Framing Peak Petroleum as a Public Health Problem: Audience Research and Participatory Engagement in the United States

摘要

Between December 2009 and January 2010, we conducted a nationally representative telephone survey of US adults (n = 1001; completion rate = 52.9%) to explore perceptions of risks associated with peak petroleum. We asked respondents to assess the likelihood that oil prices would triple over the next 5 years and then to estimate the economic and health consequences of that event. Nearly half (48%) indicated that oil prices were likely to triple, causing harm to human health; an additional 16% said dramatic price increases were unlikely but would harm health if they did occur. A large minority (44%) said sharp increases in oil prices would be “very harmful” to health. Respondents who self-identified as very conservative and those who were strongly dismissive of climate change were the respondents most likely to perceive very harmful health consequences. Over the next few decades as society passes the point of peak production of petroleum, human health and well-being are likely to face significant risks. Despite declines in global production rates, global demand for petroleum is likely to grow. As a consequence, the price of petroleum—and overall energy costs—will begin to steadily increase over the long term. Even aggressive initiatives aimed at improving energy efficiency and developing alternative energy technologies are unlikely to reduce US dependence on petroleum for several decades. 1 As shown by articles in this special issue of the American Journal of Public Health , the projected public health impacts of peak petroleum include an increase in the costs of medical supplies and pharmaceuticals; a rise in the costs of transportation for patients, health care providers, and medical suppliers; an increase in the operating costs of hospitals and health care facilities; and a rise in the costs of food, home heating, and home cooling. 2 The economic stress caused by peak petroleum—including loss of personal income, unemployment, a decline in consumer confidence, and the increased cost of goods and services—is also likely to negatively affect public health and well-being. Those most vulnerable to these impacts will be young children, the elderly, people with chronic conditions, and people living in poverty. 3 – 5 Peak petroleum may benefit human health and society in certain ways as well. For example, a dramatic increase in the cost of gasoline would likely decrease automobile use and increase rates of walking, biking, and public transportation while reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants that trigger asthma and respiratory problems. 3 – 5 In the face of uncertainty, however, the public health community cannot afford to simply react to the advent of peak petroleum; we must start to anticipate, prepare for, and co-manage the likely health threats. As with climate change, experts and their organizations must plan for and mobilize societal actions that mitigate (i.e., delay) the advent of peak petroleum while also pursuing adaptation strategies that protect the public against negative health consequences when peak petroleum does occur. This planning needs to be informed by careful audience research that assesses where different segments of the public currently stand in terms of awareness and perceptions of the issue. To these ends, we analyze nationally representative public opinion data that we collected between December 2009 and January 2010 and discuss the factors that likely influence public perceptions of peak petroleum. Given the political context for energy policy, we focus specifically on differences in perceptions by ideology and by views of climate change.