Carbon Taxes, Cap and Trade, and Risk of Buyer's Remorse

The New York Times' Thomas Friedman takes on the complexities of a cap-and-trade system today, and argues for framing the energy debate in new, clearer terms for the public. That's the right argument, certainly. But based on Public Agenda's latest research, I wonder if he's underestimating what political leaders need to do here.

Public Agenda's Energy Learning Curve research, released in association with Planet Forward, shows there are no less than 10 energy policies that draw substantial support from the public, ranging from alternative energy to conservation to raising gas mileage. All of these have the backing of two-thirds of Americans or more. There's also strong consensus on policies that are off the table, particularly anything that raises the cost of driving.

But it's also true that the public has a serious knowledge gap on energy, and it hampers them from being able judge what's realistic and necessary and what's not. For example:

• Four in 10 Americans can't name a fossil fuel
  
• Half can't accurately name a renewable energy source.
  
• Two-thirds overestimate how much oil we import from the Middle East, and nearly everyone thinks the U.S. has more domestic oil that it actually does.
  
• More than half believe that by cutting smog "we've gone a long way" in fighting global warming.
  

With this kind of knowledge deficit, how can the public possibly grasp the nuances of cap-and-trade? How can they judge whether a carbon tax would be better, worse or necessary at all?

Friedman makes another interesting point: that energy policy might be better presented coming from the White House national security advisor, rather than from the Obama administration's environmental officials. One important point from the Energy Learning Curve is that while the public's worried about energy, they're not all coming at this from the same direction.

As part of the research, we conducted a "cluster analysis," identifying four different groups of the public based on their values, knowledge and beliefs. One of the most interesting findings is that groups with very different concerns often end up at the same place. There's broad consensus that we need to pursue alternative, renewable energy. But the arguments that resonate with one group – say, the fear of climate change – might leave people worried about problems like the cost of energy or dependence on foreign oil cold, or even turn them off. If you're building coalitions, and this in the end is about building coalitions, you need to know what concerns people bring to the table.

The public absolutely needs to be part of the energy debate; it touches too many people too closely to be resolved solely by the experts and politicians. And make no mistake about it: the public can play a real role in this debate. People don't need to be Mr. Wizard to make choices on energy, and there's no reason they can't get up to speed on this.

But the experts and politicians have to realize what the public's starting point is, respect their concerns and accept the responsibility to advance the public's learning curve on this issue. A new energy policy can only work if the public buys into it. The last thing we need is an energy policy that leaves the public with buyer's remorse.