All Eyes To 2016: Energy and Renewables In The Midterms

Do energy issues matter when it comes to how we vote? It depends. For some Americans, energy is the most significant factor that influences the way a ballot is cast.

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



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.


Do energy issues matter when it comes to how we vote? It depends. For some Americans, energy is the most significant factor that influences the way a ballot is cast. To others, it takes a back seat to pressing social and security issues. Still, we know Americans are paying attention to energy. According to the Spring 2014 wave of the UT Energy Poll, a majority of Americans - 63% - say energy issues are important to them, including 69% of Democrats and 57% of Republicans.

So what sways us in one direction or the other? Sixty-four percent say they are more likely to support a candidate who would like to expand financial incentives for companies engaged in renewable technologies. By party affiliation, the numbers look like this:

In the past, I've written about the significance of improving energy efficiency and expanding renewable technologies if we are to meet the needs of a growing global population that increasingly has access to energy-intensive technologies like cars and cell phones and laptops. While Democratic voters appear to be most focused on creating incentives for the expansion of renewables, it's a favorable position for all candidates regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum.

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