Americans Strongly Favor Raising Fuel Economy Standards to 50 MPG, Poll Finds
By Scott Doggett May 18, 2010
50-mpg fleet would save more oil in 2 years than all proven reserves in Gulf of Mexico.
By Scott Doggett, Contributing Editor
A national survey and report released today by the Consumer Federation of America show that, even before the oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico, Americans strongly supported reduced oil consumption and tougher fuel economy standards.
In a late March survey commissioned by the CFA and undertaken by Opinion Research Corp., 87 percent of respondents said it is "important that the country reduce its consumption of oil," while 54 percent said this was "very important," Jack Gillis, CFA Director of Public Affairs and author of "The Car Book," said in a teleconference with reporters today.
This strong support for reduced oil consumption helps explain why nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of respondents agreed that "the government should increase the fuel economy standard to an average of 50 miles per gallon by 2025," Gillis said.
A new standard at this level would double the 25 mpg average of the current motor vehicle fleet and increase the 35 mpg standard set for 2016 by 15 mpg.
When informed the U.S. holds less than three percent of the world's oil reserves, the proportion of respondents who felt it "very important" to reduce our oil dependence increased from 54 percent to 68 percent and the proportion who supported a 50 mpg standard rose from 66 percent to 72 percent.
"Our survey data strongly suggest that the American public is getting very close to the point, if they're not already there, where they are prepared to support radical measures to break our nation's dependence on oil and oil imports," Gillis said.
Click on graphics to enlarge.
----------
The survey of 1,010 representative adult Americans was conducted March 25-28. Its margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points.
Eleven times in the past six years, CFA has commissioned the Opinion Research Corp. to survey public concerns about gasoline prices and oil imports "thinking about the next five years." Each survey has revealed great concern about both issues, and the recent survey is no exception, Gillis said.
In this report, CFA linked the survey results to an analysis of oil market fundamentals - supply, demand, imports, price and household expenditures. The changes in fundamentals are charted across time in comparison to the trends in attitudes, and the relationship between the two is examined.
In the survey, three-quarters (75 percent) of respondents expressed concern about gasoline prices, with 51 percent expressing great concern. Predictably, those with incomes under $50,000 were more likely to express concern than those with incomes above this level.
These concerns are understandable considering that all households spend an average of more than $2,000 on gasoline a year, which represents 3.5 percent of their incomes, Gillis said. While low-income households - the lowest income quintile - spend only about $1,000 a year, that sum represents almost 10 percent of their income.
And while lower-middle income households - the second income quintile - spend only $1,600 a year, that sum equals almost six percent of their income, Gillis said.
Furthermore, more than two-thirds (69 percent) of respondents expressed concern about "U.S. dependency on Mid Eastern oil," with 48 percent expressing great concern. That concern certainly reflects, in part, the accurate understanding they have about the nation's dependence on oil imports.
When asked what percentage of oil consumed in the U.S. is imported, the average number given was 64 percent. The actual figure is very close to this percentage.
But most Americans also believe that U.S. has a far greater percentage of the world's oil reserves than it actually does. To better understand the impact of information on attitudes, CFA asked the surveying firm to split the sample in half, giving one-half no information about oil reserves, and the other half correct information, before asking them about reducing oil dependence and increasing fuel economy.
On average, the no-information respondents said that the U.S. has almost half of all global oil reserves when the actual figure is less than 3 percent. As indicated above, their support for reducing oil dependence and increasing fuel economy was significantly lower than that of respondents who had received correct information.
"While these survey questions were asked shortly before the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, this spill should only increase support for reducing oil consumption and strengthening fuel economy standards," said Mark Cooper, CFA's director of research. "Polls conducted since the spill indicate a sharp reduction in support for offshore drilling and an increase in concern about its environmental impacts."
LEAVE A COMMENT
Did this survey also ask Americans if they'd like a million dollars and a beach house?
These kind of "duh" surveys aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Creating a 50MPG vehicle comes with costs - actual increased cost in dollars and a reduction in vehicle size (and thus convenience for many). If you worded the survey as "Do you want a 50MPG car if it cost $3,000 more and was the size of a Civic?", then I'd pay attention to the answer.
"Did this survey also ask Americans if they'd like a million dollars and a beach house?"
Pass. I couldn't afford the property tax. :)
The authors of this survey missed a big point, as noted by mirth. What are the trade-offs you would accept to use less oil? How much more are you willing to pay for a car that uses less gas? Are you prepared to give up your pickup truck or three-row SUV to drive a Fiesta? Would you like the gas tax to be increased?
Without that context, the results aren't very useful.
ADD A COMMENT