Presidential Candidates Should Talk about Energy

Voters are listening...

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


As the presidential election gets closer, many of us are paying attention to the priorities of the leading candidates. But are the candidates paying attention to the preferences and attitudes of voters?

The United States is diverse and it's always interesting to see how different groups prioritize important issues. Here at Plugged In, we pay close attention to energy, particularly given the U.S. is the world’s largest oil consumer and one of its biggest importers. Meanwhile, the global energy landscape is shifting quickly. Energy decisions made during the next administration will not only shape our economy, but U.S. leadership and innovation for decades to come.

The UT Energy Poll asks respondents about how a candidate's positions on a variety of topics will influence who they choose in November. This morning, I took a close look at how Americans prioritize funding for scientific and university research into new energy technologies.


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.


The survey includes 2,043 U.S. adults and is weighted to reflect U.S. Census demographic data, so these numbers should reflect the entire U.S. population. (MOE ±3.1 percentage points).

I am curious why men are significantly more likely than women to say they favor a candidate interested in increased funding for scientific and university research into new energy technologies. In fact, data throughout the survey suggests men are far more engaged on energy issues generally and report more interest and knowledge than women on a variety of related topics. I've never been sure why we see this, but it's a trend that has persisted since polling began biannually in 2011.

Perhaps less surprising, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to vote for a candidate who pledges to bolster funding on new energy technologies. However, it's also worth noting that these results suggest the majority of voters in every party - as well as every demographic group considered - would be more likely to vote for a presidential candidate in support of doing this.

We'll have to wait and see if the remaining five candidates are paying attention. I certainly hope to hear more about energy priorities from them over the next seven months and at a 2016 ScienceDebate.

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