November 16, 2008
U.S. Consumers: Companies Should Pay To Manage Climate Change
The fifth EcoPinion Survey from EcoAlign finds that consumers generally agree on the definition of climate change, the importance of reducing climate change and the role of the individual to reduce climate change. However, significant differences emerge on specific actions to be taken, questions of cost allocation and the role of government.
“Higher penalties on companies that contribute to climate change” was clearly the top response (61 percent) on the best way for society to pay for the costs of managing climate change, a nearly 45 percent differential with the next top response (16 percent) indicating “higher fees on products or services that contribute to climate change.”
But the report is full of seemingly contradictory findings and potential conflicts: Approximately one half (46 percent) of Americans surveyed believe individual citizens have the primary responsibility to reduce climate change, followed by the federal government (25 percent) and oil, gas and coal companies (10 percent).
Even though they have a feeling of responsibility, a majority of Americans (53 percent) were only “somewhat confident” or “not confident” that they personally can impact climate change through actions and purchasing decisions. Only 15 percent of Americans surveyed were “very confident” that they could make a personal impact.
One-third of respondents said that no utility bill increase is necessary to manage climate change and 44 percent said a less than 10 percent increase would be required.
The previous EcoPinion Survey, released in August, found that the Energy Star label is extremely or very important to 68 percent of consumers.
Advertisers
Pew Center Conference: Corporate Energy Efficiency
Reduce energy consumption, lower emissions and save money. >>
Join the Discussion
Recent Daily News [ see all ]
- 02/09/2010
- 02/08/2010
- 02/05/2010
- Caterpillar Puts Weight Behind $1.5B FutureGen CCS Project
- WR Grace Targets 20% Energy Intensity Cuts
- As UK Cap and Trade Falters, Government May Prop Up Carbon Prices
- Federal Government Proposes Climate Change Office
- University of Florida Football Complex Uses 25% Less Energy Than Similar Buildings
- 34% of Execs Cite Economy As Impediment to Adopting Sustainability
- Energy Storage Project Aims to Extend Utility of Solar Power
- Ford to Debut Electric Commercial Van
- SF OKs $150M in Property Tax Financing for Energy Efficiency, Renewables
- BNSF Signs Deal for Measuring Energy Efficiency
- Roundup: GE, IBM, Audi ‘Green Police,’ EU Carbon
- Accidental to Purposeful Sustainability: Using What You Already Have to Grow Sustainability
- Holiday Inn Express, Bardessono Boast Energy Efficiency, Renewables
- Massachusetts Adds $20M in Solar to 12 Wastewater Plants
- Novo Nordisk Cuts CO2 Emissions by 32%, Water Use by 20%
- Roundup: Dr. Suess Cease-and-Desist, Philips, EPA, Melting Drywall
- Canadian Environment Minister Denounces Quebec Vehicle Emissions Regs
- Energy-Efficient Lighting Saves Canadian Tire $6M in 2009
- Pixar Data Center Saves Money Via Cold Aisle Containment
- HVAC Software Helps University of Texas Save $500K a Year
- Data Centers Can Apply for Energy Star Rating in June
- Rytec’s Fast Cold Storage Door Helps Save Energy
- Burt’s Bees Decreases Waste to Landfill by 51.5% in 2009
- National RES Would Benefit Southeastern, Manufacturing States
- TBR Evaluates Sustainability Strategies at Dell, CSC, Cisco
- CEO Report Envisions $6 Trillion in Sustainable New Business Opportunities
- IBM ‘Cloud Computing’ Data Center Saves 15% in Energy Costs
- Bipartisan Senatorial Effort Seeks Cap and Trade for non-CO2 Emissions
- Collapsible Ocean Shipping Container May Help Reduce Emissions
- To Ensure Future Compliance, Utility Asks for CO2 Limits
- Analyzing Energy-Efficiency Metrics Can Reduce Energy Use in Data Centers
- Goose Island Touts Low-Carbon Brew
Charts [ see all ]
Popular Topics
Energy Efficiency
Data Center
Emissions
Facilities
Electricity
Sustainability
Water
Supply Chain
Efficiency
Green Marketing
Strategy & Leadership
Research
Fleets & Transportation
Carbon Finance
Conventional Energy
Clean Energy
Waste & Recycling
Paper & Packaging
Policy & Law
Utilities
Construction
Comments and Discussions
John Bergdoll on Accidental to Purposeful Sustainability: Using What You Already Have to Grow Sustainability
"I was following the logic your article..."
Liz Amason on Clorox Comes Clean With Chemical Content on Web Site
"But look at their ingredients listings. For example, their regular liquid bleach..."
Rigidflexibility on Companies Going Green Should Ignore Green Consumer
"I was about to market a metal working fluid that is 98>% Soybean oil and..."
Stuart on Canadian Environment Minister Denounces Quebec Vehicle Emissions Regs
"Canadians have been waiting for the feds to act on climate change for..."
Steve Wolford on Sports Teams Embrace Sustainability
"Hello Environmental Leader, We just returned from the National Sport Forum in Baltimore. Team and..."
Mauibrad on Bipartisan Senatorial Effort Seeks Cap and Trade for non-CO2 Emissions
"Finally some enlightened ideas out of Congress!"
Cameron Green on Data Centers Can Apply for Energy Star Rating in June
"I did a blog post about this. Essentially PUE doesn’t give you very much..."




Reader Comments
An interesting survey, and encouraging in parts.
Of course I have never come across anyone (though have seen a few blog posts that would suggest a few of a contrarian aspect) who, if asked, is against anything ‘good’ that is ‘green’.
One also has to wonder to what extent it was made clear, or the respondents made the mental leap on their own and were still cool on the notion, that the personal cost to them of most company products usually includes any costs the company incurs, plus a bit.
Peter | November 17th, 2008
Let me respond to Peter’s question. EcoAlign framed the questions on cost as an increase in the utility bill which we feel will be one of the primary vehicles for paying any charges associated with climate change. While Peter is correct that most companies would not break out the cost for climate change in their pricing, utilities probably will do so because either they are required by regulation or because they want to make a distinction between their core costs and any additional costs associated with climate change.
Jamie
CEO, EcoAlign
Jamie Wimberly | November 24th, 2008