Dataset Information

Shared vision for a decarbonized future energy system in the United States.

ABSTRACT: How do people envision the future energy system in the United States with respect to using fossil fuels, renewable energy, and nuclear energy? Are there shared policy pathways of achieving a decarbonized energy system? Here, we present results of an online survey (n = 2,429) designed to understand public perceptions of the current and future energy mixes in the United States (i.e., energy sources used for electric power, transportation, industrial, commercial, and residential sectors). We investigate support for decarbonization policies and antidecarbonization policies and the relative importance of climate change as an issue. Surprisingly, we find bipartisan support for a decarbonized energy future. Although there is a shared vision for decarbonization, there are strong partisan differences regarding the policy pathways for getting there. On average, our participants think that climate change is not the most important problem facing the United States today, but they do view climate change as an important issue for the world today and for the United States and the world in the future.

SUBMITTER: Miniard D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7132305 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Shared vision for a decarbonized future energy system in the United States.

Miniard Deidra D Kantenbacher Joseph J Attari Shahzeen Z SZ

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 20200316 13

How do people envision the future energy system in the United States with respect to using fossil fuels, renewable energy, and nuclear energy? Are there shared policy pathways of achieving a decarbonized energy system? Here, we present results of an online survey (<i>n</i> = 2,429) designed to understand public perceptions of the current and future energy mixes in the United States (i.e., energy sources used for electric power, transportation, industrial, commercial, and residential sectors). We ...[more]

PMID: 32179682

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo support survey validation efforts by comparing prevalence rates of self-reported and examination evaluated presenting visual impairment (VI) and blindness measured across national surveys.DesignCross-sectional comparison.ParticipantsParticipants in the 2016 American Community Survey, the 2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the 2016 National Health Interview Survey, the 2005-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), and the 2016 National Survey of Children's Health.MethodsWe estimated VI and blindness prevalence rates and confidence intervals for each survey measure and age group using the Clopper-Pearson method. We used inverse variance weighting to estimate the central tendency across measures by age-group, fitted trend lines to age-group estimates, and used the trend-line equations to estimate the number of United States persons with VI and blindness in 2016. We compared self-report estimates with those from NHANES physical evaluations of presenting VI and blindness.Main outcome measuresVariability of prevalence estimates of VI and blindness.ResultsSelf-report estimates of blindness varied between 0.1% and 5.6% for those younger than 65 years and from 0.6% to 16.6% for those 65 or older. Estimates of VI varied between 1.6% and 24.8% for those younger than 65 years and between 2.2% and 26.6% for those 65 years or older. For summarized survey results and NHANES physical evaluation, prevalence rates for VI increased significantly with increasing age group. Blindness prevalence increased significantly with increasing age group for summarized survey responses but not for NHANES physical examination. Based on extrapolations of NHANES physical examination data to all ages, we estimated that in 2016, 23.4 million persons in the United States (7.2%) had VI or blindness, an evaluated presenting visual acuity of 20/40 or worse in the better-seeing eye before correction. Based on weighted self-reported surveys, we estimated that 24.8 million persons (7.7%) had presenting VI or blindness.ConclusionsPrevalence rates of VI and blindness obtained from national survey measures varied widely across surveys and age groups. Additional research is needed to validate the ability of survey self-report measures of VI and blindness to replicate results obtained through examination by an eye health professional.

Project description:ImportanceMost patients with low vision are elderly and have functional limitations from other health problems that could add to the functional limitations caused by their visual impairments.ObjectiveTo identify factors that contribute to visual ability measures in patients who present for outpatient low vision rehabilitation (LVR) services.Design, setting, and participantsAs part of a prospective, observational study of new patients seeking outpatient LVR, 779 patients from 28 clinical centers in the United States were enrolled in the Low Vision Rehabilitation Outcomes Study (LVROS) from April 25, 2008, through May 2, 2011. The Activity Inventory (AI), an adaptive visual function questionnaire, was administered to measure overall visual ability and visual ability in 4 functional domains (reading, mobility, visual motor function, and visual information processing) at baseline before LVR. The Geriatric Depression Scale, Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status, and Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey physical functioning questionnaires were also administered to measure patients' psychological, cognitive, and physical health states, respectively.Main outcomes and measuresPredictors of visual ability and functional domains as measured by the AI.ResultsAmong the 779 patients in the LVROS sample, the mean age was 76.4 years, 33% were male, and the median logMAR visual acuity score was 0.60 (0.40-0.90 interquartile range). Correlations were observed between logMAR visual acuity and baseline visual ability overall (r = -0.42) and for all functional domains. Visual acuity was the strongest predictor of visual ability (P < .001) and reading ability (P < .001) and had a significant independent effect on the other functional domains. Physical ability was independently associated with (P < .001) overall visual ability as well as mobility and visual motor function. Depression had a consistent independent effect (P < .001) on overall visual ability and on all functional domains, whereas cognition had an effect on only reading and mobility (P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceVisual ability is a multidimensional construct, with visual acuity, depression, physical ability, and cognition explaining more than one-third of the variance in visual ability as measured by the AI. The significant contributions of the nonvisual factors to visual ability measures and the rehabilitation potential (ie, ceiling) effects they may impose on LVR are important considerations when measuring baseline visual ability and ultimately LVR outcomes in ongoing clinical research.

Dataset Information

Shared vision for a decarbonized future energy system in the United States.

Publications

Shared vision for a decarbonized future energy system in the United States.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets