Are You Talking to Me? Engaging the Everyday Citizen in Energy Issues

Presentation by Stephen Brobeck, Executive Director, Consumer Federation of America

Thank you Jim, the Consumer Federation of America appreciates the opportunity to participate in this important forum.
The Pew survey data indicate why it is now so difficult to convince most citizens to take global climate change issues seriously.  While most Americans agree that the earth is warming, only a small percentage are greatly concerned about it.  Moreover, only a minority believe that this warming is caused by human activity, so there is a weak base of support for the public policy reforms that are based on the scientific consensus on climate change.

How then can the public be persuaded to back such reforms?  Our survey research over the past 18 months suggests one approach to meeting this challenge.  On three occasions we asked the following question:  Thinking about the next five years, how concerned personally are you about the following three issues -- global warming, US dependency on MidEastern oil, and gasoline prices.  What we found, consistent with the Pew research, is that only about two-fifths of Americans are very concerned about global warming but that about three-fifths are very concerned about US oil dependence and about two-thirds are very concerned about rising gas prices.

This suggested to us that we link policy reforms to all three issues and that we  specially target communications about the linkage between the reforms and each issue to those groups in the population most concerned about the issue.  Who are they?  We would defer to Pew on this question.  But we have found that those over the age of 45 are especially concerned about dependence on oil imports -- might they remember the Arab oil embargo of the late 1970s?  -- and that low and middle income Americans are most concerned about gasoline prices.

What related policy reforms are especially attractive to Americans? The Consumer Federation is focusing special attention on motor fuel efficiency because average annual household spending on gasoline exceeds $2,000, because lower income households are spending more than one-tenth of their income on gas, and because there are significant opportunities to cost-effectively lower these expenditures while, I would add, at the same time lowering oil imports and CO2 emissions.  In focusing special attention on transportation fuel efficiency, the Consumer Federation has developed a Blueprint for Energy Security that proposes 20 measures related to improvement in motor vehicles and to changes in the vehicles consumers purchase, and the way consumers maintain and drive these vehicles. 

These measures include: fuel efficiency vehicle mandates such as stronger CAFE; consumer purchase incentives/disincentives such as feebates, buyback, and trade-in incentives; consumer information initiatives such as disclosure of miles per gallon on ads for new cars, on the sale of used as well as new cars, and on the dashboard of vehicles as they are driven; consumer vehicle maintenance such as incorporation of fuel efficiency measures in state motor vehicle inspections; consumer driving incentives and disincentives related to the pricing of auto insurance, auto leasing, and auto rental and even consideration of a new federal gas tax whose revenues are rebated to consumers; and public education similar to past social marketing initiatives to reduce smoking and drunk driving.

One of our report’s most encouraging conclusions is that, with $3 a gallon gas, over the next 25 years, technological improvements can double the fuel efficiency of the consumer vehicle fleet – from 21 to 42 mpg – and pay for themselves through lower gasoline consumption.  In other words, fuel efficiency improvements that raise the average fuel economy of new cars sold to 50 mpg by 2030 will pay for themselves  because the cost of these improvements embedded in sales prices will be offset by lower gas expenses.

Earlier this year, the Consumer Federation  surveyed public reaction to many of our proposed measures.  We found especially strong support for fuel efficiency mandates and for consumer information initiatives.  For example,  78% support, and 48% strongly support, requiring auto companies to greatly increase mpg of new cars as long as higher car prices are offset by lower gas costs.  And 78% support, and 52% strongly support, requiring these companies to include mpg of new car models in TV and print ads.  And somewhat to our surprise, slightly more Americans would support, than oppose, the "use of a federal gas tax to maintain gas prices at $4/gallon if revenues were returned to drivers through a federal income tax credit" than opposed this measure.

Consistent with these survey findings, the Consumer Federation is increasingly seeking to inform  policymakers about consumer concerns about rising gas prices and oil imports and about measures that consumers support  for addressing these concerns.  We are also starting to build grasstops networks that inform consumers about the issue, propose meaningful solutions, and involve citizens in efforts to implement these solutions.

One of the most important solutions is for our whole society to reduce oil consumption by up to 10 million barrels a day over the next 25 years.  Bipartisan legislation in both the Senate and in the House would require such oil cutbacks.  A key element of any solutions is significant increases in motor vehicle fuel efficiency.  Other bipartisan legislation in the Senate and House would mandate such improvements.  In Washington and around the country, we will be seeking to build citizen support for these and related legislative proposals.