A Tale of Two Energy Priorities – Told In Charts

I like charts. And I like to tell stories through charts. So let’s begin… According to the latest data from the UT Energy Poll, here’s where Americans most want to see their tax dollars spent: Not surprisingly, job creation is a high priority.

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


I like charts. And I like to tell stories through charts. So let's begin...

According to the latest data from the UT Energy Poll, here's where Americans most want to see their tax dollars spent:

Not surprisingly, job creation is a high priority. Fair enough. (Energy” ranks last, with slightly fewer votes than “other,” but that’s a topic for another day). Now we'll look a bit closer...


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.


These are the perceived benefits most associated with natural gas production (note these survey responses were not mutually exclusive):

And next, the perceived benefits most associated with renewables:

Now back to tax dollar priorities. If job creation is valued most and natural gas production is perceived as a job creator, there's going to be a fair amount of public support behind expanding it. (Hence the current energy transition). However, given that just four percent of Americans rank the environment as a top priority, the development and adoption of renewable technologies may be limited.

What's important to keep in mind is that "perceived" benefits do not necessarily reflect reality. It's true that renewables may lead to a cleaner environment, but they also create jobs and are certainly involved in boosting American innovation, economic growth, and competitiveness.

Public attitudes on both topics reflect the way we have been framing them. In the case of renewables, it may be time to change the conversation.

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

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe