Table 3 
Movements in 1980 and Attitudes Toward Them 
For environmental For social Against large-scale, For solar For corporate For individual 
protection 
justice 
centralized energy 
development 
energy 
responsibility 
change 
Active in 
26.9% 
13.6% 
9.5% 
11.1% 
8.2% 
12.3% 
Favor/not 
active 
43.7 
48.1 
38.6 
76.5 
68.8 
18.2 
Agree with goals, 
but not all 
methods 
20.2 
25.4 
16.7 
3.8 
10.9 
18.0 
Uncertain 
2.2 
3.5 
7.5 
5.6 
5.3 
27.4 
Disapprove of 
4.9 
7.3 
20.4 
2.4 
4.9 
21.0 
Disapprove and 
1.9 
2.0 
7.3 
0.4 
1.7 
3.0 
want suppressed 
The responses to the 1980 question- 
naire did not tell us how the role of 
nuclear energy in the future is viewed. 
More than half of those who responded 
were “concerned that using nuclear 
sources for energy may seriously en- 
danger human life on this planet,” 
and one-third selected “nuclear and 
other hazardous-waste buildup and 
storage” as “our most critical envi- 
ronmental problem.” On the other 
hand, close to a third disapproved of 
the category of activist movements 
that included antinuclear protests. Ac- 
cording to many who wrote to us, our 
coupling of protests against nuclear 
power with protests against other 
large-scale, centralized energy-devel- 
opment projects was inappropriate. 
Some who wrote in told us that they 
felt greater concern about the more 
immediate effects of acid rain and 
the greenhouse effect of burning in- 
creased amounts of fossil fuels than 
they did about the risks of nuclear 
power. 
The various movements to change 
individuals, either through personal 
experience, such as meditation, or 
through interpersonal experiences, 
such as self-help or sensitivity groups, 
also drew considerable disapproval. 
Judging from the comments on re- 
turned questionnaires and the letters 
we received, people generally associ- 
ated this category with the Eastern 
religions and such activities as bio- 
feedback groups and transcendental 
meditation. We had intended the cat- 
egory to include the Christian evan- 
gelical “born again” and charismatic 
movements, but perhaps it is just as 
well that the people who responded 
to the questionnaire did not seem to 
share this interpretation. The explicit 
coupling of these diverse movements 
in the same category would have prob- 
ably elicited the same kind of negative 
response that our linking of antinu- 
clear protests to protests against other 
energy projects did. 
In general, however (as shown in 
table 3), the people who responded 
to the 1980 questionnaire approved 
of movements and activities under- 
taken in support of them. We have 
already indicated the high approval 
of solar energy movements. The next 
most favored forms of activism were 
movements “to make corporations 
more accountable for actions believed 
to place at risk the health and welfare 
of workers and consumers here and 
in other countries.” Interestingly, 
there was also much support — more 
than 80 percent — for “boycotting 
Table 4 
companies that don’t seem environ- 
mentally or socially responsible.” As 
table 4 shows, next to writing letters, 
boycotting was the form of activity 
most frequently engaged in to influ- 
ence decision makers. Campaigns to 
hold corporations accountable for 
their actions have often been associ- 
ated with church-related organiza- 
tions, but a majority of those who 
did not believe that “churches should 
be actively involved in the critical so- 
cial and environmental issues of the 
day” still favored such actions. 
According to many who responded 
to the 1980 questionnaire, the various 
movements against large-scale energy 
development and in favor of environ- 
mental protection, social justice, cor- 
porate responsibility, and personal 
change are all interrelated. Nearly 
half saw “some connection between 
some of them,” and almost a fifth 
Methods of Influencing Decision Makers in 
1980 
Action 
Action 
approved 
taken 
Letter writing 
94.1% 
56.9% 
Speaking at public hearings 
85.5 
24.3 
Environmental lawsuits 
77.4 
7.9 
Boycotts 
83.1 
43.1 
Rallies, marches, demonstrations 
58.7 
20.2 
Nonviolent direct action 
43.2 
4.1 
Office sit-ins 
15.7 
1.0 
Destructive or violent action 
7.8 
.8 
16 
