Despite Recession Environment Wins Out Over Resource Shortages

When in the aftermath of the 1973 energy crisis jobs began to disappear and prices to rise, it came to be widely believed that pocketbook issues would soon eclipse the public's recently-developed fervor for cleaning up the environment.¹ This view was shared, albeit covertly, by many environmental groups, which responded by reducing public visibility.

Now, however, word has come from unexpected quarters that environmental awareness is still with us despite the energy crisis. Two public opinion surveys conducted this summer by the Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) have found that a majority of people continue to support government efforts to clean the air and water even if it means higher prices for fuel and energy. That this should occur in a recession is surprising. But what is most significant is that the environment seems to have won out in this encounter with that supposed "irresistible object" known as resource shortages.²

Two New Surveys

In late August, ORC sent to its industrial clients an in-depth survey and analysis of public attitudes toward environmental tradeoffs which found that the public is not ready to cut back on environmental controls in order to solve economic and energy problems, despite current high levels of unemployment and rising fuel costs. At about the same time, ORC informed the Federal Energy Administration of the results of a separate survey, commissioned by the FEA, which focussed on air pollution and possible amendments to the Clean Air Act. This FEA survey also demonstrated that the public is willing to pay more for more stringent pollution controls even under current economic conditions.

Of the two, the FEA poll is in some ways the more striking because people interviewed supported clean air despite the use of a survey instrument which some have charged was designed to elicit responses favoring relaxation of pollution control efforts. In order to give some sense of the kinds of questions used, as well as of the spread of the public's responses, parts of the FEA survey are reproduced below.

Excerpts from ORC FEA-Commissioned Opinion Poll, Aug. 1975

14. America's cheapest energy source is coal, but burning coal to make electricity causes air pollution. At this time, do you think it is more important to have strict air pollution control laws or to allow coal to be used to make cheap electricity?

1 Strict air pollution laws 33%

2 Coal for cheaper electricity 40%

3 Other 8%

4 Don't know 19%

15. To pay for cleaning up the environment, companies will have to charge more for their products and services, and the government will have to increase taxes. Do you think that now it is more important to pay higher prices to protect the environment, or to pay lower prices but have more air pollution?

1 Pay higher prices to protect the

3 environment 59%

2 Pay lower prices but have pollution 17%

3 Other 8%

4 Don't know 16%

16. Has your attitude toward the necessity for clean air changed since the energy crisis occurred last year?

1 Yes 24%

2 No 76%

If yes, ask:

17. How has your attitude changed?

1 Increased concern 11%

2 Scattered other

18. Do you think that areas that now have clean air should be kept as clean as they are now, or allowed to get somewhat more polluted?

1 Should be kept as clean as they are now 94%

2 Allowed to get somewhat more polluted 2%

3 Other 2%

4 Don't know 2%

[5 ELR 10212]

21. do you favor or oppose a government law that would prohibit construction of new industries (steel mills, power plants, etc.) in parts of the country that now have clean air?

1 Favor 41%

2 Oppose 41%

3 Other

4 Don't know

If favor, ask:

22. Would you still feel this way if building these plants elsewhere caused an increase in prices of products to the consumer?

1 Yes 28%

2 No 7%

3 Don't know 5%

23. Would you still feel this way if factories and plants in areas that already have polluted air caused those areas to become even more polluted?

1 Yes 14%

2 No 19%

3 Don't know 8%

24. Would you favor or oppose construction of new industries in your state, such as steel mills and power plants, if those new plants caused more air pollution?

1 Favor 32%

2 Oppose 52%

3 Other 4%

4 Don't know 12%

If oppose, ask:

25. Would you still feel this way if not building these plants caused unemployment and power shortages?

1 Yes 21%

2 No 21%

3 Don't know 10%

26. Which would you prefer — building new plants in areas with clean air, building them in areas with dirty air, or paying higher electric bills so that the plants do not pollute very much?

1 Build in clean air 14%

2 Build in dirty air 11%

3 Pay money so plants do not pollute 50%

4 Other 6%

5 Don't know 19%

If "build in dirty areas," ask:

27. Would you still feel this way if these plants built in dirty areas caused more illness due to air pollution?

1 Yes 3%

2 No 7%

3 Don't know 2%

Ask Everybody

28. How willing are you to pay $10 per year more in taxes to have the government help the auto industry produce a car that would cause less air pollution and save you $120 per year gasoline costs?

1 Very willing 46%

2 Fairly willing 24%

3 Not too willing 7%

4 Not willing at all 19%

5 Don't know 4%

29. It is estimated that it will cost about $250 per car in the next 5 years to further reduce air pollution cuased by automobiles. Do you think it is better to permit present levels of air pollution from cars, or to charge $250 per car to clean the air by another 10 percent?³

1 Allow present levels of air pollution

from cars 24%

2 Pay $250 to lower 10% 48%

3 Other 6%

4 Don't know 22%

30. Devices that decrease air pollution from automobiles use more fuel. Do you think it is better to reduce automobile air pollution by 10 percent even if more gas is used, or is it better to save the gas?

1 Reduce air pollution 34%

2 Save gas 46%

3 Other 6%

4 Don't know 14%

31. Would you be willing to pay $50 more per year for automobile gasoline in order to cut down automobile air pollution?

1 Yes 52%

2 No 38%

3 Don't know 10%

[5 ELR 10213]

The ORC survey for its own clients was both broader in scope and more neutral in phrasing than the one it conducted for FEA. As a result, its findings carry more weight. As summarized October 6 in a speech⁴ by the EPA Administrator Russell Train, they include:

Nine out of ten [people] say they believe that, if we don't start cleaning up the environment now, it will cost us more money in the long run.

Nearly nine out of ten say that we are paying now for the pollution that we have caused for many years.

Given a choice, six people in ten say that they believe it is more important to pay the costs involved in protecting the environment than to keep prices and taxes down and run the risk of more pollution.

Clean air and pure water topped a list of 11 resources the public was asked to rate in terms of those the United States is most likely to run out of [within the next 50 years] — including natural gas, oil, coal, copper, aluminum, iron, fish, meat, and wheat.

Importance of the Findings

The persistence of solid majority support for pollution prevention has implications for those interested in the development of environmental law. Institutionally, there no longer seems to be any reason for groups to maintain the "low profile" which has been such a common phenomenon since late 1973. The public is behind you, the surveys seem to be saying; you can come out publicly for further pollution control measures. The same applies to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Such a posture shift would, of course, impact most immediately on the legislative sphere, where one would expect the survey results themselves to produce results most quickly and deeply. And this may already be occurring. The Clean Air Act, for instance, has shown surprising resistance to this summer's efforts to incorporate weakening amendments. There is little doubt that its staying power is related to the strong undercurrent of public support for clean air, which Congress seems to have felt even before the results of the new surveys were known to the public.

Wide airing of the strength of the public's continuing desire for a decent environment may therefore not make much difference in the legislative forum. It could, however, be of significance for the evolution of judicial doctrine in the environmental field. As commentators⁵ have often noted, judges — even appointed judges — respond in important if subtle ways to the deeply felt needs of the public. Indeed, it is hard to find a more convincing case of the impact of the public on judicial opinion than the judicial synergy born of the simultaneous passage of the National Environmental Policy Act and the sudden awakening of American concern for the environment at the beginning of the 1970's. What Opinion Research Corporation has discovered is that the public's concern endures despite adversity.

1. See, e.g., Clawson, The President's Essay: A More Comprehensive and Eclectic Approach to Resources and the Environment, in Annual Report 1974 Resources for the Future, Inc. 3, 4 (1974).

2. Following the Alaska Pipeline bill, many predicted that Americans would generally sacrifice the environment to the energy needs of the nation. Id.

3. Question 29 is an example of what critics charge is a loaded question. Ralph Nader, in an October 9 letter to Senator Muskie complaining about the FEA's failure to release the results of its poll, noted that the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that expenditure of $250 for a three-way catalyst would reduce automobile air pollution by far more than the ten percent figure used in the question.

The FEA has not yet chosen to release the survey. Interested readers may obtain a copy from ELR (Federal Energy Administration Clean Air Survey, 11, pp. $1.10).

4. Speech before Centennial Meeting of the American Forestry Association, Washington, D.C., Oct. 6, 1975, pp. 7-8.

5. Including judicial commentators. See, e.g., Leventhal, Environmental Decision Making and the Role of the Courts, 122 U. Pa. L. Rev. 509, 510 (1974).