David C. Warren

Over the past two decades, states and cities implemented low-carbon energy development, renewable portfolio standards, demand-side management (DSM), renewable energy production incentives, green building requirements, regional carbon trading agreements, and other energy-based economic development initiatives. Yet the dearth of state-level and substate-level models makes it difficult to predict the effects of such actions. This article addresses this shortcoming by presenting the performance results of the new Indiana Scalable Economy and Energy Model (IN-SEEM)—a model utilizing a dynamic, simultaneous equations framework—and demonstrates the model’s capabilities with an analysis of electricity price increases from a DSM program in the state of Indiana. Overall performance of the model is strong, with high adjusted R² values and low mean absolute percent errors for most of 30 endogenous variables. A DSM price increase analysis finds variation in impact across the state’s 10 major economic sectors and small changes in energy consumption.

Despite the potential environmental and economic benefits of carbon capture and storage (CCS), many factors limit its prospects for implementation, including economic feasibility, geologic and legal constraints, risk uncertainties, and public acceptance. This study focuses on the challenge of public acceptance and support by analyzing survey data on publis attitudes toward CCS implementation in the coal-intensive state of Indiana. It was determined that specific information that defined individuals’ general world views can be used to predict support or opposition for CCS implementation. However, additional analysis found that specific attitudes about potential CCS risks and benefits are also significantly correlated with support or opposition to CCS implementation. These variables include: the respondents’ impressions of the potential dangers associated with CCS; attitudes about the potential for CCS implementation to bring jobs to the local economy; and the amount of fear of a CCS facility near their home or community.

Whereas many studies focus on climate skeptics to explain the lack of support for immediate action on climate change, this research examines the effect of moderate believers in climate science. Using data from a representative survey of 832 Indiana residents, we find that agreement with basic scientific conclusions about climate change is the strongest predictor of support for immediate action, and the strength of that agreement is an important characteristic of this association. Responses indicate widespread acceptance of climate change, moderate levels of risk perception, and limited support for immediate action. Half of the respondents (50%) preferred “more research” over “immediate action” (38%) and “no action” (12%) as a response to climate change. The probability of preferring immediate action is close to zero for those who strongly or somewhat disbelieve in climate change, but as belief in climate change grows from moderate to strong, the probability of preferring immediate action increases substantially; the strongest believers have a predicted probability of preferring immediate action of 71%. These findings suggest that, instead of simply engaging skeptics, increasing public support for immediate action might entail motivating those with moderate beliefs in climate change to hold their views with greater conviction.