A Nation Divided On Keystone XL

The new results from the nationally representative UT Energy Poll are out today, highlighting the way so many energy issues have become politicized.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


The new results from the nationally representative UT Energy Poll are out today, highlighting the way so many energy issues have become politicized. A standout this time is the Keystone XL pipeline project–the last segment of a pipeline system that runs from western Canada to refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast. Construction on this yet-to-be-approved final phase has become a lightning rod for contentious public debate.

Just 42 percent of 2,078 survey respondents are even familiar with Keystone XL. Among them, 72 percent of Republicans support its construction, while just 28 percent of Democrats agree.

(Click to view larger)


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Sixty-two percent of Republicans would be more likely to vote for a political candidate who favors completion of Keystone XL, while just 29 percent of Democrats agree. Meanwhile, general support among all survey respondents for candidates who favor construction of the pipeline has declined, from 46 percent six months ago to 39 percent today.

Despite that political battles over Keystone XL on Capitol Hill and in the media usually revolve around climate change, only 6 percent of those opposed to the pipeline project cite climate change as their top concern. Instead, 36 percent are most worried about environmental degradation and 14 percent point to water contamination. Meanwhile, 26 percent who support the project say their top reason is greater energy independence, 25 percent cite job creation and another 25 percent believe it will lead to lower energy prices.

There’s a lot more to unpack in the Spring 2015 UT Energy Poll release so go take a look at the topline results and explore the methodology and results online…

Sheril Kirshenbaum is executive director of Science Debate, a nonpartisan org working to get presidential candidates on record on science policy. She co-directs Michigan State University's Food Literacy and Engagement Poll and hosts the NPR podcast Serving Up Science.

More by Sheril Kirshenbaum

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe