Polls show little public suport for fossil fuel politicians

[Willinois]

Politicians who side with the coal and oil industry are rewarded with large campaign contributions. But, those positions hold little appeal with the public.

A new poll shows that Americans want policies to support clean energy and not fossil fuel subsidies.

Quote:If Congress thinks it has found a winning issue in trashing wind and solar power ... and if the Obama Administration believes that voters will reward it for boosting coal, gas and nuclear power ... then both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue are making serious miscalculations about the sentiments of mainstream Americans

60% oppose subsidies for fossil fuels. They want the DOE loan program to favor clean energy over coal and nuclear, even after the fake solyndra scandal.

Quote:"One clear message of this survey sit that there is no clear 'Old Fuel Constituency' in the sense of a large number of unified Americans who favor fossil fuels and nuclear power over wind and solar power. In fact, Republicans and Tea Party supporters who might seem like the most logical place for such a constituency are somewhat more likely than others to support federal subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear power, but they also would prefer development of cleaner sources of energy. These are actually quite striking findings in the context of the 2012 election campaign."

Republicans are trying to cut off tax incentives for wind and solar. Even Democrats are focusing on road and bridge projects to create jobs instead of talking about clean energy infrastructure. That may be more popular in DC, but not with the general public.

Quote:Americans do not see more clean energy as a roadblock to economic recovery. More than two thirds of Americans (69 percent) - including 59 percent of Republicans, 73 percent of Independents, 78 percent of Democrats and a plurality of Tea Party supporters (48 percent) - think it would be a "bad idea" for the U.S. " to 'put on hold' progress towards cleaner energy sources during the current economic difficulty."

When DC politicians compromise with coal, oil and nuclear interests they may be moving to what beltway lobbyists see as the "middle." But, that's not what the general public views as the middle. Politicians are moving to positions that have no real voting constituency; only a big money lobbying constituency.

[There Is No Spoon]

Sadly, there is a constituency on those districts where these fossil fuels are produced. With their money behind them, and R's scared to do anything to offend any large corporation or industry in this country, the public's views on this are irrelevant. It's a sad state of affairs (emphasis on "state".)

[Willinois]

(11-06-2011 11:26 AM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  Sadly, there is a constituency on those districts where these fossil fuels are produced. With their money behind them, and R's scared to do anything to offend any large corporation or industry in this country, the public's views on this are irrelevant. It's a sad state of affairs (emphasis on "state".)

In in many of those areas, there's strong public opposition to oil and coal. In West Virginia, for example, a majority of the public oppose mountain top removal mining, according to numerous polls. But, the coal industry has a stranglehold on the political establishment of both parties, which denies voters the opportunity to vote for candidates who agree with them.

It's similar in southern Illinois. The coal industry's power over regional candidates and party leaders is out of proportion to their actual public support. Many voters know that the only real economic future is in clean energy, even if they aren't given the option of voting for candidates who express their views.