Size: 1025
Dates: MAR 21, 2001 to MAR 22, 2001

 
[12a]. Program on International Policy Attitudes
Q8. Which comes closer to your opinion?
  6/05 6/04
Efforts in the United States to reduce the release of greenhouse gases will cost too much money and hurt the US economy
23% 29%
The US economy will become more competitive because these efforts will result in more efficient energy use, saving money in the long run
71 67
(No answer) 7 5

[13]. Which comes closer to your opinion? Efforts in the United States to reduce the release of greenhouse gases will cost too much money and hurt the US economy, or the US economy will become more competitive because these efforts will result in more efficient energy use, saving money in the long run.
Subpopulation: See note
Responses:
 
Hurt economy/cost too much 20%
Help economy/saves money 67
Depends (vol.) 2
Don't know/No answer 11
Asked of those who heard or read a lot/some/notn much about global warming (85%).

Organization: CBS News/New York Times
Sample Size: 953
Dates: NOV 23, 1997 to NOV 24, 1997
 

[14]. Which of the following statements comes closest to your own point of view: A. Stricter regulations on the emission of carbon dioxide from the use
of oil, coal and gasoline would go too far, and hurt the economy and cost jobs or B. stricter regulations on the emission of carbon dioxide from the use of oil, coal and gasoline will help stop global warming, protect our health and safety, create new jobs through new technologies and are worth the cost?
Responses:
 
Stricter regulations would go too far 18%
Stricter regulations will help 60
Not sure 22
Organization: The Mellman Group
Sample Size: 800
Dates: AUG 11, 1997 to AUG 14, 1997
 

[15]. Question: Do you think this agreement will hurt the economy and cost jobs, do you think this agreement will not affect the economy and jobs, or do you think this agreement will help the economy by creating new jobs through new technologies, or don't you have an opinion on this?
Hurt the economy and cost jobs 21%
No effect on economy and jobs 24
Help economy/create new jobs, new technologies 38
Don't know 17


Organization: Mellman Group / World Wildlife Fund
Population Size: 1000
Date: SEPT 1998

 
[15a]. According to an estimate done by MIT, cutting greenhouse gas emissions as much as this draft of the new bill would require will increase various costs to the average American household by about $15 a month. Do you tend to feel that this estimate is
  PIPA June 2004 PIPA June 2005
On the high side
28% 29%
On the low side
27 31
Approximately correct
38 32
Don't know/refused 7 6

[16]. As you may know, there is some controversy about how much it will cost the US to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions 5 to 8% below 1990 levels, as the Kyoto Treaty requires. There are different estimates because there are uncertainties about how difficult it will be to make reductions and also different preferences for how to pursue reductions. I would like to get a sense of what you think about some of the estimates that have been made. According to one estimate, cutting our emissions as much as the treaty requires will increase energy costs for an average American household by about $50 a month. I'd just like your hunch, do you tend to feel that this estimate is on the high side, on the low side, or approximately correct?
Responses:  
On the high side 59%
On the low side 9
Approximately correct 20
Don't know/refused 11
   
Organization: Program on International Policy Attitudes
Sample Size: 648
Dates: February 13-17, March 15-17, April 16-20, 1998
 

[17]. Do you believe that economic growth should be sacrificed for environmental quality, should environmental quality be sacrificed for economic growth, or does it not necessarily have to be a choice between the two?
Responses:  
   
Sacrifice economic growth for environmental quality . 24%
Sacrifice environmental quality for economic growth . 4
Does not have to be a choice 68
Don't know/Refused 3

Organization: Wirthlin Worldwide
Sample Size: 1023
Dates: OCT 22, 1999 to OCT 28, 1999