Polling Experts Bash Koch-Funded Electric Car Survey as 'Highly Biased' and 'Highly Misleading'

image_50427649
on

Fossil fuel interests appear intentย on swaying public opinion about the electric vehicle tax credit, based onย recent polling on the policy.ย A deeper look at these effortsย reveals oil and gas funding behind the groups conducting the polls and blatantย bias in the polling methodology, according toย experts.ย 

Survey results commissioned and publicized by the American Energy Alliance (AEA) seem on their surface to indicate that a majority of respondents are not thrilled about subsidizing EVs purchased by other consumers, particularly wealthy Americans. However, according to polling experts who reviewed the survey for DeSmog, the questions were designed to solicit a certain response and produce results to serve a predetermined narrative that supports the oil industry’s interests. According to polling expert Ed Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, theย surveysย relied on โ€œhighly biased questions designed to elicit highly misleadingย answers.โ€ย 

Who Is Behind the ‘Highly-Biased’ Anti-Electric Vehicleย Poll?ย 

The organization that commissioned the surveys, AEA, is funded by oil interests including the Koch network and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), the nationโ€™s leading trade group of oil refiners. The group is touting these findings from recent polls in Maine, Michigan, and South Dakota, saying the results are consistent with those from surveys they commissioned in nine otherย states.ย 

โ€œThis is further evidence that efforts to compel taxpayers, ratepayers, workers, and consumers to pay for the choices of others, and the preferences of government bureaucrats, are doomed and will lead directly to voter resistance,โ€ said Thomas Pyle, president of AEA. โ€œThe citizens of Maine, Michigan, and South Dakota see an expansion of the electric vehicle tax credit exactly for what it is: a giveaway to rich Californians and large, already prosperousย corporations.โ€

Pyleโ€™s statement, and the survey questions themselves, are loaded with misleading information. The tax creditโ€™s statedย purpose is to lower the cost of electric vehicles, which is critically important for low-to-moderate income Americans. Automakers donโ€™t claim the credit, consumers do, including those who opt to lease an electric vehicle. But Pyle appears to disregard these points in an attempt to drum up opposition to theย policy.

Pyle’s approach makes sense within the context ofย his and his organizationโ€™s backgrounds and former lobbying clients, as well as those of the firm conducting theย surveys.ย 

The American Energy Alliance is a 501(c)(4) organization โ€” meaning it is not required to disclose its donors โ€” and is the advocacy arm of the Institute for Energy Research. IER supports โ€œfree-market energy and environmental policyโ€ and was formed in 1989 from a predecessor organization founded by petrochemical billionaire Charles Koch. Donors to IER include oil and gas interests such as the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and Charles Koch Institute as well as ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute. The AFPM oil refiners trade group is also a major donor, having given three times as much to the American Energy Alliance compared to any other organization, according to the most recently available taxย records.ย 

Charles Koch
Charles Koch at a conference in Aspen in 2016.
ย Credit:ย Fortune Brainstormย TECH,ย CCย BYNCNDย 2.0

Thomas Pyle, president of IER and AEA, is a former lobbyist for Koch Industries, the largest privately owned energy company in the U.S. Pyle has also lobbied for the Big Oil trade association formerly called the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, which is nowย AFPM. Both Koch Industries and the members of AFPM like Exxonย make billions in profits from fueling internal-combustion engine vehicles, so policies supporting vehicles not fueled by their products, like the EV tax credit, threaten their bottomย lines.ย 

MWR Strategies, the firm conducting the surveys on the EV tax credit, is a research, communications, and lobbying company whose clients include electric utility and energy companies with clear fossil fuel interests. For example, TECO Energy โ€” owner of natural gas businesses in Florida and New Mexico โ€” paid MWR $80,000 just this year. Among other energy and utility corporations paying MWR are ENGIE, Public Service Enterprise Group/PSEG Power, and Southern Company.ย Notably, Koch Industries has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to the firm from 2008 to 2016, OpenSecrets data reveals. Other petroleum corporations and trade associations like El Paso Corp. and AFPMโ€™s predecessor National Petrochemical & Refiners Associationย have previously retained MWR.ย 

Michael McKenna, president of MWR Strategies, is an energy lobbyist who led Trumpโ€™s Energy Department transition team, and, as E&E reported, is โ€œwell-known in Republican energy circlesโ€ and was recently tapped to serve in the White House as an advisor to the president.ย McKenna previously worked at several other research and communications firms including Luntz Research Companies, founded by notorious climate denier Frank Luntz (who only recently announced he was wrong and has shifted hisย views).

Mike McKenna, MWR Strategies
Mike McKenna of MWRย Strategies

The MWR Strategies website does not have information about current work, rather the โ€œcurrentโ€ section is a list of links to polling on climate and energy topics dating back to 2008 and earlier. These โ€œpollsโ€ are structured in much the same way as the polls about EV tax credits, with questions focused on the (debunked) premise that addressing climate change is too expensive and even asking about the โ€œcertaintyโ€ of climate science (exploiting scientific uncertainty has been a key strategy of the fossil fuel industryโ€™s well-documented disinformationย campaign).

MWRโ€™s polling strategy appears to be posing misleading questions, some with inaccurate information, in order to garner a particular response. For example, in the firmโ€™s March 2008 poll on global warming, one question asked which is more important, addressing global warming or reducing reliance on foreign energy sources โ€” whichย is a false choice given that renewable energy sources like solar and wind would do both. In another survey from 2006 on energy, the statementย โ€œliquefied natural gas cannot explode like gasolineโ€ย was posed to respondents. This is also misleading because while the liquid itself wonโ€™t explode, blasts can occur at LNG sites and associated vapors areย combustible.ย 

How MWR‘s EV Tax Credit Survey Misleads Respondents and Deceives theย Public

In the recent surveys MWR conducted on the EV tax credit, one of the statements thatย respondents could agree or disagree withย was, โ€œit is not right for GM to ask taxpayers for a tax credit.โ€ General Motors is lobbying to extend and expand the electric car tax credit, but the automaker would not actually claim the credit โ€” consumersย would.ย 

Another question claims that โ€œthe average buyer of an electric car makes more than 150 thousand dollars per year,โ€ a claim that is demonstrably false. When pressed by DeSmog for a citation or clarification, McKenna responded through a media relations contact, pointing to the often-debunked Manhattan Institute report by Jonathan Lesserย calledย โ€Short Circuit: The High Cost of Electric Vehicle Subsidies.โ€

That report actually cites a 2013 UC-Davis study that examined โ€œthe characteristics of 1,200 households who actually purchased a new plug-in vehicle in California during 2011-2012,โ€ finding that โ€œ46 percent of electric car drivers in California alone had incomes above $150,000.โ€ This study, now six years old,ย does not translate to the statement regarding an โ€œaverage buyerโ€ that was presented in the survey. In effect, the survey question was premised on a falsified statistic from an outdated data set that only includedย California.ย 


Excerpt of misleading questions from theย MWR poll about consumer attitudes toward the electric car taxย credit.

Polling and communication experts told DeSmog that these EV tax credit surveys should not be considered legitimate measures of public opinion. Many of the questions are actually statements that respondents can agree or disagree with. But according to polling expert Joshua Dyck, associate professor of political science at UMass Lowell and director of the Center for Public Opinion, โ€œAgree/disagree items are not a legitimate way to determine public opinion on policyย issues.โ€ย 

โ€œThere is a well known response bias for respondents in surveys to agree to prompts in questions structured as agree/disagree items,โ€ he said.ย โ€œThis is known to survey researchers by the term โ€˜response acquiescence.โ€™ย In order to get at how respondents actually feel, you should allow respondents to pick from balanced options. I wouldnโ€™t put much stock in the agree/disagree items in thisย survey.โ€

Ed Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, also said these surveys were designed to beย misleading.ย 

โ€œUnbiased survey questions intended to elicit peopleโ€™s opinions about or support for a proposition (such as a proposed public policy) can be done in one of two ways.ย The proposition can be stated in neutral, factual terms with or without the leading arguments both for and against the proposition,โ€ he explained. โ€œThe questions on AEA surveys did not state the facts about the propositions, but instead made negative claims about the consequences of the propositions.ย Therefore, people were responding to the negative statements made about the proposition, not the propositionย itself.โ€ย 

Ed Maibach
Ed Maibach, a climate change communication researcher at George Mason University. Credit:ย greenmanbucket,ย YouTube screenย shot

This response to negative statements gives the misleading appearance that there is little public support for the EV tax credit. โ€œElected officials who are concerned about voter opinion should probably think twice before expanding favorable tax treatment for electric vehicles. Voters in each of the 12 States we examined are very skeptical of them,โ€ MWRโ€™s McKenna saidย in a statement about theย poll.ย 

But as Maibach explained, this is probably not true. โ€œThe poll done for AEA was not intended to determine how people actually feel about public policies in support of EVs, rather it was done to give the impression that people do not support use of public resources to support EVs,โ€ heย said.ย 

Maibachโ€™s Center for Climate Change Communication, along with Climate Nexus and the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, did a poll in July of 820 registered voters in Michigan on their attitudes towards various climate policies. According to the results, โ€œMichigan voters favor expanding the tax credit for those who purchase EVs โ€” close to two-thirds (66 percent) agree the federal tax credit for EVs should extend beyond each manufacturerโ€™s first 200,000ย vehicles.โ€ย 

Pyle, AEAโ€™s president and former Koch lobbyist, told E&E News he stands by his surveys finding little support for the tax credit, adding that he is โ€œnot concerned about what the greens think about ourย work.โ€ย 

But Maibach pushed back against this statement. โ€œThe problem with his poll is not that โ€˜the greensโ€™ donโ€™t like the findings,โ€ he said.ย โ€œThe problem is that his findings are bogus, because they asked highly biased questions designed to elicit highly misleadingย answers.โ€ย ย 

Main image:ย Senior Airman Alec Cope plugs in a hybrid vehicle at Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, June 2, 2016. The 66th Logistics Readiness Squadron unveiled the plug-in electric hybrid vehicle and charging station during an open house. The vehicle complies with President Barack Obama’s federal government directive to become more energy efficient with the Defense Departmentโ€™s vehicle fleet. Credit: U.S. Air Force photo/Linda LaBonte Britt, publicย domain

image_50427649
Dana is an environmental journalist focusing on climate change and climate accountability reporting. She writes regularly for DeSmog covering topics such as fossil fuel industry opposition to climate action, climate change lawsuits, greenwashing and false climate solutions, and clean transportation.

Related Posts

on

The party has pumped out hundreds of adverts falsely stating that Labour would introduce a โ€œnational ULEZโ€, and pay per mile charges.

The party has pumped out hundreds of adverts falsely stating that Labour would introduce a โ€œnational ULEZโ€, and pay per mile charges.
on

This article by The Energy Mix is published here as part of the global journalism collaboration Covering Climate Now. A citizensโ€™ committee appointed by the City of Edmonton is calling on Mayor...
on

But demand for hydrogen-powered vehicles remains low, and claims the gas is a net-zero technology are still unproven.

But demand for hydrogen-powered vehicles remains low, and claims the gas is a net-zero technology are still unproven.
on

Campaigners charge that the ads are misleading the public about the proposed projectโ€™s likely climate harms.

Campaigners charge that the ads are misleading the public about the proposed projectโ€™s likely climate harms.