Voters in America’s Auto & Manufacturing Heartland Want 60 MPG Fuel Economy Standard by 2025
1,600 likely Ohio and Michigan voters surveyed by the Mellman Group for Ceres, see job and national security benefits as well as big savings at the pump
(3BL Media / theCSRfeed) Washington, D.C. - May 25, 2011 - A new poll of 800 likely Michigan voters and 800 likely Ohio voters found overwhelming and intense support for requiring the auto industry to increase average fuel economy to 60 miles per gallon by 2025 and reduce carbon dioxide pollution from new cars, pickup trucks, minivans and SUVs. The poll was conducted by The Mellman Group for Ceres from April 9-12.
“The American voter – the American consumer – is speaking loudly in these key states,” said Ceres President Mindy Lubber. “It isn’t just $4-a-gallon fatigue. These voters clearly recognize that our economic, environmental and national security futures are also rolled up in saving money at the pump and making America far more energy independent.” The poll finds that robust support for a 60 miles per gallon standard extends across the political spectrum in Michigan and Ohio - the heart of America’s auto and manufacturing industry. Voters believe increased fuel efficiency will be good for the economy, job creation, reducing driving costs and boosting America’s national security by cutting our reliance on foreign oil. Among the key findings: Voters don’t believe the rhetoric that higher standards would cost jobs or hurt U.S. automakers. In fact, they believe increased efficiency will spur innovation and create jobs.-
80% of likely Ohio voters and 76% of likely Michigan voters believe a national 60 mpg standard will encourage American car makers to innovate, boosting sales and protecting American auto jobs.
-
59% of likely voters in Ohio and 56% of likely voters in Michigan accurately believe any costs attached to increasing vehicle fuel efficiency will be outweighed by benefits—efficiency increases will pay for themselves.
-
78% of likely Michigan voters say they support 60 mpg. This includes 58% who “strongly” support 60 mpg.
-
68% of likely voters in Michigan auto industry households and 72% of likely voters in Michigan manufacturing households support 60 mpg.
-
79% of likely Ohio voters say they support 60 mpg. This includes 60% who “strongly” support 60 mpg.
-
84% of likely voters in Ohio auto industry households and 74% of likely voters in Ohio manufacturing households support 60 mpg.
-
87% of likely voters in Michigan and 90% of likely voters in Ohio say it is “important” or “very important” to take action now to increase fuel efficiency.
-
Democrats (91% to 9%), Republicans (65% support, 31% oppose), and Independents (71% to 22%)
-
Conservatives (67% support, 29% oppose), moderates (76% to 19%), and liberals (92% to 7%)
-
Men and women, truck and SUV owners, likely voters from Detroit, Flint and Grand Rapids— all support 60 mpg
-
Democrats (89% to 8%), Republicans (68% support, 29% oppose), and Independents (77% to 18%)
-
Conservatives (69% support, 28% oppose), moderates (81% to 13%), and liberals (89% to 8%)
-
Men and women, truck and SUV owners, voters from auto industry households—all support 60 mpg
Ceres leads a national coalition of investors, environmental groups and other public interest organizations working with companies to address sustainability challenges such as global climate change and water scarcity. To view more results and additional information, visit: www.ceres.org/autopoll About The Mellman Group
Twice honored as "Pollster Of The Year" by The American Association Of Political Consultants, The Mellman Group has provided sophisticated opinion research and strategic advice to political leaders, government agencies, Fortune 500 companies, foundations, and leading public interest organizations for nearly thirty years. http://www.mellmangroup.com/index.htm Methodology notes: The Mellman Group surveyed 800 likely 2012 General Election voters in Michigan and 800 likely 2012 voters in Ohio, for polls commissioned by Ceres. Interviews were conducted April 9-12, 2011. Margin of error +/- 3.5% overall; higher for subgroups. CERES14099