Sun, Wind, Rock and Metal: Attitudes toward Renewable and Non-renewable Energy Sources in the Context of Climate Change and Current Energy Debates

Abstract

Current energy debates are often framed in terms of the extent to which energy sources may mitigate global climate change (GCC) and facilitate energy independence (EI). However, little is understood about whether and how attitudes towards GCC and EI influence attitudes toward energy sources. Our study included 277 undergraduate students enrolled in introductory psychology classes at a large, Southeastern university. As hypothesized, results from ordinal and binary logistic regression analyses revealed that the likelihood participants would support the use of solar, wind, coal or nuclear energy decreased as a function of their belief that an energy source contributed to GCC. The belief that an energy source contributed to EI increased participants' likelihood of support. Results suggest that beliefs about GCC and EI are important to determining support for energy sources and will likely contribute to effective marketing strategies and efforts to implement more environmentally-sustainable behavior and energy policy.

The influence of values on evaluations of energy alternatives

“…3 Values were measured in the same way in the present studies. In order to cross-validate the results and to test the generalizability of the results, the measures of evaluations of energy alternatives (i.e.…”

“…However, it is not the purpose of this study to unravel the cause and effect relationships between attitudes and perceptions of consequences (future research could address this question; see also General discussion). Most importantly, the purpose here is to test whether attitudes as well as perceptions of consequences can be influenced by a third variable, namely people's values 3. Evaluations of localized renewable energy were studied, since the use of renewable energy sources implies a shift from central to local energy systems[40] 4.…”

Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda

“…Not surprisingly, the higher costs people ascribe to an energy alternative, the lower their acceptability, whereas the higher benefits they expect, the higher their acceptability, be it collective or individual costs and benefits [5]. For example, acceptability of solar and wind energy, energy produced from coal, and nuclear energy was lower when people believed that a particular energy alternative is contributing to climate change, whereas acceptability was higher if people believed that an energy alternative increases a country's energy independence [11]. The higher price participants expected to pay for green electricity when compared to conventional electricity, the less they were willing to adopt green electricity [15].…”

“…However, it is unclear which exact indicators of environmental impact (e.g., CO 2 emissions, waste materials) account for these differences. For example, nuclear energy has been long promoted as a low-carbon energy alternative, but it is nevertheless evaluated as having relatively large contribution to climate change, larger than renewable energy, although somewhat smaller than energy produced from coal [11]. Also in other studies nuclear energy scored rather low on perceived environmental benefits, with people only "reluctantly" accepting it if having come to a conclusion that there is no other way to combat climate change and at the same time expressing strong preference for alternative sustainable solutions [14,41,42].…”

Socioeconomic indicators for sustainable design and commercial development of algal biofuel systems

“…People evaluate renewable fuels as having lower adverse environmental impacts than fossil fuels, although the environmental effects of concern are not always clear (Perlaviciute & Steg, ). Perceived energy independence associated with renewable resources leads to a higher public opinion of them (Culley et al ., ). Public opinion may be tied to specific biofuels; opinions about corn‐based ethanol could be different from those about ethanol (or renewable diesel) derived from algae (Cacciatore et al ., ).…”