[raw]
[/raw]
Over the last year, Enbridge Energy’s Line 3 crude oil pipeline and Gov. Tim Walz’s tougher new auto emissions standards have been two of the most fiercely debated environmental issues in Minnesota.
Many supporters of Line 3 and the “Clean Cars” rule are also on opposing ends of the political spectrum. Republican politicians favor Line 3 in greater numbers while DFLers more often support Clean Cars.
As it turns out, however, public views on the issues may not be as sharply divided as some might expect. A recent MinnPost poll of 1,945 Minnesota voters surveyed by Change Research found 56 percent supported Line 3 and 34 percent opposed the pipeline. Those voters also favored Clean Cars by a 48-44 margin.
Line 3 more popular in Greater Minnesota
Line 3 starts in Edmonton, Alberta, and is expected to stretch 337 miles across northern Minnesota to a terminal in Superior, Wisc., once construction is complete.
Enbridge bills the project as a replacement for an existing 34-inch diameter pipeline built in the 1960s that is corroding, operating at half capacity and considered a spill risk. The two pipelines are similar but not identical. The new 36-inch diameter Line 3 is larger and can carry up to 760,000 barrels of oil a day. They also travel different routes across parts of the state.
Supporters of the project broadly argue the new Line 3 will be less likely to spill, and would be safer than shippers potentially moving oil via train or other means. The $2.6 billion cost also brings economic benefits.
Opponents argue building new pipelines during a climate crisis is irresponsible and will lock in fossil fuel emissions from the oil. Some tribes in northern Minnesota also assert Line 3 puts natural resources at risk in lands they have treaty rights to hunt, fish and gather wild rice on.
Juli Kellner, a spokeswoman for Enbridge, said Line 3 is “nearly done in Minnesota” and expected to be in service in the fall or winter of 2021.
MinnPost/Change Research asked poll respondents: “As you may know, the Line 3 pipeline, which will transport oil across Minnesota to Lake Superior, is scheduled to come online in the coming weeks, replacing an old pipeline. Do you support or oppose this project?”
A 56-34 percent majority supported Line 3, the poll found. About 42 percent of people said they strongly supported the pipeline and another 14 percent said they somewhat supported the project. The poll found 12 percent somewhat opposed Line 3 while 22 percent strongly opposed it. Another 11 percent were unsure.
The project diverged along party lines, though Democrats were somewhat split.
[raw]
[/raw]
DFLers and people who lean towards the party mostly opposed the project. About 64 percent said they somewhat or strongly opposed Line 3 while 21 percent said they strongly or somewhat supported the pipeline.
Republicans, meanwhile, were more united in favor of Line 3 than DFLers were in opposition to it. About 92 percent favored the project, 80 percent of which strongly supported Line 3. Only 3 percent somewhat or strongly opposed the pipeline. Among independents, the poll found 63 percent of respondents favored Line 3.
Line 3 was also more popular in Greater Minnesota than in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul.
[raw]
[/raw]
The poll found 66 percent of people outside the seven-county metro area supported the pipeline. In the suburbs of the seven-county metro, not including the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, 51 percent were in favor of the pipeline and 38 percent were opposed. About 45 percent of voters who responded to the poll living in Minneapolis and St. Paul favored the project and 44 percent opposed it.
Narrow majority backs Clean Cars
The MinnPost/Change Research poll also asked voters about Walz’s Clean Cars rule.
In July, Walz’s administration adopted, without approval from the Legislature, new regulations that would set tougher new emissions standards for vehicles and require auto manufacturers to provide more electric vehicles for sale in Minnesota. The regulations mirror ones set by California because states can either follow those rules or federal standards.
Walz said the regulations would boost electric car sales in the state and help Minnesota curb transportation emissions — the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the state. Republicans at the Legislature opposed it, however, saying in part that it could lead to increased up-front costs for car buyers and auto dealers. (EVs are more expensive initially, though have fewer maintenance and fuel costs over time.) Laura Bishop resigned in July as commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency when Minnesota Senate Republicans threatened to remove her from the post in part because she advanced Clean Cars.
The poll asked respondents: “Minnesota’s new Clean Cars rule requires that more zero-emission vehicles are made available to buyers in Minnesota, and sets strict emissions standards in the state. Supporters say the rule will give consumers more choice and will help combat climate change, while opponents say it could hurt auto dealers or lead to higher prices. Do you support or oppose this rule?”
[image_credit]REUTERS/Edgar Su[/image_credit][image_caption]Overall, a slim 48-44 plurality supported Clean Cars.[/image_caption]
The issue also diverged along party lines more than Line 3 did. The poll found 86 percent of Democrats and those who lean DFL supported Clean Cars, while 85 percent of Republicans and people who lean to the GOP opposed the regulations. Among independents, 39 percent supported Clean Cars while 47 percent opposed the rules.
[raw]
[/raw]
In Greater Minnesota, 37 percent either strongly or somewhat supported the Clean Cars rule, while 55 percent opposed it. Voters in the poll from the metro-area suburbs supported Clean Cars by a 52-40 margin, while Minneapolis-St. Paul voters favored it by a 58-34 margin.
[raw]
[/raw]
Explaining the results
Tim Lindberg, a political science professor at the University of Minnesota Morris, said Minnesotans who are in favor of actions to reduce climate change may embrace a crude oil pipeline because the alternatives are unclear, or because they don’t like potential alternatives — such as leaving the aging pipeline in the ground or shipping oil by other means. There are also economic benefits to the project that may draw in voters, he said.
Similar to Democrats who responded to the poll, DFL politicians are split on Line 3. Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, has said Line 3 should be built since it was approved by state and federal regulators. Meanwhile, Walz’s Lieutenant Governor, Peggy Flanagan, has opposed Line 3 in part because some tribes like the Red Lake Band of Chippewa and the White Earth Band of Ojibwe have opposed Line 3 as conflicting with treaty rights. (Flanagan is a member of the White Earth band.)
Lindberg said public perception, in part due to media portrayal of Line 3 and in part due to protests, is that the issue is “very divisive.”
“It’s clearly not that way and it probably never was,” Lindberg said, citing majority support for the pipeline in the poll.
Lindberg said one reason for the lower Clean Cars approval is that it could inflict a more obvious negative impact to Minnesotans in the form of higher up-front car prices and yield less obvious or immediate positive impacts — such as reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and cuts to other harmful air pollution from gas-powered vehicles. EVs will also still be available, even if in potentially smaller numbers, without the Clean Cars rules, Lindberg said.
Those tradeoffs are also more apparent in the specific poll question for Clean Cars, whereas the poll question for Line 3 is broader and doesn’t delve into pros and cons, Lindberg said. Adding the pros and cons can invite a more partisan response, he said, and not listing them for Line 3 may explain the higher number of people who said they were unsure of their position on the pipeline despite its higher profile in the news.
Methodology
The poll was conducted from August 28 to 31 and respondents included 1,945 registered voters. Change Research’s online polling methodology uses targeted social media ads and text messages to recruit respondents. The organization has a B- pollster rating from FiveThirtyEight.
The company uses a “modeled” margin of error, which it says accounts for the effects of weighting the poll (or making adjustments to better reflect the state’s demographics). The results were weighted on age, gender, race/ethnicity, 2020 vote, education, and region. The modeled margin of error for the statewide sample was +/- 2.5 percentage points.
The margin of error for Democrats and leaners is +/- 3.7 percentage points. For Republicans and leaners it is +/- 3.7 percentage points. The margin of error for regions are Twin Cities: +/- 4.5 percent points; metro area: +/- 5.7 percentage points; Greater Minnesota: +/- 3.3 percentage points.
More information on the methodology can be found here.
[raw]
MP.highcharts.makeChart(‘.chart-line-3-geo’, $.extend(true, {}, MP.highcharts.barOptions, { xAxis: { categories: [ “All respondents”, “Greater Minnesota”, “Twin Cities suburbs”, “Minneapolis and St. Paul” ] }, yAxis: { title: { text: “Percent” }, max: 100 }, tooltip: { formatter: function () { return this.y + “%”; } }, series: [ { name: “Somewhat or strongly support”, data: [56, 66, 51, 45] }, { name: “Somewhat or strongly oppose”, data: [34, 24, 38, 44] }, { name: “Not sure”, data: [11, 10, 12, 12] } ] }));
MP.highcharts.makeChart(‘.chart-clean-cars-partisan’, $.extend(true, {}, MP.highcharts.barOptions, { xAxis: { categories: [ “All respondents”, “Republicans and lean Republican”, “Democrats and lean Democratic”, “Indpendents” ] }, yAxis: { title: { text: “Percent” }, max: 100 }, tooltip: { formatter: function () { return this.y + “%”; } }, series: [ { name: “Somewhat or strongly support”, data: [48, 7, 86, 45] }, { name: “Somewhat or strongly oppose”, data: [44, 85, 6, 44] }, { name: “Not sure”, data: [8, 7, 7, 12] } ] }));
MP.highcharts.makeChart(‘.chart-clean-cars-geo’, $.extend(true, {}, MP.highcharts.barOptions, { xAxis: { categories: [ “All respondents”, “Greater Minnesota”, “Twin Cities suburbs”, “Minneapolis and St. Paul” ] }, yAxis: { title: { text: “Percent” }, max: 100 }, tooltip: { formatter: function () { return this.y + “%”; } }, series: [ { name: “Somewhat or strongly support”, data: [48, 37, 52, 58] }, { name: “Somewhat or strongly oppose”, data: [44, 55, 40, 34] }, { name: “Not sure”, data: [8, 8, 7, 8] } ] }));
[/raw]
This really isn’t that difficult.
The clean cars legislation is a serious attempt to reduce emissions and dependence on fossil fuels. The Line 3 opposition – especially with construction nearly complete – is ignorant nonsense.
You get a C for providing some semblance of a reason for your support for the Clean Cars rule but resorting to an ad hominem attack on the question of Line 3.
While I believe it’s time for Line 3 opponents to lay down their swords, they raised some legitimate issues along the way and likely enhanced the safety of the line in the process. I’d very much like to see them direct their energies toward reducing demand rather than keep fossil fuels in the ground by blocking their distribution. So long as the demand continues, the flow will continue, one way or another.
Well, you get an even worse grade for your use of the term ad hominem. I called the arguments being made ignorant nonsense. I didn’t call the people involved ignorant, even though I do think that.
I guess I could have re-hashed all of the arguments which have been made ad nauseam. Mr. Stenger does a nice job pointing out the actual alternatives here. You seem to agree with my point that with the project nearly done the protests are pointless.
And my criticism is not of the people who challenged the legal and regulatory process, and may have made the project safer. Because those are all done now, and the public understands that. All that is left is people who don’t care about the facts or the law. The predominantly out of state people who are getting arrested for violent protests. That is all ignorant nonsense.
Again, clean cars is a meaningful program. And – at this stage – Line 3 opposition is worthless.
The alternatives. Continue to use a leaky old pipeline. Move oil without pipelines (train or truck). Use the new pipeline that is nearly completed. Not a hard choice at this point.
That said, the owners should pay the full costs of any spills, which they can pass on as high priced fuel, which gives consumers to switch to electric vehicles.
Our mistake has been electing Republicans as President, given that they are in the pocket of or get rich from the fossil fuels industry. Without Reagan, the Bushes and Trump, who won in part because many progressives failed to support Democrats, our country would be doing better at conservation, developing alternative energy sources and avoiding petroleum wars, the biggest cost of fossil fuels not accounted for.
The irony is that one of the leaders of the Line 3 protests is Winona LaDuke, who was Ralph Nader’s running mate in the 2000 election, narrowly won by George Bush over Al Gore. Nader, who openly declared he wanted Bush to win the election, ran a smear campaign against Gore, who was probably the most environmentally-minded Democratic nominee there has ever been.
Al Gore’s net worth is estimated at $330 million. Not bad for a guy who spent his life in government jobs or pushing debunked global warming theories. (He said in 2006 that the world had 10 years to end its addiction to fossil fuels or it would come to an end. That was 5 years ago).
Why are you mad at Al Gore for making money? Unlike Donald Trump for example, Gore is an entrepreneur who understands how to run a successful business.
Climate science hasn’t been debunked in any way, shape or form. The overwhelming evidence of man-made climate change continues to get stronger.
I would be fine with this argument IF owners of such things actually DID pay for the damage they cause. Sadly, that never happens. The owner “goes out of business” or otherwise escapes responsibility, and the public gets to pay with blood and money. And, some things you just can’t fix when an accident happens. Who pays when the damage is irreversible?
It happens quite a bit. There is a ton of litigation involving paying for environmental cleanup. But you are correct that when companies go out of business the public picks up the tab.
I highly doubt Enbridge is going to go out of business.
You forgot the other alternative: leave the tar sands oil in the ground. I read recently that because of the higher processing costs associated with tar sands oil, if they weren’t able to ship it through Line 3, then it would be uneconomical to even continue pumping it out of the ground because of the higher transport costs of rail or truck. So those who are concerned about shipping by rail or truck really would have nothing to worry about. It wouldn’t be shipped at all.
That’s not an alternative. That’s a delusion.
They’ll keep using the existing Line 3, but since they can only transport on that line at half capacity for safety reasons, it will keep their contribution towards climate change at the current level instead of doubling it if the new line opens. But if the new line doesn’t open and the old line does rupture or otherwise need to get shut down, it’s unlikely they could compete with other oil sources. Tar sands oil is way more expensive to produce and there’s a lot of investors getting out of it already – https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/03/canadas-oil-sands-industry-is-taking-a-big-hit/
I hope that’s true. I hope demand for tar sands oil dries up. But the new line is built and the protests are meaningless.
The problem with the “clean car rules” is that it’s the government interfering in the marketplace. Anyone who believes in the free market would oppose that, which is why democrats have no problem with it.
So, your point is, no regulations for clean air, clean water, etc. correct? Because all those regulations interfere with your free market that is free to pollute the commons (my air, water etc.) as they desire!
It’s more analogous to when the government banned incandescent light bulbs. Republicans opposed the ban and argued that the solution would be to let the market decide. When LED bulbs convinced enough users that their product was better, the demand for incandescents would go away by itself. There was no need for government to interfere in the marketplace by MANDATING (there’s that word again) a solution upon the citizenry.
Republicans opposed the government ban then too and democrats supported it like they support all controls in the marketplace. What’s next, the “5 year plan?”
This is a perfect example of why Republicans are so bad at economics. Why Donald Trump has been a failure his whole life. The rest of the world is embracing innovation, and the US is stuck with choosing outdated technologies.
Anyone who believes in the free market would oppose socialism for solar manufacturing and press board plants in northern Minnesota. But the free marketeer voters and the politicians they continue to vote for choose socialism over the free market. Every time.
And I can just see the responses now. “Well, I myself don’t support those subsidies, really. I only support real conservatives for office!” And yet, the conservatives actually do vote for business socialism. Again and again.
Are Gub’mint required seat belts, air bags, safety features, road tules, et. al. interfering with your sacred free market ? I do not hear/see complaining about them.
The real problem with the clean car rules is that the cars themselves won’t work very well in very hot (defined as over 90 degrees) or very cold (defined as under 20 degrees) environments. In April, Car and Driver Magazine tested all the current EVs in the market today and found that at 20 degrees operating temperature, most EVs got no more than 40% of their stated range. There were two exceptions for the most expensive Tesla models. The clean cars may make sense in some parts of Minnesota where the driving is going to be over short distances. But they make little sense in rural Northern Minnesota with long distances driven during cold weather. To force all dealerships statewide to offer the exact same offerings is not smart. The one size fits all approach is wrong.
If you’re in Northern Minnesota, then don’t buy an EV. Let the car users in the metro, who run short errands mostly, buy the cars. The rule is for the manufacturer to offer the cars for sale. The dealers and their manufacturers have to figure it out–Nissan isn’t going to send cars to Hibbing where they will sit if they can be sold in the Twin Cities.
The Lucid Air was just given an EPA mileage rating of 502 miles per charge – that’s over 100 miles further than anything offered by Tesla. Even their 1000 hp version rated at just over 400 miles per charge. Not sure how much more is needed really. 500 miles is a long day for most drivers.
The lame excuse of range anxiety is quickly losing any meaningful argument. 500 miles per charge – that’s more than I get in any of my gas powered cars.
Just like the EPA estimates for fuel milage. Under perfect conditions. Not -20.
Anything you drive get 500 miles to the tank? Yeah, didn’t think so.
Not to put to fine a point on it, but mileage is increasing in electric rigs, every day, so while electric vehicles work just fine, even at that mythical -20, the technology in batteries and charging is only getting better.
Oh, and internal combustion engines lose efficiency in cold weather too – winter mileage is lower than summer mileage.
The cheapest Lucid Air is $78,000. The touring partner to that model is $88,000 and all other editions are well over six figures. So you are saying that people in Greater Minnesota who will have range anxiety should shell out close to $100,000 so they can get 250 miles per charge? While the Lucid was not in production in time to get tested in February’s Car and Driver issue that rated all the current EVs, remember that the average EV range loss at 20-degrees was in the 60-percent range so that 500-mile range for the Lucid is likely going to be under 250 miles. My point remains…EV cars like the Lucid Air remain a great idea for wealthier suburbanites and city residents, but are probably not a great choice for the rest of the state. So why should dealers in parts where EVs are not going to be in demand be forced to carry them?
Well if that is your position, what is your position on the GOP inserting language into the transportation bill banning the placement of chargers on Minnesota Trunk highways? this language was never publicly presented, heard or debated. It was inserted by the last minute by the senate GOP committee. Does that meet your definition of free market? Or are you only interested in thwarting the desires of people who disagree with you? Talk about intervening in free markets- the thousands of people with e-cars are limited by spiteful Republicans to tilt the market towards rural car dealers who oppose clean cars because they get less service revenue.. tHAT is direct intervention to favor big business. And THAT is how the GOP treats free markets.
Line 3 is all but completed and I don’t understand the problem folks have with it. The new pipe is replacing an old line, increasing safety and moving more oil. The oil is being moved one way or the other, rail/road or pipeline. Even the Biden Administration agrees pipelines are safer than the alternatives. Line 3 will be done this year sometime.
Consumers will determine what car they want, not politicians.
How many leaky oil pipelines do you want Joe ? There are 6 running through Mn lake country. How many do you think is needed ?
And a completed Line 3 adds exactly ZERO to that total as the old leaky one is removed or decommissioned per their permit when the new safer and more reliable ones comes on line in the next few weeks.
Line 3 means one less leaky pipeline.
Dennis, new pipe, no leaks… See how easy that was.