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
The chemicals used in fracking in the UK are revealed by law. You can find precise details of what Cuadrilla used here:
http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/what-we-do/hydraulic-fracturing/fracturing-fluid/
http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Chemical-Disclosure-PH-1.jpg
itdoesntaddup
So far all they’re getting is lower tax than the standard North Sea regime at 30%, but more tax than ordinary businesses pay as Corporation Tax which is 21%.
Subsidies for offshore wind are around 5-6 times the cost of coal fired power.
Leon Wolfeson
That requirement is essentially null since April because of law changes.
Moreover, I don’t believe their disclaimer on “any reportable hazardous”.
gscales631
Well, its a democracy and you’re entitled to vote how you want. If you want fully nuclear and no hydrocarbon then you can vote for that if you wish. It doesn’t seem to be the way anyone is going though.
Leon Wolfeson
Nope, several companies to take bids on, in a rational hazard environment, 48 months at the outside. as long as people like you are prevented from pushing ever-higher bills and for coal.
If we go for gas, there is ONE supplier of volume who can sustain production – Russia. Chasing your dream, which at *best* is not 50 years, puts us squarely in the hands of Putin….unless we go to coal.
And I see, you work for a coal company’s hired PR company. Well. I completely agree that blocking your agenda is the only sensible thing to do, and thanks for admitting so. We’d end up like Germany, on coal, for “security”.
The reality is we’re not going to have major breakdowns with Australia or Canada, and we have some of our own Thorium reserves in the longer run, and Norway and India…better allies than Russia, for sure!