Nearly half the British public believe investing in renewables is the top priority for energy security, according to a new poll.
Nearly half the British public believe investing in renewables is the top priority for energy security, according to a new poll.
Perhaps more surprisingly, the view is reflected by voters across the four largest parties – including UKIP.
Almost half (48 per cent) of those surveyed picked investing in renewables as their number one energy priority, far ahead of building new nuclear reactors, which came in second at a distant 15 per cent. Support for fracking trails fourth at 13 per cent, after ‘reducing consumption’.
Fracking was even less popular in the forty most marginal Tory/Labour seats, with just 8 per cent seeing it as the most important energy priority – a worrying finding for pro-fracking incumbents.
Just 2 per cent of UKIP supporters think that reducing the number of future onshore wind-farms should the government’s main priority, while 37 per cent believe that investing in renewables is the most important energy need.
Securing our energy supplies was seen as a top five priority for the majority of voters, with 53 per cent ranking it an urgent issue.
Commenting on the poll, RenewableUK chief executive Maria McCaffery said:
“This poll shows that the public want to tackle our energy security crisis by investing in renewables like wind, wave and tidal power and offsetting the need to import volatile and dirty fossil fuels from insecure parts of the world. Onshore wind, as the cheapest low carbon electricity source is a crucial component of that so it’s no wonder that the electorate will reject Parties that rule out its future use.”
The ComRes poll for RenewableUK follows a study last week which showed that politicians opposing wind development are a ‘turn off’ for voters.
63 Responses to “Half UK voters support renewable energy as ‘top priority’”
itdoesntaddup
Hint: I worked for UKAEA in the past. You’re just utterly incapable of accepting simple truths. I’ve wasted enough time debunking your lies here.
itdoesntaddup
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gwat.12056/abstract
http://www.marcellus.psu.edu/resources/PDFs/swistock_water.pdf
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5085/
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5190/pdf/sir2013-5190.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883292713001133
http://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/UBSRSI-Environmental-Impact.pdf
http://fracfocus.org/sites/default/files/publications/state_oil__gas_agency_groundwater_investigations_optimized.pdf
http://www.beg.utexas.edu/staffinfo/Scanlon_pdf/Nicot+Scanlon_ES&T_12_Water%20Use%20Fracking.pdf
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es4013855
Get reading.
Cole
Where does that figure come from?
Leon Wolfeson
You keep talking about how you’ve debunked the truth, as you make unbelieveable claims, and saying I must accept coal and gas are brilliant.
This is why I support a proper lobbyist register.
Leon Wolfeson
Those are not DOI’s. But never mind…let’s se…
You have not addressed any of my actual concerns, at all, of course. Let’s quote the relevant part from one’s conclusion;
“Based on the results of this and previous studies (Osborn et al., 2011a and Warner et al., 2012),
it is concluded that systematic monitoring of multiple geochemical and
isotopic tracers is necessary for assessing possible groundwater
contamination in areas associated with shale gas exploration as well as
the possible hydraulic connectivity between shallow aquifers and deeper
production zones.”
In other words, serious monitoring is needed, and as it is not currently required here and hence opposing fracking is necessary on those grounds alone.
You’re also completely unaware, for instance, that the problem with water usage in gas drilling in the UK is not that it consumes slightly more water, but that we have regional water monopolies and higher usage by industry in some areas could cause serious problems for domestic pricing, even when the overall usage is not massively significant.