This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American
With Keystone XL back in the news after the pipeline bill failed to pass the Senate, I pulled up the latest UT Energy Poll data to a look at what we know about public opinion on the topic*. While we have not directly asked about attitudes on Keystone itself, we do have data on the decision with regard to voting behavior.
More likely to vote for a candidatewho supports approving construction of the Keystone XL pipeline
[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.
In total, 46% of Americans say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports approval of Keystone and 18% say they would be less likely. This is up from 41% six months ago.
Of course, Keystone isn’t even North America’s biggest oil-sands pipeline project anymore and Energy East would bypass the need for U.S. approval.
* Sample includes 2,105 U.S. residents aged 18+ and weighted to reflect US Census demographics. Methodology
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
