CONGRESS

Public Wary of Sequestration, Not Clean Energy

Amy Harder
May 22, 2012, 5:30 p.m.

A large ma­jor­ity of Amer­ic­ans sup­port a pair of con­gres­sion­al ef­forts to cre­ate an eco­nomy based on clean­er-en­ergy sources, ac­cord­ing to the latest United Tech­no­lo­gies/Na­tion­al Journ­al Con­gres­sion­al Con­nec­tion Poll.

Al­most two-thirds””64 per­cent””of those sur­veyed said that Con­gress should ex­tend fed­er­al tax cred­its that en­cour­age pro­duc­tion of al­tern­at­ive-en­ergy sources, such as wind, that are due to ex­pire at year’s end. In a sep­ar­ate ques­tion, 64 per­cent of re­spond­ents said they sup­port en­act­ment of a clean-en­ergy stand­ard, which would re­quire the coun­try to pro­duce a high­er per­cent­age of its elec­tri­city from clean­er sources of en­ergy.

The United Tech­no­lo­gies/Na­tion­al Journ­al Con­gres­sion­al Con­nec­tion Poll, con­duc­ted by Prin­ceton Sur­vey Re­search As­so­ci­ates In­ter­na­tion­al, sur­veyed 1,004 adults by land­line and cell phone from May 17-20, 2012. It has a mar­gin of sampling er­ror of +/- 3.6 per­cent­age points.

The poll’s find­ings in­dic­ate a dis­con­nect between what the pub­lic says it wants and what this Con­gress is able or will­ing to do on en­ergy policy, which in an elec­tion year is mostly nil.

In a vis­it on Thursday to Iowa””the coun­try’s second-largest wind-pro­du­cing state after Texas””Pres­id­ent Obama will urge Con­gress to ex­tend a key pro­duc­tion tax cred­it for wind and a clean-en­ergy man­u­fac­tur­ing cred­it. Con­gress is un­likely to con­sider these tax cred­its un­til year’s end when law­makers take up the an­nu­al “tax-ex­tenders” pack­age. Wheth­er con­gres­sion­al sup­port­ers of the tax cred­its, in­clud­ing seni­or Re­pub­lic­an Sen. Chuck Grass­ley of Iowa, can muster enough sup­port to ex­tend the cred­its re­mains un­cer­tain and likely de­pends on the out­come of the elec­tions. Ac­tion this year on a clean-en­ergy stand­ard meas­ure in­tro­duced by re­tir­ing Sen­ate En­ergy and Nat­ur­al Re­sources Chair­man Jeff Binga­man, D-N.M., is very un­likely no mat­ter how Elec­tion Day goes.

While sup­port for these clean-en­ergy policies was pre­dict­ably stronger among Demo­crats and in­de­pend­ents than Re­pub­lic­ans, re­spond­ents identi­fy­ing with the GOP were split. Al­most half of Re­pub­lic­ans said they sup­port ex­tend­ing clean-en­ergy tax cred­its (48 per­cent) and en­act­ing a clean-en­ergy stand­ard (47 per­cent). That sup­port is not re­flec­ted in Wash­ing­ton, where most con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans shun clean-en­ergy policies, es­pe­cially an en­ergy man­date, in fa­vor of less gov­ern­ment in­volve­ment and re­du­cing the de­fi­cit.

Sup­port for the two policies was high­er among blacks and His­pan­ics, young­er people, and earners mak­ing less than $30,000 a year. For ex­ample, 61 per­cent of whites said they sup­port ex­tend­ing clean-en­ergy tax cred­its, but 72 per­cent of His­pan­ics and blacks said they do. Just over three-quar­ters of re­spond­ents between ages 18 and 29 said they sup­port ex­tend­ing the tax cred­its, while 54 per­cent of re­spond­ents older than 50 said they do.

Al­though Wash­ing­ton and the pub­lic ap­pear dis­con­nec­ted on clean-en­ergy policy, they’re more united on an­oth­er key en­ergy is­sue: hy­draul­ic frac­tur­ing, or “frack­ing,” a con­tro­ver­sial tech­no­logy used to de­vel­op de­pos­its of shale nat­ur­al gas and oil re­cently dis­covered in many re­gions of the coun­try.

A slight ma­jor­ity of Amer­ic­ans are aligned with the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion’s re­cent ac­tion to reg­u­late frack­ing, ac­cord­ing to the sur­vey: 53 per­cent said they sup­port in­creas­ing fed­er­al reg­u­la­tion of frack­ing; 25 per­cent said they sup­port de­creas­ing fed­er­al reg­u­la­tions to en­cour­age more nat­ur­al-gas pro­duc­tion. Only 15 per­cent said that the coun­try should com­pletely ban frack­ing be­cause of the en­vir­on­ment­al con­cerns, in­clud­ing wor­ries that it could con­tam­in­ate drink­ing-wa­ter sup­plies and worsen cli­mate change.

The ad­min­is­tra­tion is very un­likely to sup­port a com­plete ban on frack­ing. But it has in the past month an­nounced two reg­u­la­tions, in­clud­ing one to cut air emis­sions from frack­ing and an­oth­er re­quir­ing com­pan­ies drilling on pub­lic lands to dis­close the chem­ic­als they use. The fed­er­al gov­ern­ment has in the past left frack­ing reg­u­la­tion to states, but the shale-gas boom and es­cal­at­ing en­vir­on­ment­al con­cerns have promp­ted the ad­min­is­tra­tion to step in.

Ma­jor­it­ies of Demo­crats (60 per­cent) and in­de­pend­ents (55 per­cent) said that the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment should in­crease reg­u­la­tions, while al­most a quarter (24 per­cent) of in­de­pend­ents agreed with 41 per­cent of Re­pub­lic­ans that the gov­ern­ment should de­crease reg­u­la­tions to stim­u­late more en­ergy pro­duc­tion.

Re­spond­ents in the East, which in­cludes Ap­palachi­an states such as Pennsylvania that are ground zero for the shale-gas boom, are the least sup­port­ive of frack­ing. But even there, only 18 per­cent back a com­plete ban. Ex­actly half sup­port in­creas­ing fed­er­al reg­u­la­tions.

Mean­while, Amer­ic­ans seem the most di­vided over what Wash­ing­ton should do with the im­pend­ing auto­mat­ic cuts of $600 bil­lion in both do­mest­ic pro­grams and de­fense spend­ing, which Con­gress agreed last sum­mer to im­pose at year’s end if it couldn’t reach an agree­ment to re­duce the de­fi­cit.

A plur­al­ity (41 per­cent) said that Con­gress should up­hold the ori­gin­al agree­ment to equally bal­ance the cuts between de­fense and do­mest­ic pro­grams, but an­oth­er 26 per­cent said that Con­gress should cut more from do­mest­ic pro­grams and less from de­fense. Yet an­oth­er 20 per­cent said Con­gress should strike the en­tire deal and not im­pose any cuts at all.

A ma­jor­ity of Demo­crats (54 per­cent) said that the agree­ment should stay as is, but few­er in­de­pend­ents (43 per­cent) and Re­pub­lic­ans (32 per­cent) agreed with that po­s­i­tion. Al­most half (44 per­cent) of Re­pub­lic­ans said that more cuts should come from do­mest­ic pro­grams to pre­serve de­fense spend­ing. Re­spond­ents with a high school de­gree or less seemed to be the least sup­port­ive of keep­ing the agree­ment as it is””just 36 per­cent sup­por­ted the status quo.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
10 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
11 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×