Environmental News: Media Center
WASHINGTON (November 12, 2013) – Most Americans in four key senators’ states support the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s mission to protect health and the environment, and want the agency to limit dangerous carbon pollution from power plants, according to a new poll commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Conducted by Public Policy Polling, the separate polls in Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana and New Hampshire also found overwhelming majorities in each state trust the EPA, and not Congress, to set limits on carbon pollution released by power plants, a key driver of climate change, and most believe such limits would drive innovation and job creation.
In separate polling, the NRDC Action Fund found that more people in those states would support a candidate who supports the EPA setting the first-ever carbon pollution standards, rather than one who does not.
Power plants are the nation’s single-largest source of such pollution, accounting for 40 percent of our national carbon pollution.
“And yet, there are no federal limits on the amount of dangerous carbon pollution our power plants may release," said David Goldston, director of government affairs at NRDC. “We limit the amount of mercury, arsenic, soot, and other harmful pollution from these plants. It's time to cut carbon pollution.”
President Obama promised to do so through the climate action plan he announced in June. He directed the EPA to use its authority under the Clean Air Act to set the first federal limits on the amount of carbon pollution power plants may release. The EPA proposed standards for new plants in September and will propose limits for existing plants by June 2014.
The NRDC poll asked Americans in the four states who they trusted to decide whether there should be limits on carbon pollution: the EPA or Congress. Sixty-five percent of Arkansans trust the EPA while only 8% trust Congress; 68% of Illinoisans trust the EPA compared to 6% who trust Congress; in Louisiana, 67% percent trust the EPA while only 8% trust Congress; and in New Hampshire respondents trust EPA over Congress, 71% to 6%.
The poll also asked about impact on jobs and the economy. Respondents were asked which they believed about the standards: that they’ll put at risk the 760,000 jobs supported by the coal-based industry; or that pollution safeguards could spark innovation and create 210,000 new jobs by upgrading older power plants and increasing energy efficiency.
In Arkansas, 41 to 36 percent said they believed that the standards would create jobs; In Illinois, job creation led by 52 to 28 percent; in Louisiana job creation led by 44 to 32 percent and in New Hampshire job creation won out 55 to 33 percent.
Survey respondents in these states are strongly behind the EPA doing its job. In Arkansas, 54 percent said the EPA is doing the right amount or not enough to protect health and the environment; in Illinois it was 62 percent; in Louisiana it was 59 percent; and in New Hampshire it was 58 percent.
In its separate polling for the NRDC Action Fund, PPP found:
- In Arkansas, 42 percent said they would support a generic candidate who backs EPA taking action on carbon, compared to 34 percent for those opposing action.
- In Illinois, 53 percent said they would support a generic candidate who backs EPA taking action on carbon, compared to 29 percent for those opposing action.
- In Louisiana, 47 percent said they would support a generic candidate who backs EPA taking action on carbon, compared to 32 percent for those opposing action.
- In New Hampshire, 54 percent said they would support a generic candidate who backs EPA taking action on carbon, compared to 30 percent for those opposing action.
The NRDC Action Fund also asked whether respondents would be more or less likely to support particular senators in the 2014 elections if they vote to block EPA setting carbon pollution standards.
The PPP polls show:
- In Arkansas, there would be a 14 point disadvantage for Sen. Mark Pryor (D) if he opposed EPA action.
- In Louisiana, there would be a 14 point disadvantage for Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) if she opposed EPA action.
- In Illinois, there would be a 20 point disadvantage for Sen. Mark Kirk (R) if he opposed EPA action.
- In New Hampshire there would be an 18 point disadvantage for Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R) if she opposed EPA action.
“Voters support candidates who want to take action to reduce carbon pollution,” said Heather Taylor-Miesle, director of the NRDC Action Fund. “This is an opportunity for all candidates to embrace EPA standards that will protect the health and well-being of Americans. Doing the right thing by standing up to dirty polluters is not just good policy, it’s good politics.”
The polls were conducted October 30-31. PPP surveyed: 1,279 voters in Arkansas for a margin of error of plus or minus 2.7 percent; 1,126 voters in Illinois with a margin of error of 2.9 percent; 1,067 voters in Louisiana with a margin of error of 3 percent; and 966 voters in New Hampshire with a margin of error of 3.2 percent.
For details from each poll, click here: http://docs.nrdc.org/air/air_13111201.asp
To hear the teleconference call, click here:
The NRDC Action Fund’s mission is to grow the environmental majority across America to achieve the passage of legislation that jump-starts the clean energy economy, reduces pollution, and sustains vibrant communities for all Americans. Now is the time for leadership and action from our elected officials — our current goal is a comprehensive clean energy policy that will repower our economy and fuel our future. www.nrdcactionfund.org
Public Policy Polling is a national survey research firm located in Raleigh, North Carolina. It was named by the Wall Street Journal as one of the most accurate polling companies in the country for its swing state polling in 2012. Following the 2012 Presidential election, a Fordham University report ranked PPP first among 28 organizations for the accuracy of its final, national pre-election estimates.
Note to Reporters: The NRDC Action Fund is an affiliated but separate organization from the Natural Resources Defense Council. As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, the NRDC Action Fund engages in various advocacy and political activities for which the Natural Resources Defense Council, a 501(c)(3) organization, faces certain legal limitations or restrictions. News and information released by the NRDC Action Fund needs to be identified as from the “NRDC Action Fund.” The “Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund” is incorrect. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the NRDC Action Fund can not be used interchangeably. Also please note that the word “National” does not appear in Natural Resources Defense Council.