Majority US voters accept the need for climate action

Voters in Key States Overwhelmingly Support Action on Energy and Global Warming
9 November 2009

Recent surveys of voters conducted in three swing states and five swing congressional districts
find overwhelming support for a two-part plan to reduce global warming emissions and to require use of clean energy sources.

There is support in all three states for the combined proposal to reduce emissions and require clean energy sources. When asked, "Congress is considering an energy plan that has two key parts. One part would require factories and power companies to reduce their emissions of the carbon pollution that causes global warming by 17% (20% in MO) by the year 2020 and by 80% by the year 2050. The other part would require power companies to generate 15% of their power from clean energy sources like wind and solar by the year 2025. Would you favor/oppose this entire plan?"

•75% of voters in Michigan favor.
•68% of voters in Ohio favor.
•67% of voters in Missouri favor.

"Our surveys consistently find that voters across these three states and five congressional districts support efforts to address global warming and require the use of more clean energy sources," said Mark Mellman, president of The Mellman Group. "These voters see global warming as a serious threat that is happening now and favor action to reduce carbon emissions."

...

•61% of voters in Florida's 2nd district support.
•69% of voters in New Mexico's 2nd district support.
•63% of voters in Ohio's 16th district support.
•70% of voters in Virginia's 5th district support.
•68% of voters in Washington's 8th district support.

ze linky

Kewl.

Considering that the costs of action have been shown to be minimal (CBO: 44 cents per day; Energy Information Administration: 23 cents per day - rather than the BS FUD from the forces of ignorance), seems like the smart thing to do.

Or perhaps you prefer to take the EPA lawyers approach and introduce a carbon tax which does nothing to allow limits on emissions and would also be a bit harder on the wallet.

Have fun!

Other ref:
EIA information

[edit on 9-11-2009 by melatonin]

Well am sure if you reworded the poll question to be are you willing to pay more in taxes or energy costs to fix global warming then the results might be a tad different.

Or perhaps you prefer to take the EPA lawyers approach and introduce a carbon tax which does nothing to allow limits on emissions and would also be a bit harder on the wallet.

This is the appraoch I am against. I think that it would be ok to indtroduce some cleaner energy tech, bet it soloar, wind, wave, etc.. But I don't think we should be forced to do it. It should be left to market forces and not put into the hands of government.

I'm not a believer in manmade global warming, but I absolutely agree that carbon emissions should be reduced for sure. but it's like you said, it's how they go about doing it.
I just wish all propositions were brought to the table without being ridiculed. I'd like to hear a government endorsed scientist touch on the warming of the solar system, temperature fluctuations throughout the history of earth, but also have some research done on climate change where observations were collected before, during and after an industrial boom. Like in china or something like that where pollution is just running rampant.
Also maybe touch on volcanic activity, I don't know. If we live in a democracy the least we could be shown is the entire story before we make decisions on what happens.

Originally posted by HotSauce
Well am sure if you reworded the poll question to be are you willing to pay more in taxes or energy costs to fix global warming then the results might be a tad different.

Apparently they were exposed to both main positions:

It is worth adding that “all respondents heard this argument summarizing the opposition’s strongest case”:

Opponents of the plan say this cap and trade plan is nothing more than a hidden $2,000 per year tax on average families. This proposal puts a tax on companies which will be passed on to all Americans forcing them to pay more every time they drive, buy groceries, or flip on a light switch. This backdoor tax will make our struggling economic situation worse, costing us hundreds of thousands of jobs and making it harder for average families to survive the recession. And, people in the Midwest and South who rely more on coal will end up paying significantly more for energy. It makes no sense to hurt our own economy as long as China, India, and others continue to build polluting coal plants.

And “after hearing strongly worded messages from both sides,” voters still strongly supported the climate and clean energy bill.

linky-dink

There's several polls that show similar numbers of support.

This is the appraoch I am against. I think that it would be ok to indtroduce some cleaner energy tech, bet it soloar, wind, wave, etc.. But I don't think we should be forced to do it. It should be left to market forces and not put into the hands of government.

I can see why you might prefer C&T. The big issue with just straight tax is the lack of cap. It still allows excessive emissions, just at higher cost.

[edit on 9-11-2009 by melatonin]

Just goes to show that a little Bull can go a long way.

Here is a map for your perusal.

carbon

more greenhouse gas

reply to post by HotSauce

Well am sure if you reworded the poll question to be are you willing to pay more in taxes or energy costs to fix global warming then the results might be a tad different.

Yes you are correct. I HATE polls because most are slanted to get the answer they what.

Here is another poll showing the opposite numbers with the reworded poll question.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of Americans say they are not willing to pay more in taxes and utility costs to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming.

Fifty-two percent (52%) of all adults say it is more important to keep the cost of energy as low as possible than it is to develop clean, environmentally friendly sources of energy. But 41% disagree and say developing cleaner, greener energy sources is the priority.

Sixty-three percent (63%) rate creating jobs as more important than taking steps to stop global warming. For 22%, stopping global warming is more important.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of Mainstream Americans say they are not willing to pay higher taxes and utility costs to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming, compared to only 17% of the Political Class.

For 57% of the Political Class taking steps to stop global warming is more important than job creation, while 71% of Mainstream America believe job creation is more important.

Forty percent (40%) of U.S. voters say global warming is a very serious problem, but voters are narrowly divided over whether it is caused by human activity or long-term planetary trends. In recent surveys, voters have been moving away from the idea that humans are to blame.

Rasmu ssen Reports

I LOVE Statistics, they make it so easy to lie...

reply to post by heyo

I'm not a believer in manmade global warming, but I absolutely agree that carbon emissions should be reduced for sure.

WHY?? CO2 is a plant food.

Greenhouses are flooded up to 1000 PPM to promote growth. Higher CO2 levels make plants more drought tolerant and they use less water. Some scientists state we are currently in a CO2 STARVED geologic era. (the past had CO2 as high as 7000 PPM) Plants quit growing at under 220ppm so we are a bit too close to killing off or at least stunting our food supply. I hate to see a CO2 sequestering break through that some IDIOTIC politician then mandates be used to reduce CO2 to 200PPM.

The politicians are already hard at work trying to kill off our plants and food supply.

HR 2749: Food Safety’s Scorched Earth Policy

In the verdant farmland surrounding Monterey Bay, a national marine sanctuary and one of the world’s biological jewels, scorched-earth strategies are being imposed on hundreds of thousands of acres in the quest for an antiseptic field of greens. And the scheme is about to go national....(Lochhead, C. )

Invisible to a public that sees only the headlines of the latest food-safety scare – spinach, peppers and now cookie dough – ponds are being poisoned and bulldozed. Vegetation harboring pollinators and filtering storm runoff is being cleared. Fences and poison baits line wildlife corridors. Birds, frogs, mice and deer – and anything that shelters them – are caught in a raging battle.... …trees have been bulldozed along the riparian corridors of the Salinas Valley, while poison-filled tubes targeting rodents dot lettuce fields. Dying rodents have led to deaths of owls and hawks that naturally control rodents....

Dick Peixoto planted hedges of fennel and flowering cilantro around his organic vegetable fields in the Pajaro Valley near Watsonville to harbor beneficial insects, an alternative to pesticides.

He has since ripped out such plants in the name of food safety, because his big customers demand sterile buffers around his crops. No vegetation. No water. No wildlife of any kind.

“I was driving by a field where a squirrel fed off the end of the field, and so 30 feet in we had to destroy the crop,” he said. “On one field where a deer walked through, didn’t eat anything, just walked through and you could see the tracks, we had to take out 30 feet on each side of the tracks and annihilate the crop.”

HR 2749 is being rushed through Congress, fast tracked at Obama’s request. It has already passed the house so we can expect to see this type of requirement on all farms and perhaps even home gardens.

There is no language in the bill to prevent inclusion of home gardens in the regulations and a $500 per year license fee as an incentive to include them. The Supreme Court stated that under the Commerce Clause, Congress had sufficient constitutional authority to impose wheat quotas on Wickard and prohibit him from growing extra wheat to feed his family, even though it was admitted that the wheat Wickard grew for his family never left the farm. (see Wickard v. Filburn)


Trees are planted around fields as wind breaks as well as grass filter strips to prevent soil erosion. I guess we will have to learn the dust bowl lessons of the thirties all over again.

Originally posted by crimvelvet
I LOVE Statistics, they make it so easy to lie...

Not really. The issue is in the framing of the question, not the statistics. For example...

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Six in 10 Americans support a "cap and trade" proposal to cut pollution, according to a new national poll.

Sixty percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey say they favor "cap and trade," a Democratic sponsored plan in which the federal government would limit the amount of greenhouse gases that companies could produce in their factories or power plants. Thirty-seven percent oppose the proposal, which would penalize companies that exceed greenhouse gas limits with fines or by making those businesses pay money to other companies that producer smaller amounts of pollution.

link

60% support C&T in a CNN poll.

17. On another subject, overall, given what you know about them, would you say you support or oppose the proposed changes to U.S. energy policy being developed by (Congress) and (the Obama administration)? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
-------- Support -------- --------- Oppose -------- No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opinion
8/17/09 57 29 29 29 11 19 14

21. There's a proposed system called "cap and trade." The government would issue permits limiting the amount of greenhouse gases companies can put out. Companies that did not use all their permits could sell them to other companies. The idea is that many companies would find ways to put out less greenhouse gases, because that would be cheaper than buying permits. Would you support or oppose this system?
Support Oppose No opinion
8/17/09 52 43 6
6/21/09 52 42 6
7/28/08 59 34 7

22. (HALF SAMPLE) What if a cap and trade program significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly electrical bill by 10 dollars a month - in that case would you support or oppose it?
Support Oppose No opinion
8/17/09 58 40 1
6/21/09 56 42 2
7/28/08 57 41 2

linky

Majority for ABC-WaPo for a pretty dense C&T question, even higher for a question at levels comparable to actual costs. And 57% for just a simple question about the Energy bill.

In a poll obtained by POLITICO of likely 2010 voters in 16 states, many of them home to targeted senators, 63 percent of those sampled said they supported the energy bill while only 30 percent said they opposed the measure.

Further, 60 percent of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for their senator if he or she supported the bill while just 26 percent said they’d be less inclined to re-elect their senator for backing the “American Clean Energy and Security Act.”

linky

63% supporting current Energy/Climate bill.

Zogby Poll: Majority Favors Clean Energy Bill and Wants Senate to Take Action

Survey finds likely voters connect reducing global warming and promoting clean energy to new American jobs

UTICA, New York - A majority of likely voters - 71% - favors the American Clean Energy and Security Act recently passed by the House of Representatives, and two-thirds (67%) believe Congress is either doing the right amount (22%) or should be doing more (45%) to address global warming, new Zogby International telephone poll shows. Just 28% believe that Congress is doing too much.

linky

Here 71% support the Energy/Climate bill.

So, the Rasmussen poll is pretty much an outlier, with other polls ranging between 50-70% support. Where the 'lies' appear is in the wording of the questions. First thing you learn about writing questionnaires.

The best example is the ABC-WaPo. The support for the Energy bill is 57%, but falls to 52% when provided in a more complex fashion. Purely a framing issue, as the Energy bill is a C&T program.

So lets take Rasmussen...

To generate cleaner energy and fight global warming, it might cost Americans more money each year in taxes and utility costs. How much are you willing to pay each year in higher taxes and utility costs?

Nothing
$100
$300
$500
$1,000
More than $,1,000
Not sure

Who's proposing that americans pay both more taxes and utility costs? The word 'tax' is like a red-rag to you bullish yanks. Also, if you offer people the option of paying nothing, of course people will choose it, lol. The power of 'zero'.

What is more important, developing clean, environmentally friendly sources of energy or keeping the cost of energy as low as possible?

Why not keep it as low as possible and also develop clean sources of energy? Isn't that the point?

What is more important, taking steps to stop global warming or creating jobs?

Again, why trade one off against the other in such a way?

The framing of the Rasmussen questions is dreadful. In each case they put some ambiguous negative aspect in opposition to climate action (lose jobs to save climate! Do you prefer to pay nothing to act on climate! High cost energy to act on climate!)

Whereas in each case the other polls compare clearer positions (Democrat energy bill or Republican Luntzisms? Good reduction of CO2 for $10 per month?) or just ask a straight up question (support C&T?).

So the deceptions are in the questions, not the stats. The stats are just the numbers.

[edit on 9-11-2009 by melatonin]

Michigan you say?
I cannot imagine ANYONE in Michigan saying they could pay more taxes or higher utility bills.
Haven't you heard???? Michigan has the highest unemployment in the country.
WE ARE POOR HERE!!!

It's bad enough that the utility companies keep adding distribution costs and other additions when they cannot get the Utility Commission to grant an increase.
I'd hazard a guess that few in this state could afford $200 a year, let alone whatever figures whichever group are punishing us with.

Isn't Cap and Trade what ENRON tried to do?

The only thing the statistics show is that the American public can be brainwashed. I really think it's a test, or a big joke, to see if the American public will believe in a complete lie. If Cap & Trade goes into full effect, whoever supported it should be impeached.

This global warming hysteria (errrhmmm climate change) is make to look even more ridiculous considering were well into a cooling cycle right now, that suprisingly enough (or not) correlates nicely with the lowest sunspot activity ever recorded. All this while carbon levels have continued to climb.

Something doesnt add up, but dont tell that to Al Gore, hes set to become the first carbon trading billionaire!

[edit on 9-11-2009 by Neo_Serf]

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Michigan you say?
I cannot imagine ANYONE in Michigan saying they could pay more taxes or higher utility bills.
Haven't you heard???? Michigan has the highest unemployment in the country.
WE ARE POOR HERE!!!

Well, you'll do fairly well out of the Energy Bill. Those in the lowest levels of income will actually save money.

If you actually go beyond the deceptions being spread by certain quarters the bill won't have a massive effect on people's incomes. The average will be about $160 per year, and if you have a low income you'll save $100 or so.

[edit on 9-11-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by crimvelvet


Humans are stupid.

I was dumbfounded reading this, what is wrong with people? I love the earth, I love nature. It seems like these maniacs are killing the earth to save it....in their minds.

Is there someway we can convince these dolts that maybe they should just shut up and stop trying to help?

Seriously politicians, good try and all that, but could you please shut up now.

Call BS!!! ONLY 14% of Americans are willing to pay more than $100.00 more a YEAR!! Nobody else wants the "Carbon Credit" Scam (except the politicians, financial sector, and special interests who cash in on us.)

Last Rasmussen poll on the subject from July:
www.rasmussenreports.com...

Fifty-six percent (56%) of Americans say they are not willing to pay more in taxes and utility costs to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, taken since the climate change bill was passed on Friday, finds that 21% of Americans are willing to pay $100 more per year for cleaner energy and to counter global warming. Only 14% are willing to pay more than that amount.

Fifty-two percent (52%) of all adults say it is more important to keep the cost of energy as low as possible than it is to develop clean, environmentally friendly sources of energy. But 41% disagree and say developing cleaner, greener energy sources is the priority.

Sixty-three percent (63%) rate creating jobs as more important than taking steps to stop global warming. For 22%, stopping global warming is more important.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of Democrats believe it is more important to develop clean, environmentally friendly sources of energy than to keep the cost of energy down. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of Republicans and 57% of unaffiliated adults disagree and put the emphasis on keeping the cost of energy down.

As is often the case, there’s a telling division between the views of populist or Mainstream America and the Political Class. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of Mainstream Americans say they are not willing to pay higher taxes and utility costs to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming, compared to only 17% of the Political Class.

For 57% of the Political Class taking steps to stop global warming is more important than job creation, while 71% of Mainstream America believe job creation is more important.

Forty percent (40%) of U.S. voters say global warming is a very serious problem, but voters are narrowly divided over whether it is caused by human activity or long-term planetary trends. In recent surveys, voters have been moving away from the idea that humans are to blame.

Americans have mixed feelings about the historic climate change bill that passed the House on Friday, but 42% say it will hurt the U.S. economy.

The bill is intended to reduce heat-trapping gases that some scientists say cause global warming. Even its supporters say the measure, which includes a so-called “cap and trade” plan,” will have a major impact on the economy.

President Obama is a champion of the bill and is prepared to sign it into law. But while the bill passed narrowly in the House, it faces tougher opposition in the Senate. The legislation has little GOP support because of questions about the science behind it and the potential cost.

Another major initiative promoted by the president also divides the general public. Fifty percent (50%) favor the president’s health reform plan while 45% are opposed.

In May, only 24% of voters could correctly identify the “cap-and-trade” plan as something that deals with environmental issues.

It is quite common to find Americans more favorable toward new government proposals until a price tag is attached. For example, Americans are evenly divided over the idea of making free health care available to every one in the country, but opposition grows dramatically when their own health insurance is involved.

Only 32% of Americans say are willing to pay higher taxes so that health insurance can be provided for all Americans.

reply to post by melatonin


Oh so now we are redistributiing wealth to pay the "poor" folks utility bills. So is that what this is really about?

Barack Obama: "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."

www.youtube.com...

And let's not forget the LOWBALL number pubished BY the administration.

Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year
www.cbsnews.com...

The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

A second memorandum, which was prepared for Obama's transition team after the November election, says this about climate change policies: "Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation."

The documents (PDF) were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and released on Tuesday.

These disclosures will probably not aid the political prospects of the Democrats' cap and trade bill. The House of Representatives approved it by a remarkably narrow margin in June -- the bill would have failed if only six House members had switched their votes to "no" -- and it faces significant opposition in the Senate.

One reason the bill faces an uncertain future is concern about its cost. House Republican Leader John Boehner has estimated the additional tax bill would be at $366 billion a year, or $3,100 a year per family. Democrats have pointed to estimates from MIT's John Reilly, who put the cost at $800 a year per family, and noted that tax credits to low income households could offset part of the bite. The Heritage Foundation says that, by 2035, "the typical family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $1,500 per year."

One difference is that while Heritage's numbers are talking about 26 years in the future, the Treasury Department's figures don't have a time limit.

"Heritage is saying publicly what the administration is saying to itself privately," says Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who filed the FOIA request. "It's nice to see they're not spinning each other behind closed doors."

"They're not telling you the cost -- they're not telling you the benefit," says Horner, who wrote the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming. "If they don't tell you the cost, and they don't tell you the benefit, what are they telling you? They're just talking about global salvation."

The FOIA'd document written by Judson Jaffe, who joined the Treasury Department's Office of Environment and Energy in January 2009, says: "Given the administration's proposal to auction all emission allowances, a cap-and-trade program could generate federal receipts on the order of $100 to $200 billion annually." (Obviously, any final cap-and-trade system may be different from what Obama had proposed, and could yield higher or lower taxes.)

Because personal income tax revenues bring in around $1.37 trillion a year, a $200 billion additional tax would be the equivalent of a 15 percent increase a year. A $100 billion additional tax would represent a 7 or 8 percent increase a year.

One odd point: The document written by Jaffee includes this line: "It will raise energy prices and impose annual costs on the order of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX." The Treasury Department redacted the rest of the sentence with a thick black line.

The Freedom of Information Act, of course, contains no this-might-embarrass-the-president exemption (nor, for that matter, should federal agencies be in the business of possibly suppressing dissenting climate change voices). You'd hope the presidential administration that boasts of being the "most open and transparent in history" would be more forthcoming than this.

Update 9/16/2009: The Environmental Defense Fund has responded to the documents' release with a statement saying, in part:

Even if a 100 percent auction was a live legislative proposal, which it's not, that math ignores the redistribution of revenue back to consumers. It only looks at one side of the balance sheet. It would only be true if you think the Administration was going to pile all the cash on the White House lawn and set it on fire.

The bill passed by the House sends the value of pollution permits to consumers, and it contains robust cost-containment provisions. Every credible and independent economic analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (such as those done by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the Energy Information Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency) says the costs will be small and affordable -- and that the U.S. economy will grow with a cap on carbon.

lol

OK, seems this issue of framing of decisions and judgments isn't hitting the spot. Go watch this:



www.youtube.com... (embedded link is naff - Dan ariely: are we in control of our decisions)

It's got nothing to do with climate change, just a great presentation by Dan Ariely about decision-making and framing effects. Then go back and read what I said about how Rasmussen framed that question.

The lies in polls and questionnaires are in the framing of the questions, and the Rasmussen crew are pretty good at getting the answers they want.

And if you like the talk, go buy his book. It's very interesting.

[edit on 9-11-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by melatonin

 

Oh so now we are redistributiing wealth to pay the "poor" folks utility bills. So is that what this is really about?

No, it's really about reducing CO2 emissions and moving towards cleaner forms of energy.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by melatonin

 

Oh so now we are redistributiing wealth to pay the "poor" folks utility bills. So is that what this is really about?

No, it's really about reducing CO2 emissions and moving towards cleaner forms of energy.

well they why are they taking my money and using it to pay somebody else's utility bill? That doesnt reduce CO2. Letting them freeze to death in the winter would lower C02 for free. Not that I am pro people dying.. just sayin'

Originally posted by infolurker
Barack Obama: "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."

www.youtube.com...

He was referring to coal power plants without capture.

And let's not forget the LOWBALL number pubished BY the administration.

Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year
www.cbsnews.com...

If you actually read the posts, rather than just drone-like regurgitation of this crap, you would notice I already covered that BS FUD.

That is merely a schoolboy assessment from some random blogger.

Nowhere in the documents does the Treasury Department cite the $1,761 figure. It seems Alexander got that number from a Sept. 15, 2009, story by Declan McCullagh, a blogger who writes the "Taking Liberties" column for CBS News. (Our calls to Alexander's office were not returned.) So it's worth noting that Alexander is relying not on a study by an economist, but on an estimate from a blogger.

"The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent," McCullagh wrote. "A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year."

We contacted McCullagh via e-mail, and he told us that he came up with $1,761 per household annually by simply dividing the number $200 billion by the number of households in the United States. According to the census, there are about 113.5 million households in the country this year.

We reviewed the estimate with people involved in the climate change debate who told us there are significant flaws in McCullagh's methodology. Stephen Seidel, vice president for policy analysis and general counsel for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, said the math is too simple and doesn't reflect the true impact of the House bill, which specifies that any revenue from the plan be rebated to consumers to offset higher electrical bills they might have to pay.

"What [Treasury] was looking at was a situation where 100 percent of the permits were auctioned, and ignored what would be done with revenue," he said. The Waxman-Markey bill "uses revenue to offset cost to consumers."

The actual assessment of the CBO is an average cost of $160 per year. I posted their real assessment in the OP.