Survey of 49 Swing Congressional Districts Regarding Environmental Issues August 26 - September 2, 2007 Ayres, McHenry & Associates, Inc. 112 North Alfred Street Alexandria, VA Telephone: Web Site:

Methodology Survey of 1200 registered voters in 49 swing congressional districts, defined by the Rothenberg Political Report as “competitive” 25 Republican-held; 24 Democratic-held NOT a proxy for a national survey--this has fewer minorities, plus an even party balance at 28 percent Republican and 28 percent Democrat, with more Independents than usual--44 percent. Margin of error is ±2.83 percent

Republicans lost in 2006 not because the base failed to turn out... Source: Exit Polls

... but because Independents went overwhelmingly for Democrats. Source: Exit Polls

General Attitudes about Climate Change

Voters of all political persuasions think global warming is probably happening. Question: Do you think global warming probably is happening or probably is not happening? Note: Results are based on a split sample of 600 respondents

Voters of all three political persuasions think human activity is a significant cause of global warming. Question: If global warming is happening, do you think human activity, such as burning fossil fuels, is or is not a significant cause of global warming?

So what should Congress do?

Voters want Republicans to work with Democrats to craft a bill cutting carbon. Question: Which of the following comes closer to your view: a) Republicans in Congress should work with Democrats to craft a bill to cut carbon emissions to help the environment and make us less dependent on foreign oil; b) Republicans in Congress should oppose Democrats whose efforts to cut carbon emissions will hurt our economy and raise the price of oil.

Independent voters in swing districts think it is very important for Congress to pass climate change legislation. Question: How important do you think it is for Congress to pass legislation to combat climate change -- very important, somewhat important, or not too important?

Independents are more concerned that Congress will do too little on climate change and hurt our environment than do too much and hurt our economy. Question: Which concerns you more: a) Congress will do too much on cutting carbon emissions and hurt our economy; b) Congress will do too little on cutting carbon emissions and hurt our environment.

On environmental issues, voters think the views of scientists should be more important than the views of constituents or party leaders. Question: In voting on environmental issues, which do you think should be most important for your member of Congress -- the views of scientists, the views of constituents, or the views of party leaders?

Question: Do you think the United States Congress should or should not pass legislation to combat climate change that requires cuts in carbon dioxide emissions released into the atmosphere by cars, factories, and power plants? Voters of all three political persuasions think Congress should pass legislation that requires carbon cuts.

What is the political impact of climate legislation?

Voters in swing districts trust Democrats over Republicans on environmental issues by a two-to-one margin, and three-to-one among Independents... Question: Which party, the Republicans or the Democrats, do you trust more to handle environmental issues facing the country?

... but they would have a more favorable view of their congressman if he or she supported legislation cutting carbon... Question: If your own congressman supported legislation cutting carbon emissions, would you be more likely to vote for him or her, less likely to vote for him or her, or would that have no effect on your vote?

... and a less favorable view if he or she blocked it. Question: If your own congressman blocked legislation cutting carbon emissions, would you be more likely to vote for him or her, less likely to vote for him or her, or would that have no effect on your vote?

Which messages on cutting carbon are most persuasive?

A candidate who says climate change is a serious problem has a significant advantage in swing districts over one who says climate change is exaggerated. Question: For each of the following pairs of candidates, please tell me which one you would be more likely to vote for: Candidate A who says that climate change is a serious problem and the U.S. needs to take significant steps to combat it; or, Candidate B who says that climate change is an exaggerated problem and the U.S. does not need to take significant steps to combat it.

A candidate who argues that climate change is a scientific fact has an overwhelming advantage over one who says it’s a hoax. Question: For each of the following pairs of candidates, please tell me which one you would be more likely to vote for: Candidate A who says that climate change is a fact based on scientific evidence; or, Candidate B who says that climate change is a hoax dreamed up by radical environmentalists.

A candidate who wants the U.S. to lead the world on carbon has an advantage over one who wants to wait for China and India to act. Question: For each of the following pairs of candidates, please tell me which one you would be more likely to vote for: Candidate A who says that the U.S. should lead the world in cutting carbon emissions regardless of what China and India do; or, Candidate B who says that it makes no sense for the U.S. to act on its own to cut carbon emissions if China and India have not yet committed to do so.

A candidate who argues that carbon cuts would create jobs has an advantage over one who argues that cuts would drive jobs overseas. Question: For each of the following pairs of candidates, please tell me which one you would be more likely to vote for: Candidate A who says that requiring cuts in carbon emissions would create demand for innovative technologies to cut emissions that would create new jobs in the U.S.; or, Candidate B who says that requiring cuts in carbon emissions would drive U.S. jobs overseas to countries that do not require cuts.

A candidate who argues that carbon cuts make us less dependent on foreign oil has an advantage over one who argues that cuts make it harder to use coal. Question: For each of the following pairs of candidates, please tell me which one you would be more likely to vote for: Candidate A who says that requiring cuts in carbon emissions helps America by making us less dependent on Middle Eastern oil that helps fund Islamic terrorists; or, Candidate B who says that requiring cuts in carbon emissions hurts America by making it harder to use coal, our most abundant home-grown source of energy.

The following statements generate overwhelming agreement among Republicans, Independents, and Democrats. Question: Now I am going to read a list of statements. For each one, would you please tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with that statement: Congress should spend less time bickering, and more time getting things done 97% | 97% | 97% | 98% 93% | 88% | 94% | 98% 91% | 85% | 92% | 95% 91% | 83% | 93% | 95% Cutting carbon emissions will make our air cleaner Cutting carbon emissions will help us be good stewards of the earth for future generations Cutting carbon emissions will lead to new technologies & alternative sources of energy Ranked by Percent Agree All % | Rep % | Ind % | Dem %

The two most significant potential benefits from cutting carbon are making us less dependent on foreign oil and dealing with climate change. Question: Which of the following potential benefits of cutting carbon emissions do you think is the most important: All % | Rep % | Ind % | Dem % 26% | 29% | 27% | 24% 25% | 14% | 28% | 33% 20% | 23% | 19% | 18% 8% | 9% | 7% | 9% 7% | 9% | 6% | 4% 6% | 7% | 6% | 4%

Survey of 49 Swing Congressional Districts Regarding Environmental Issues August 26 - September 2, 2007 Ayres, McHenry & Associates, Inc. 112 North Alfred Street Alexandria, VA Telephone: Web Site: