Labeling renewable energies: How the language surrounding biofuels can influence its public acceptance Michael A. Cacciatore a,n , Dietram A. Scheufele a , Bret R. Shaw b a Department of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1545 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA b Department of Life Sciences Communication and Environmental Communication Specialist in UW Extension, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1545 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA HIGHLIGHTS c This study tested how the public responds to the terms ‘‘biofuels’’ and ‘‘ethanol’’. c Respondents tended to react more favorably to ‘‘biofuels’’ as opposed to ‘‘ethanol’’. c Sociodemographics did little to consistently explain biofuels/ethanol attitudes. c However, Democrats were more positive than Republicans toward biofuels/ethanol. c Wording manipulation also differed based on respondent political party affiliation. article info Article history: Received 31 January 2012 Accepted 4 September 2012 Available online 28 September 2012 Keywords: Biofuels Framing Public opinion abstract Despite growing interest and investments in biological fuels, little is known of how the public form opinions toward this alternative fuel technology. This study examines public opinion of biofuels by focusing on several factors that can be expected to influence citizens’ opinions about the issue. First, we tested the results of a framing experiment that was embedded within a public opinion survey. This experiment explored how the public responded to the term ‘‘biofuels’’ as compared to the term ‘‘ethanol.’’ Our results suggest that, overall, respondents tended to react more favorably to the former as opposed to the latter term. Second, we examined the impacts of sociodemographics on public attitudes toward biofuels. We found that while sociodemographics did little to consistently explain attitudes toward biofuels there was clear evidence of ideological influences on attitudes, with self-identifying Democrats showing more positive attitudes overall. Finally, we explored the interaction between political partisanship and our experimental manipulation. We found evidence that our wording manipulation differed based on the political party identification of our respondents, with Democrats fluctuating greatly in their assessments depending upon whether they were asked to evaluate ‘‘biofuels’’ or ‘‘ethanol.’’ & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Given recent investments in renewable energies both within and outside the United States, as well as worldwide reactions to the nuclear crisis in Japan (e.g., the German decision to cease production of nuclear power in the next decade), consideration of alternative and renewable energies has jumped to the forefront of political and social discourse. In the US, a significant portion of the alternative energy discourse has been directed toward a particular energy source that can be produced abundantly within the US borders: biological fuels. The term ‘‘biological fuel’’ or ‘‘biofuels’’ can refer to any energy source made from renewable organic matter, however, it is most often used to describe the transportation fuels ethanol and biodiesel (United States Department of Agriculture, 2012a). Bio- fuels have been around since the advent of the automobile industry. Henry Ford designed the Model T to run on a hemp- derived biofuel (Biofuel.org.uk, 2010). However, biofuels fell out of favor with the rise of the petroleum industry and their use remained minimal in the US and other western countries into the 21st century. Today, biofuels are experiencing something of a renaissance in the US. Due in no small part to the instability of oil prices, a desire to lessen dependence on foreign oil, and environ- mental considerations, the US government has mandated biofuels Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol Energy Policy 0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.09.005 n Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 608 333 8018. E-mail addresses: mcacciatore@wisc.edu, mike.a.cacciatore@gmail.com (M.A. Cacciatore). Energy Policy 51 (2012) 673–682