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’”
Leon Wolfeson
Yes, I’m sure you can make up all you like, coal man. Peer reviewed evidence is in papers, not scattered across random propaganda websites.
And you pretend not to understand the stock market, now. I understand just fine.
Leon Wolfeson
So now you’re confusing the rich and the middle class…you’re SO transparent, coal man.
gscales631
Are you in the US Leon? There haven’t been any fracking liabilities in the UK because there hasn’t been any damage caused by fracking. As for zero benefit to non shareholders thats your opinion, but it seems nuts to me. I get the benefit of people working in the economy in sectors I do not work in. They pay taxes just like everyone else. I wouldn’t stop any industry unless it posed a risk above any other. I live and work right next to multiple industries that would never exist if some people got their way, and the green arguments apply equally to them. None of them are without risk either, but between just a few of them they employ nearly 20% of our town and many of my friends have jobs directly linked to supporting those industries. To say that there is no benefit to anyone in the country unless they own shares is just not my experience of how the country works. Most people own no shares in anything at all unless they do it through a pension (and if fracking happens whats the betting that pensions will be involved and many many people will be share holders), but anyway, to say that the majority of industry does not benefit the country just because the majority of people do not own shares in it or all the other companies that exist but still have small risks associated with them just seems like an immediately false argument to me, but of course you can make it if you want and vote like that. That is your right.
Leon Wolfeson
No, you’re going for increased hydrocarbon benefit, with plenty of lobbyist funding. And Capitalism says…”this quarter’s profits”. What a surprise (not)!
And of course you want to focus only on voting, and not democracy.
Leon Wolfeson
It’s intended to replacing north sea declining production (propping up profits, since the cost to consumers won’t change), hence slashing the tax take overall (despite the higher profits). Bills at *best* stay stable, profits rise, tax take falls.
Not in the interests of the citizens.
Offshore wind’s issues are…another issue.