Iowa Interfaith Power & Light, the Iowa Farmers Union, and Plains Justice have just completed a survey (PDF) in advance of tomorrow's caucuses.
Short version: Iowans think that we've squandered chances to do something meaningful about energy, and that it's time we started to do so before building new coal plants.
The executive summary is below the fold, but it's worth having a look at the whole presentation.
A scientific, phone-based survey conducted by Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) on December 7-11, 2007, of a representative sample of 1,005 Iowa adults found the following:
- About two thirds of Iowans (65 percent) would support a "one-year-long statewide dialogue in Iowa involving state officials, citizens, unions and utility company regulators to help shape the energy future of Iowa during which current coal-fired power plant plans would be frozen to allow for the most comprehensive discussion." Majority support for a dialogue/freeze is found among Republicans (58 percent), Democrats (71 percent) and Independents (67 percent).Two thirds of the most likely caucus attendees support the concept, including 60 percent who will attend Republican caucuses and 71 percent who will attend Democratic caucuses.
- Nearly four out of five Iowans (79 percent) -- including 69 percent of Republicans, 86 percent of Democrats and 79 percent of Independents -- say that "Iowa should focus on increased (energy) conservation steps and more fuel efficiency to reduce demand for electricity before it constructs new coal-fired power plants." Supporters include 75 percent of the most likely caucus attendees, including 67 percent who will attend Republican caucuses and 88 percent who will attendee Democratic caucuses.
- More than three out of five Iowans (64 percent) -- including 73 percent of Democrats, 54 percent of Republicans and 68 percent of Independents agree with the following statement: "... the best energy alternative is greater efficiency and conservation to eliminate waste, combined with more wind, solar power and other alternative energy ... doing this would ultimately save money in the form of economic benefits to the state, such as cleaner air, healthier children, and fewer public health risks.Therefore, we should not build additional coal-fired power plants in Iowa."
Another coal plant bites the dust
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
Blowing up our clean energy future
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 1:40 pm
02 Jan 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
katakanadian Posted 3:44 pm
02 Jan 2008
Nuclear and CTL are 'alternative' energy sources. It would have been better to say renewable energy.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:46 pm
02 Jan 2008
'Cause if a candidate has an eco-friendly agenda, but doesn't line up with 'em on all that other stuff, chances are most people aren't just gonna vote for the green.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:49 pm
02 Jan 2008
Nuclear and CTL are 'alternative' energy sources. It would have been better to say renewable energy.
With Iowa bein' a mostly rural state that's riding the ethanol craze, even the word "renewable" should be used carefully.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:59 pm
02 Jan 2008
But dissing coal is a good sign.
Would a renewable distributed smart grid, plugin hybrids, geo heat exchange heating/cooling,and biogas from farm waste be discussed during the coal moratorium?
Doubtful, not many people have heard of these.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink