Tweet
Last week, Pew released a survey with the headline ‘Support for Alternative Energy and Offshore Drilling.’ The piece begins, "The public continues to favor a wide range of government policies to address the nation’s energy supply…"
That is accurate, but it doesn’t get at the most striking data. The most important finding in the survey is the fact that clean energy and mass transit investments are vastly more popular than nuclear investments and offshore drilling.
Here is how Pew presents the data (Figure 1):
As a mini-case study on how informational graphics can add significant meaning to this sort of data, I’ve created a few simple charts.
This chart (Figure 2) shows the approval and disapproval numbers for the four policy options:
And this chart (Figure 3) shows the net approval numbers for the four policy options:
Presenting the information in text only format, as Pew chose to do in Figure 1, leaves the reader to their own devices to identify the most compelling data. While the data is technically accurate, it fails to bring the meaning of the data to the forefront. Pew’s accompanying analysis of the polling data also somehow fails to identify the massive gap in net approval for the policies they surveyed.
Creating a simple chart (Figure 2) based on the data itself adds significant value to the presentation of the data, especially for the casual reader. The reader can tell at a glance that clean energy investments are significantly more popular than polluting energy sources, and that unpopularity follows the opposite pattern.
Going one step further and doing simple arithmetic to determine the net approval for each of the policies in the survey, as I’ve done with Figure 3, brings the most striking data to the forefront. The fact that more than 50% of Americans support a variety of policies to produce-more or consume-less energy is not, in itself, especially meaningful. But the fact that the net approval for some of these policies is 40-60%, while it is barely 10% for others, is fairly compelling.
19 Comments
In terms of implementation, emphasis should be on mass transit.
The technology behind mass transit systems is extremely mature. It’s just a matter of building them. We could invest a great deal of money on this and see immediate returns in terms of reduced pollution and fewer oil imports.
Alternative energy isn’t nearly as mature in terms of technology. That means more investment in research while rolling out new implementations as the technology advancement allows.
I’m not opposed to some types of modern nuclear plants in situations where the alternative is coal&NG plants.
Drilling… bah, we drill too much oil already. We just use it very poorly. Bumper to bumper 18 wheelers on I-95 etc…
There’s insufficient infrastructure, know-how, materials, intelligence, and history in rail services to implement the most desirable energy policy, alas. Conservation measures involving improved efficiencies are always poo-pooed by the mandarins and poobahs of the talking head variety — kings lead hat. They opt for the quick fix, import more oil, to feed the fat-ass SUVs driven by fat-asses. Dieting would be one way to earn carbon credits, what?
Transit is only a portion of the national energy consumption. We also heat our homes and workplaces, grow food, etc. Finally, I think that we all need to understand that every physical thing we buy had to be manufactured from raw materials – even if it was manufactured completely outside of the US – and these manufacturing processes probably consume a huge amount of energy.
Mass transit is a fantastic goal, and should be pursued. However, it is not even a transportation panacea let alone an energy panacea and technologies ranging from the cleaner (solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, each of which has its environmental impact) through the dirtier (nuclear, which makes waste, and fossil fuels) will all need to be developed.
The only way to drastically reduce overall energy consumption is to yes implement mass transit but more to the point tell the American consumer that his shirts, cell phones, automobiles, furniture, and all the rest of longer-lasting things need to last for 10 years not 2, and that his food consumption needs to reduce substantially and that he can’t have fresh fruit from New Zealand in the winter just because the fruit he seeks is out of season in the northern hemisphere.
That is a hard thing to sell buddy.
(I am for the reduced consumption myself.)
And, oh yes, that buy-a-new-computer-every-2-years-thing? In order to get the latest fastest processors etc? Try making your computer last 5 years, and try buying the 400 dollar netbook instead of that beautiful aluminum-cased 2000 dollar Macbook because computers take a lot of energy (and pollution) to manufacture. The computer and software industry will just love you for doing this, really, the industry really wants consumer to greatly slowdown and downgrade their computer purchases because the industry really isn’t trying to innovate and mass produce simultaneously or anything like that.
(My point is that attacking the energy and carbon budgets across the US will also entail slowing down the mass production of cutting edge computer, software, and internet technologies that we all love, that the industry will hate any such movement and oppose it, and a lot of us won’t like to experience the result.)
Look at Intel’s Tic Tok policy.
Consider the Atom processor.
That’s for openers. Did you know that Intel is looking into the solar panel business?
Buying the Macbook would make a lot more sense. It’s liable to actually be useful in 5-years, rather than a cheap netbook which is already pathetically limited in use-cases. The whole thing with netbooks is that they’re essentially disposable computers. How is that a good thing?
Not to mention that Apple has spent the last few years going way out of their way to lead other manufacturers in reducing toxic and unrecyclable materials in both their finished products and their manufacturing processes. That $300 netbook cut every possible corner to hit that price point. The netbook might use a little less power when running, but that’s the end of its eco-friendlyness.
Have you looked into how much energy goes into producing that aluminum case? Aluminum is one of the most energy-intensive metals to work with in mass production. Likewise, have you looked into what most people really do use the dual-core Macbooks for? Yep! Web surfing. Editing their resumes. No need for virtual everything that goes into the Mac.
Netbooks don’t have to be any more or less disposable than the Macbook. The netbook can last 5 years just the same. And it isn’t made from an energy intensive aluminum case, nor does it have dual-core processors which are largely used to load web pages or edit a document, which is the bulk of what most people use computers for most of the time they are using computers.
Think about it. Really.
I assume this statement about aluminum being super-energy intensive to work with comes from the amount of electricity required to separate it from bauxite in the first place? What of the petrol and/or alcohol used to produce the plastics? Or perhaps the mercury used in the internal components?
Otherwise, it’s quite a bit easier to work with than steel, and significantly more so than magnesium and titanium. It’s easier on tooling, takes less heat to cut, and is extremely recyclable. The unibody casing drastically reduces overall production time and cost, in both tooling and assembly after the large initial capital investment.
The difference in Atom vs Core power usage is significant in relative terms looking only at max TDP, but the real difference is incredibly use specific. For instance, an Atom CPU is much more likely to be running at full speed, because it will need to ramp up more frequently to meet relatively modest demand. Whereas a Core CPU can run at lower speed steps (consuming less power) over a wider variety of uses. So how much savings is there really with an Atom running full out consuming 7W and a ULV Core 2 running at 12W?
I mean the significant improvement of the longevity of your investment, the significantly fewer toxic components, and the massive improvement in materials recyclability of the Macbook have to provide some marked improvement to its eco-friendliness over the lifetime of the machine, and it’s retirement; no?
I have both. An Asus 1005 and a Unibody Macbook. The Asus is a neat little computer, but it is definitely going to end up in a landfill long before the Macbook gets recycled.
That is exactly right.
Mass transit/rapid transit are not effective methods of reducing energy and carbon simply by virtue they both require people. Granted, mass transit has a better chance of survival in larger met areas (NYC/Chicago/Atlanta). One would think California would be an ideal location, but not so. Both mass/rapid are failing miseraby as commuter costs are so high, just to maintain, that people are abandoning in droves. There was a recent article not long ago about the woes in CA – I’ll see if I can find the link.
Alternate energy will likely work, to some degree. Oregon is installing a huge tidal system, we’ll see. Wind turbines have serious issues also. The problem with most alternative methods is the fact, for the most part, they are regional. Setup grids and buy credits, then you have third parties involved, such as carbon traders, and the systems become prey to corruption.
The bottom line is we all need to learn how to live, work and play a lot smarter than we do. Being in the sustainable design/construction industry, we are achieving great results in just being smarter. Water conservation may not seem like a big issue, but the largest benefactor is energy reduction (heating the water, pumping, process, etc). More intelligent construction practices. Reducing VMT (vehicle miles travelled) to and from work and Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient vehicles. These add up to savings. Merely replacing the energy source doesn’t reduce consumption.
That’s just a matter of ineffective policy, not ineffective technology.
- Crank up the tax on gasoline
- Crank up the parking costs in congested area’s
- Make sure that public transport is cheap and has well designed routes. The increase in gas and parking taxes can be used to subsidize it.
We had pretty extensive public transport until the 1950′s when the trolly lines were ripped up.
Reduced consumption is just a means to an end, not the goal in itself.
“Reduced consumption is just a means to an end, not the goal in itself.”
I disagree. Two of the major goals of USGBC and LEED APs is to increase energy performance and reduce carbon footprints. At a minimum, the lowest level of LEED certification mandates a 10% increase in energy performance – with points awarded up to a 48% increase. It would take a whole lot of alternative energy resources to match these – and I am a strong advocate of alternative energy.
“That’s just a matter of ineffective policy, not ineffective technology”
Again, I disagree, it’s about people.
http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-transportation/ci_14142274%29
Furthermore, your bulleted list is unfair to those (majority) who have no need for mass/rapid transit. You propose a gas rate increase for all? That will help get public opinion to support mass/rapid transit. Another goal of USGBC is to encourage urban redevelopment. Not going to happen until there is a public need. As long as suburban lifestyles are available, urban redevelopment and any attempt at forced reintroduction into urban areas will remain a contentious argument between your side and mine.
Back in the 80′ when I began buidling houses, you couldn’t sell a custom home to anyone who worked downtown and had to travel more than 15 minutes. Then one of the members of the community bought Penn Central Railroad and Chiquita Banana and moved all the employees to town. These people laughed at us as they were accustomed to driving two to three hours a day to and from work. As long as I have the option, I will remain living in less populated areas. Every year our city loses population and businesses to the suburbs and the other two (less populated) states in our tristate area. So, you want to penalize me to subsidize the minority?
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors…we borrow it from our children
Thank you for turning data into information.
Compelling case study on graphical presentation of evidence. I’m happy to see a lot more polls presented in the ‘net’ format nowadays, as in your Figure 3.
I think we’ve seen, with #hcr, that popularity of various alternatives has very little to do with what ends up in the final bills. Otherwise, we’d have Single Payer, or at least a very robust Public Option, in #hcr right now. As in #hcr, there are powerful elements aligned against the popular will.
America cannot function like this much longer. It’s time to figure out what we’re about.
Yeah, but Mr. Bipartisan has a pulse on the wants of the Republican Party. Who do you think he’s going to listen to?
I’ll be honest, a poll about what technologies are popular for energy means about as much pulling treatment options for my diabetes out of a hat. I’m glad the renewable/clean technologies are popular, the issue is do they work, are they cost competitive with other options, and what is the most efficient way to reduce waste/emissions. Its more complex than the average pollster/pollee interaction.
I wonder what would happen to the approval number for nukes if the question said the plant would be built five miles from the respondents home?
Given the choice between living near a newly constructed coal plant vs new nuclear plant… I’d choose the nuclear plant. As for our creeky old nuclear plants… I wouldn’t want to live within 1000 miles(they need to be shutdown/replaced).
Agreed. I can’t help but think that the overwhelming problem with responses to questions about nuclear energy in the U.S. is that they come from incredibly outmoded understanding of the state of nuclear technology.
We’re way, way too far behind the curve to pursue a nuclear power strategy even if we wanted to at this point. So, the issue is really moot. That said, Gen. III and Gen III+ reactors are significant improvements in efficiency, safety, and fuel recycling compared to anything we have in the U.S.
Considering how far out we are from pursuit of any initiative like this it makes almost no sense to consider anything other than the Gen. IV solutions that are being researched and developed now.