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
Stay competitive through sustainability.
Find out how at the SAP Sustainability Resource Center. >>
Unclear about the EPA's new GHG Rule?
Learn how it could affect your business. >>
EPA mandatory emissions reporting starts Jan 1st
CSA Standards can help your organization get ready for compliance. Find out how. >>
Survey Results: Product Environmental Compliance Best Practices
How to achieve compliance at a significantly lower cost. Download the full report. >>
Join the Discussion
Recent Daily News [ see all ]
- 11/23/2009
- 11/20/2009
- 11/19/2009
- Ontario May Follow California’s Lead on TV Energy Efficiency
- EPA Is One Step Closer to New Ship Emissions Standards
- European Paper Industry Cuts CO2 Emissions by 42% since 1990
- CDP Launches Water Disclosure Project
- Whirlpool Cuts Water Use by Nearly 22% from 2004 to 2008
- National Grid Again Rejects High Costs of Offshore Wind
- California City’s Green Building Ordinance Applies to Commercial Buildings
- Agilent To Save $3.5M Over 10 Years With Solar
- S. America Takes Most Urgent View of Copenhagen Talks
- Texas, China Wind Partners May Build U.S. Factory to Appease Critical Lawmaker
- Volvo, Mack Engines First to Meet 2010 EPA Emissions Standards
- Around the Web – Nike, Google, Nissan, Bush’s Green Library, WWF
- Fossil Fuel Emissions Rose 29% since 2000
- SEC Charges Four in ‘Green’ Investment Ponzi Scheme
- No Sunny Skies for Two Solar Projects in Texas, California
- Canada Delays GHG Emissions Regs, Russia Ups Emissions Cuts
- News Corp. Taps Hara for Energy Efficiency, Environmental Management
- Rising Sea Levels Would Hit U.S. East Coast Hardest
- Building an Energy-Efficient Data Center Using Virtualization Technology
- Trade Group on EPA Chemical Regs: ‘If Everything is a Priority, Then Nothing is a Priority’
- A/V Equipment Gets New Energy Star Requirements
- By Scaling Back Catalogs, JC Penney to Save 30% on Paper
- Around the Web – Starbucks, EcoFactor, UPS, Brownfields, Eco-Labels
- Subaru Touts Energy & Environmental Initiatives
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
Tom Stacy on National Grid Again Rejects High Costs of Offshore Wind
"Each time government entices big money investment away from riskier, but clearly..."
miggs on European Paper Industry Cuts CO2 Emissions by 42% since 1990
"Yet another example of the potential of combined heat & power to transform..."
Stevenson on News Corp. Taps Hara for Energy Efficiency, Environmental Management
"All of us should think of ways to save energy now. It is not a myth,..."
Trade Association on Trade Group on EPA Chemical Regs: ‘If Everything is a Priority, Then Nothing is a Priority’
"Seriously… that..."
Gary Markowitz on Supermarkets Tackle Emissions Reductions, Fuel Efficiency
"Supermarkets waste over 10 percent of their energy through improper..."
peter in ireland on Ontario May Follow California’s Lead on TV Energy Efficiency
"Governor Schwarzenegger is shooting himself in the foot! 1...."
Environmental Leader on S. America Takes Most Urgent View of Copenhagen Talks
"The survey respondents (the PDF report mentions 4,000 respondents in 38..."




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