PUBLIC OPINION ON GREAT LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL & ENERGY

POLICY: A CANADA-U.S. COMPARISON

POET Institutional Partners

Do we need the 57th study of public opinion in the Great Lakes Basin?• Yes—and unique features of the GLPRN work…• Broad scope of questions, including emerging energy

sources• Builds on much earlier work and allows some comparison

with earlier findings• Opportunity to set foundation for longitudinal work• Opportunity to pioneer comparison of public and elite

opinion• Close adherence to boundaries of the Great Lakes Basin—

versus broader Region (or American-centric)

• Source: Great Lakes Information Network. (2014). The Great Lakes.

A Word About Methods• Telephone survey conducted by Muhlenberg Institute of

Public Opinion: November-December 2013• Included 1,247 residents within the Basin

• Random digit dialing, with both landlines and cell phones• Overall margin of error of 3 percent, calculated at a 95% confidence

level• Weighted sample by percentage of total Basin population within

portion of state/provinces within the Basin• Ontario: 408• Michigan: 267• Illinois: 138….

Preview of Future Attractions• Comparison with elite opinion: Is there a difference between the views of the citizenry and their elected/appointed leaders?Michigan via the Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS): Special version of twice-yearly survey to lead elected/appointed officials in 1,739 local jurisdictionsOntario to follow with an upcoming survey of 444 local leaders

General Perceptions about Great Lakes

• Convergence or Divergence in Basin• How different are we?

• Perceptions of quality and risk

• Policy preferences and actions

• Role of governments, industry and citizens

Importance and Connection

• How important are the Great Lakes?• 66% ‘strongly agree’ that

the Great Lakes are a valuable state/provincial economic resource

• 71% ‘strongly agree’ or ‘somewhat agree’ that the GL have significant impact on daily life

• Connection to the GL?• 98 % have visited at least 1

lake in their lifetime

Engaged in Activity

Did Not Engage in Activity

Not Sure

Went hunting in Great Lakes Region

11% 89% <1%

Went Fishing on one or more of the Great Lakes

29% 71% <1%

Ate fish from one or more of the Great Lakes.

54% 42% 4%

Swam in one or more of the Great Lakes.

40% 60% <1%

Went to a beach on one or more of the Great Lakes.

54% 46% <1%

Went boating on one or more of the Great Lakes.

40% 60% 0%

Perceptions of Quality?

• 86% in both countries: quality fair or better than fair• Only 9% say ‘poor’ or ‘very

poor’

• How compared to past studies (2005 & 2007)?• Americans and Canadians

think lakes better, but assessment of quality increased more amongst Canadians

• Does this mean that residents think quality is better than 20 years ago?• Only 39% ‘somewhat or

strongly agree’ that GL better health today

http://www.npca.ca

What are citizens concerned with?

• Three most important environmental concerns today?

ISSUE (Grouped by category)

Rank 1 Total mentions (as rank 1, 2 or 3)

Pollution/Contamination 55% 73%

Asian Carp 8% 21%

Water Levels 5% 16%

Invasive Species 4% 11%

Sewage/Waste 3% 7%

Water Quality/Maintaining Quality

3% 6%

Industrial/Business Waste

2% 6%

Garbage Dumping 2% 6%

Zebra Mussels 2% 5%

GL policy positions?

32%

34%

28%

42%

42%

34%

41%

39%

40%

31%

17%

18%

25%

27%

31%

32%

36%

37%

44%

52%

-26%

-28%

-23%

-14%

-13%

-19%

-14%

-15%

-10%

-9%

-14%

-14%

-12%

-10%

-7%

-8%

-5%

-7%

-3%

-5%

-60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

“Enforce laws to reduce water diversion from the Great Lakes, even if it means citizens outside the Great Lakes face water shortages”

“Increase the cost of water for households and businesses to encourage consumers to use less water”

“Close the shipping channel near Chicago that may allow Asian carp to enter Lake Michigan, even if this harms the local economy”

“Reduce the rate at which farmland or other natural areas are being paved over, even if it limits local economic development”

“Prevent new construction on wetlands, even if limits economic development”

“Phase out coal-fired power plants to reduce mercury emissions in the Great Lakes Region, even if the cost of electricity increases”

“Reduce runoff from farm and the agricultural sectors even if it increases the cost of food”

“Increase efforts to improve Great Lakes water quality, even if it requires higher taxes”

“Rebuild sewers to improve Great Lakes water quality, even if it requires an increase in your property taxes”

“Strengthen regulations to reduce the release of pharmaceuticals and other contaminants entering the Great Lakes even if the cost of drugs increase”

Somewhat Support Strongly Support Somewhat Oppose Strongly Oppose

Positions on energy in GL?

23%

21%

19%

44%

36%

38%

44%

10%

8%

13%

27%

44%

46%

42%

-19%

-25%

-21%

-12%

-9%

-6%

-5%

-34%

-36%

-37%

-8%

-7%

-6%

-4%

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

“Increase drilling for natural gas and oil through hydraulic fracturing, also known as “fracking,” in the Great Lakes Region”

“Allow more offshore oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes”

“Increase the use of nuclear power in the Great Lakes Region”

“Increase the use of hydroelectric power through dams in the Great Lakes Region”

“Increase the use of wind power off the shores of the Great Lakes”

“Increase the use of wind power on land in the Great Lakes Region”

“Increase the use of renewable electricity in the Great Lakes Region”

Somewhat Favor Strongly Favor Somewhat Oppose Strongly Oppose

US vs. Canada on energy in GL?

15%

27%

16%

23%

18%

20%

39%

46%

38%

47%

39%

37%

37%

36%

7%

11%

4%

9%

16%

12%

42%

41%

25%

27%

35%

52%

36%

48%

-17%

-20%

-23%

-26%

-16%

-24%

-5%

-6%

-15%

-10%

-8%

-5%

-7%

-9%

-38%

-32%

-41%

-33%

-37%

-36%

-6%

-3%

-11%

-7%

-10%

-4%

-12%

-4%

Ontario

US

Ontario

US

Ontario

US

Ontario

US

Ontario

US

Ontario

US

Ontario

US

Frac

king

off-s

hore

drill

ing

Nuc

lear

rene

wab

leen

ergy

Hyd

roel

ectri

con

shor

e w

ind

offs

hore

win

d

Somewhat favor Strongly favor Somewhat Oppose Strongly oppose

Assessment of government performance

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Very Effective

Somewhat Effective

Not Too Effective

Not Effective at All

“Can

ada

and

the

Uni

ted

Stat

es w

ork

toge

ther

to c

are

for t

he G

reat

Lak

es.

How

effe

ctiv

e do

you

thin

k th

ey a

re in

this

effo

rt?”

Total

United States

Canada

Responsibility to protect

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ontario US Ontario US Ontario US

A Great Deal of Responsibility Some Responsibility No Responsibility

Business and Industry

Federal Government

State/Provincial Government

Local Governments

Individual Citizens

Coordination for action?

Increase coordination between states and provinces in the Great Lakes even if it requires

giving up some of your (state/province’s) decision-making power?

Strongly Support

Somewhat Support

Somewhat Oppose

Strongly Oppose

• Overall• US and Canadians don’t differ

markedly; where difference, not too surprising

• Connected to Lakes and concern for quality

• Contaminants and pollution• Support for renewables

interesting; also daunting for implications for energy needs

• Look to federal government and industry to lead

Great Lakes Region Wind Energy Growth

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Cum

ulat

ive

Inst

alle

d W

ind

Cap

acity

(MW

)

Sources: United States Department of Energy. (2013). Installed wind capacity; Canadian Wind Energy Association. (2013). List of wind farms.

State / Province Overviews

• Renewable energy policy – RPS / FIT

• Treatment of wind

• Wind siting authority

High support for additional wind power in Region

36%

38%

44%

46%

9%

6%

7%

6%

Offshore

Onshore

Margin of Error: ±3%

Support for additional onshore wind power

37%

39%

52%

35%

5%

8%

4%

10%

US

Ontario

Margin of Error: ±5% for Ontario and ±3.5% for US

Wind turbines provide economic benefits

35%

35%

50%

33%

5%

11%

4%

13%

US

Ontario

Margin of Error: ±7% for Ontario and ±5% for US

Wind turbines create noise and human health problems

Margin of Error: ±7% for Ontario and ±5% for US

17%

25%

5%

11%

39%

32%

27%

16%

US

Ontario

Wind turbines cause visual and property value impacts

Margin of Error: ±7% for Ontario and ±5% for US

24%

30%

12%

20%

36%

23%

20%

18%

US

Ontario

State/Province Comparison

3568

1543

988

2986

1638

428

2366

1340

648

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota New York Ohio Ontario Pennsylvania Wisconsin

Inst

alle

d C

apac

ity (M

W)

Installed wind energy, end of 2013

Sources: United States Department of Energy. (2013). Installed wind capacity; Canadian Wind Energy Association. (2013). List of wind farms.

Wind turbines cause visual and property value impacts

Margin of Error: ±10% for rural and ±4.5% for non-rural

26%

27%

12%

27%

34%

21%

19%

22%

Non-rural

Rural

Other Findings• Regulation of wind

• All levels of government should regulate wind• Smaller role for federal government

• Mixed public opinion where science is uncertain• Property values• Bird Migration and weather patterns• Rural landscapes

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN THE BASINPublic Views on the Emerging Presence of Fracking in the Great Lakes Region

Hydraulic Fracturing in the Basin• Hydraulic Fracturing or “Fracking” has seen considerable

expansion within many regions of the Great Lakes Basin.• Marcellus shale play is prominent in Lake Erie and

Ontario basins including major portions of New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

• Michigan contains large portions of the Antrim shale play. • The Utica shale play lies beneath significant portions of

New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and southern Ontario.

Strongly Favor

Somewhat Favor

Somewhat Oppose

Strongly Oppose

Not Sure

Canada 7% 15% 17% 38% 22%

United States 11% 27% 20% 32% 10%

Views on Increasing Hydraulic FracturingU.S-Canada Comparison

Strongly ot Somewhat

Agree

Strongly or Somewhat Disagree

Not Sure

Fracking offers economic benefits to communities, such as job creation and lower energy prices 57% 27% 17%Fracking poses serious environmental risks due to spills and leaks 62% 24% 15%Fracking for natural gas reduces carbon emissions by reducing the use of coal 46% 26% 29%Fracking promotes energy independence by increasing the supply of fossil fuels extracted in the US/Canada 52% 24% 24%Fracking poses serious risks to health of residents living near drilling operations 53% 25% 23%Fracking in (state/province) poses major risks to the state/provinces water resources 59% 22% 19%

Views on the Effects of Fracking among Basin Residents

19%

22%

16%

28%

36%

28%

48%

33%

-20%

-21%

-15%

-22%

-5%

-12%

-8%

-7%

Very or Somewhat Liberal

Very or Somewhat Conservative

Very or Somewhat Liberal

Very or Somewhat Conservative

"Fra

ckin

g po

ses

serio

us ri

sks

tohe

alth

of r

esid

ents

livi

ng n

ear

drill

ing

oper

atio

ns"

"Fra

ckin

g po

ses

serio

usen

viro

nmen

tal r

isks

due

to s

pills

and

leak

s"

Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

"Fracking poses serious envrionmental risks due to spills and leaks."

"Fracking poses serious risks to health of residents living near drilling operations."

Ideology and Views on Fracking in the Basin

This entity should have…

Great Deal of Authority

Some Authority

No Authority

Not Sure

The Federal Government

36% 37% 18% 9%

Provincial/State Governments

47% 40% 6% 7%

Local Governments

35% 47% 11% 8%

Land Owners 49% 38% 6% 7%

Public Preferences Regarding Authority over Fracking in the Basin

43%

32%

33%

39%

11%

21%

13%

8%

Canada

United States

Great Deal of Authority Some Authority No Authority Not Sure

US/Canada Comparison Regarding Federal Control over Fracking in the Basin