API’s new poll demonstrates the lengths they must go to get results they like

Yesterday, the American Petroleum Industry released another one-sided national poll. This time, API claims their research shows broad public support for more oil and gas production. But, perplexingly, these findings run counter to nearly every recent survey from reputable, non-partisan sources like Gallup, whose polling in March found that a record-high 73% of Americans prefer emphasizing alternative energy, rather than oil and gas production, as the solution to the nation's energy problems. According to a survey conducted by a trio of leading Republican pollsters on behalf of ClearPath, 84% of U.S. voters support "taking action to accelerate the development and use of clean energy in the United States," including 72% of Republican voters. And support for clean energy is particularly high among Millennials; 80% of Americans between 18 and 34 years of age agree that "the United States should transition to mostly clean or renewable energy sources by 2030," according to a national survey by Ipsos for USA Today and Rock the Vote. Additional evidence is easy to find.

How did API come to such different conclusions? A quick look at the data exposes an entirely one-sided questionnaire that resorts to some questionable wordsmithing. There are no chances for respondents to express a preference for clean and renewable energy over fossil fuels. You don’t have to take my word for it; check out the questionnaire here. Here are a few of the more egregious examples:

First of all, the early questions in the questionnaire could easily be considered an example of “priming” respondents. The first two questions ask about the importance of the health of the economy and job creation, and the third tells respondents that “According to government and international data, the United States is leading the top 20 economies in the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from energy. As you may know, greenhouse gases contribute to climate change.” (I’m impressed that the survey even mentioned climate change!) The fourth question is arguably the worst priming example, as it opens by telling respondents “As you may know, the increased use of natural gas in generating electricity has played a key role in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.” Of course, API does not mention the even worse climate impacts of methane pollution from fracking. So taken together, these questions could prime respondents (particularly those who don’t spend a lot of time researching these issues) to believe that the energy and climate situation is a whole lot rosier than it is in reality.

In their press release, API claims that “69 percent of voters say they are more likely to support a candidate who supports producing more oil and natural gas.” But the question that survey respondents heard was: “Looking ahead to future elections, if a candidate supports producing more oil and natural gas from here in the U.S., would you be more or less likely to support that candidate?” The key phrase here is “from here in the U.S.”; the question appears to be asking about a candidate who wants more of our energy (specifically oil and gas) to be domestic or not. If you want to know whether voters prefer a candidate who emphasizes fossil fuels or one that emphasizes clean energy, there are plenty of surveys that demonstrate voters prefer the latter.

According to the report, seventy-one percent of voters “oppose legislation that could increase the cost of oil and natural gas operations and thus potentially drive up energy costs to American consumers.” And this is the entirety of the poll question! It does not even mention the goal of this legislation; it only asks Americans about a potential, hypothetical negative outcome.

In the face of overwhelming public support for clean energy and deepening concern about climate disruption, it is increasingly challenging for the fossil fuel industry to find polling statistics to help their cause. So I anticipate that every new survey released by the American Petroleum Industry will have to be more biased than the last.