Latest poll supports Hatrack's Principle

[pscot]

The bright spot is the number of people who think subsidizing ethanol is a bad idea.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/environment/story/68938.html

WASHINGTON — Asked to choose between lower gasoline prices and reduced greenhouse-gas emissions from gasoline, 66 percent of Americans in a new online survey chose lower gas prices and the rest said that reducing the emissions that cause climate change was more important.

The survey also found that 56 percent of Americans think that the federal government should stop subsidizing ethanol production because they're afraid that it boosts food prices, while the rest said that the subsidies should continue. When they were asked to choose between government subsidies for food crops or for ethanol, 82 percent chose food and the rest chose ethanol.

However, when the respondents were asked whether energy independence or lower food prices were more important, 55 percent said energy independence and the remainder said lower food prices.(snip)

The nonpartisan polling group Ipsos conducted the online survey May 19-25 from a national sample of 1,266 people ages 18 and older. The sample was weighted to reflect the composition of the national population. It wasn't a scientific random sample, however, but the equivalent of a large focus group.

The survey also found that 57 percent of those surveyed said that demand rather than government subsidies should drive ethanol production, while 6 percent disagreed and 37 percent said they neither agreed nor disagreed. About half of those sampled, 51 percent, said that the industry should focus more on producing ethanol from nonfood crops, while 4 percent disagreed and 45 percent neither agreed nor disagreed.(more)

[liberal N proud]

1. Lower prices is simply economic for most people

This gets into one of those debates, if you are not willing to pay higher prices for fuel, then you must not be for the environment. (like the abortion debate, not many if any are pro abortion).

I doubt that anyone would chose to continue destruction of the environment if it were affordable.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Caveat Lector! The context of the "online poll" was ethanol

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/environment/story/68938.html

…

"Because this was an online poll, it has no statistical margin of error. It was based on samples drawn from opt-in online panels. The sample was weighted to reflect the makeup of the population, but it wasn't a random sample that mirrors the population within a statistical probability ratio.

The section the headline is drawn from followed a number of questions on ethanol, after which, they were asked: http://tinyurl.com/qduwbk

For each of the following pairs of items, please select which one is more important to you personally.

Lower food prices - 54%
Lower gasoline prices - 46%

Lower food prices - 64%
Reduced greenhouse gas emissions from gasoline - 36%

Lower gasoline prices - 66%
Reduced greenhouse gas emissions from gasoline - 34%

Government subsidies for food crops - 82%
Government subsidies for crops for ethanol - 18%

Energy independence - 55%
Lower food prices - 45%

Context is important.

[pscot]

3. It notes in the article

that this was not a scientific survey.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Question sequence is an important consideration in the construction of a questionnaire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questionnaire_construction

If respondents are primed by a series of questions like

"Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements.

…

Industry should focus more on producing ethanol from non-food crops such as switchgrass (51% agreed, 4% disagreed)

Increased demand for corn to produce ethanol will cause farmers to grow less of other food crops (51% agreed, 12% disagreed)

Government subsidies for ethanol contribute to higher food prices (50% agreed, 5% disagreed)

Production of corn-based ethanol actually increases greenhouse gas emissions by changing current patterns of land use (31% agreed, 10% disagreed)

…"

that will influence their answers to subsequent questions.

So, the question of which is more important, "Lower food prices or Reduced greenhouse gas emissions from gasoline" should really be read as "Lower food prices (by not producing corn ethanol) or Reduced greenhouse gas emissions from gasoline (by adding corn ethanol)"


Someone who simply opposes the production of ethanol from corn may be led to answer that lower food prices are more important to them than reduced greenhouse gases from gasoline. (Notice also that the question is about "Reduced greenhouse gas emissions from gasoline" and not "Reduced greenhouse gas emissions" so someone who feels that producing corn ethanol increases greenhouse gas emissions overall, should answer that lower food prices are more important.)

The poll was either designed to produce misleading results, or was poorly designed.

[Taitertots]

5. What is wrong with people

82% would favor food subsidy over ethonal subsidies.

They would rather have high fuel prices, pollution, and high food prices.

They want food subsidies because they are worried ethonal subsidies with raise food prices.

[Dead_Parrot]

6. What is wrong, is people. nt

[Taitertots]

7. Wrong for wanting to eat? n/t

[Dead_Parrot]

8. No, just for being.

We've got 6.78 billion people, maybe 1 trillion barrels of oil, and about 17 million km² of cultivated land.

Or, if you prefer, each person gets 147 barrels of oil and 0.6 acres of land. That's not enough to support our way of living whichever way you subsidise it.

The other problem, of course, is that very few people want to admit that the first problem exists. Apparently it's more fun to do a 50 mile commute every day and complain about having to pay a whole $2.50 per gallon for gas. :nopity:

[Taitertots]

11. What should they do, kill themselves?

I'm going to assume that since you are sure this is the problem that you have already gotten a vasectomy or hysterectomy.

Your suggested solution is...

[NickB79]

12. Pointing out the obvious doesn't require someone to also point out a solution

Sometimes there are no solutions.

[Taitertots]

13. It just lacks substance

I believe we can figure out how to increase global food and energy supplies, at least to supply the current earth population and maybe the next generation. We still need to figure out a means to decrease population. That alone isn't going to be the deciding factor in our future. How we work now to design the next level of human society is going to be what figures it out.

My original point was that people are opposed to ethanol subsidy because it will increase food costs. While at the same time they support food subsidy that makes food more expensive. So much so that they would rather have food subsidy over ethanol subsidy. They will just end up with more expensive food and fuel.

[Dead_Parrot]

15. I'd dissagree about future production

We've seen massive crop failures in the US, Eastern Europe, Burma and Australia in the last few years. Of course there always have been crop failures, but they seem to getting more frequent: Some analysts are painting a rather grim picture for upcoming years.

[Dead_Parrot]

14. Well, the problem will resolve itself, eventually

We probably want to mitigate that if we can: decent education, mandated limits (like China's one child policy) and improved healthcare would all help. I don't know if they would be sufficient, and I don't think we're likely to find out because the chances of the problem being tackled before we get seriously bitten is almost zero.

[excess_3]

9. does the US 'owe' food to the world?

if so, how much, who decides?

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. Are you responding to this article?

Or to some other article?