The Zogby poll results mirrors the recent Gallup poll It’s the economy, stupid. Even so, with opinion on Cap and trade in the minority it seems plans are in place to move forward.
On Earth Day, Secretary Chu warmly embraced the administration’s cap-and-trade proposal, stating, “We must state in no uncertain terms we have a responsibility to our children to curb emissions from fossil fuels…”
Q. President Obama wants to impose cap-and-trade laws that would limit the total carbon dioxide emissions allowed to be released into the environment. These laws would turn carbon dioxide into a commodity allowing those that pollute less to sell credits to those that pollute more. These credits would be traded on commodities markets. According to congressional testimony given by the Director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, “decreasing emissions would also impose costs on the economy – much of those costs will be passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices for energy and energy intensive goods.” Some have estimated these costs to be $800 to $1300 more per household by 2015. Knowing this, do you support or oppose cap-and-trade laws?
Support 30%
Oppose 57%
Not sure 13%
Q. Which course of action should America take with regards to energy
policy?
Make energy cheaper by developing all sources of U.S. energy, including coal, nuclear power, offshore drilling and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 54%
Reduce America’s production of fossil fuels that might cause global warming 40%
Not sure 6%
The O’Leary Report/Zogby poll was conducted April 24-27 of 3,937 voters nationwide and has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 1.6 percentage points. Slight weights were added to party, age, race, gender, education to more accurately reflect the population. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.
Brad O’Leary is publisher of “The O’Leary Report,” a bestselling author, and is a former NBC Westwood One talk show host. His new book, “Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech,” is now in bookstores. To see more poll results, go to www.olearyreport.com.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well perhaps people are beginning to see that yet again, those “crazy conspiracy kooks” are actually ahead of the curve in their access to true information and that all this Climate Alarmism really IS an excuse to tax and control us all.
O/T but, by their behaviour shall ye know them.
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/who-owns-these-two-houses/
Far be it from me to post anything positive about former President Bush, A man whom I consider to be a war criminal, but, The ACTIONS tell us a LOT more about them than their words.
Gore is a lying hypocrite who shows us, by his own actions, that climate change is NOT an impending disaster and he KNOWS IT!
They really are a joke! An expensive joke!
Against very stiff competition, I must say that Chu earns the prize as the saddest and most clueless sock puppet to ever hold his current office.
Apparently, the adminstration went looking for an amiable pedigreed dunce who would read any piece of paper set in front of him while feigning seriousness. Chu has fit the bill perfectly.
Another interesting link on the business behind cap-and-trade:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20090429/bs_ibd_ibd/20090429issues01;_ylt=AiMtDQWwAHdHTLUx_xuS99SyBhIF
That is indirectly controlling prices. Let the market decide what energies will be the chosen ones, the one or ones freely selected by the people.
Are you americans not longer living in a free economy anymore?, I just can’t believe it because YOU were the ones who through the “Washington Consensus” promoted the free market and free economy. Come on!..tell me it’s a joke,.you must be cheating us!!..don’t tell me now you are adopting Higo Chavez’ s “The New Millenium Socialism”. NO, I don’ t believe it!
Here’s how I think it will play out. They will water down the bill substantially to attract more Dem votes in the House. They want to drive this to a close vote to “go to the mat” for the far left.
Yet they don’t want this thing to actually pass, at least not in it’s present form, because it will (1) be killed in the Senate and (2) lead to such a backlash as to lose enough seats in the House to lose control, as in the 1994 Hillary Care debacle.
It is obvious that sites like this have an impact, as do your letters and phone calls. Keep pouring it on.
Is this really surprising? When AGW is an intellectual game or a moral “look at me I care about the planet” issue it tends to garner public support. With cap and trade and other such programs, there is now a concrete cost and actual sacrifice for these environmentally feel good positions. 30% support now – 15% support if it passes.
Good news! Somebody alert the politicians.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Do you believe most Americans were in favor of prohibition? Not really, but those who didn’t want it didn’t speak out.
Like all politicians, President Obama is surrounded by sycophants. The administration is in its own bubble, that contradictory information has no chance to pierce.
They are doing what they think they have to do. Their vast new social agenda needs the new cap-and-trade indirect tax. It’s damn the torpedoes, we are doing all this for the greater good of the unwashed masses that don’t know anything. We are taking care of you. Trust us.
Problem is, the torpedoes are circling around and coming back…
It’s exactly what the previous administration was doing, but at the other end of the pendulum.
The Chinese, Indians and Brazilians must be laughing at those Americans and europeans who willingly self-inflict damage to their economies in a futile fight about a non-existent threat.
wwelvaert (07:41:31) :I saw the link…It is like Brutus after killing Julius Cesar:
“It is not that I loved Cesar less but I loved Rome more”
Shakespear, William: Julius Cesar
Ummm –
Zogby ain’t the best name in polling.
And the “question” you quoted would earn you a failing grade in “Introduction to Polling” at Midvale State U.
A basic problem in polling something like “Cap and Trade” is that few people in the general public are aware of the details. Whenever you start to define an issue within the question, you are introducing massive bias. And the last sentence about cost is just laughable – not the cost, but in terms of polling design.
We are in the midst of the deepest recession since the great depression brought on by Wall Street traders doing shady inside deals and the country is litterally livid about the mess these clowns made along with the pain and suffering they have caused millions of people. For the life of me, how can congress look us in the face and tell us we have to pay a new toll to these traders for the air we breathe rather than impose something as simple as a carbon tax? Congress surely knows that cap and trade turned into a windfall for energy intensive industries in Europe. They must know that cap and trade pays a windfall to Russia for its inefficiencly in the Soviet era and that to meet carbon emissions guidelines they have to have an umbilical chord to Russian gas which the Russians are more than willing to shut off over minor disagreements. What motivates Congress to impose a complex solution, ripe for corruption and influence pedaling when there is a simple alternative? It’s certainly not the interest of the American people. (Please understand I’m not advocation for a carbon tax but it is clearly the lessor of two evils.)
If Americans did not want ridiculous global warming legislation they should not have voted for Barack Obama.
Adolof…
Yes, Barrack Hugo Hussein Obama was voted in by 57% of the American people. The free market for the future is government owned and ran. 57% want a handout at any cost and look just about beyond their noses. No long term vision what so ever. I could go on, they won’t allow it here.
That darn ice is not melting very fast, this has to be an error here! After all, CO2 is 100 ppm higher than 1945
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
Well then the parallel universe over at RealClimate.org has their work cut out for them.
Their new “Hit the Brakes” on CO2 campaign needs a makeover.
John Egan (07:56:57) :
Ummm –
…
A basic problem in polling something like “Cap and Trade” is that few people in the general public are aware of the details.
That may well be the case, John.
However, the word “costs” does tend to concentrate the mind of the “general public” wonderfully.
Be glad that you still live in a democracy where you can have a say on such matters. Here, my electricity and gas bills have almost doubled in a year – without so much as a by-your-leave prior to the last election – just so Gordon Brown can throw my hard-earned cash at “renewables”.
But, that’s Europe for you.
Steven Hill (08:01:03) :
Yes, Barrack Hugo Hussein Obama was voted in by 57% of the American people.
Um, no. 53%, actually, and it was not 53% of “the American people,” it was 53% of those that chose to vote. That works out to about 40% of registered voters, probably less than 30% of eligible voters, and less than 25% of “the American people.”
Mark
It is not only about you…These are the final chapters of what history will call:
The Rise and Fall of the Occidental Civilization
What you are not taking into account is that the “third world” is inhabited by human people also, people who can think (and laugh, indeed, of your stupidity), and who like spectators of a Tragicomedy play are just awaiting the end.
However, as seen from the balcony, there are two acts left:
1. Climate change summit at Washington.
2. Copenhaguen UN on Climate Change
Crying aloud Chorus: The prophet et al. during next NH summertime.
The hoax is needed to be able to use guilt to justify the new extreme taxes.
How could any carbon life-form not understand the role of CO2 in life on planet earth. It just boggles the mind.
How do we know that the current CO2 levels are too much, and not too little.
“Researchers from Yale and George Mason Universities recently published results from a poll of more than 2000 Americans on a wide range of questions related to climate change.”
“61% supported building more nuclear power plants yet only 53% supported a cap and trade system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/04/how-many-americans-believe-tha.html
Considering that China, Russia and India have all made it very clear they will be increasing, rather than decreasing their emissions, It is completely illogical for the current administration to continue to move forward with any GHG legislation.
But, then again, buzzing the Statue of Liberty with AF1 wasn’t a good idea either.
John Egan (07:56:57) : “…Ummm – Zogby ain’t the best name in polling…”
Aha! Yes, whip out the old argument ad hominem, right off the bat. You have learned well, grasshopper. Except for saying ‘ain’t, of course.
“A basic problem in polling something like “Cap and Trade” is that few people in the general public are aware of the details.”
Yes, and that’s why we have to get the message across. The Greenshirts are trying to shove Cap & Trade down North America’s throat before the public gets wise.
“…And the last sentence about cost is just laughable…”
I agree. That cost estimate is only a half to a third of the actual value. Current Supply minus verboten coal supplies = steeply accelerating prices or steeply dropping economic health.
A bit off subject, but I referenced this and other pools in my letter to the CO2 endangerment comments. Here is my note, I’m no expert, most of what I’ve learned in the last 2 years has been here – I hope I didn’t fudge it up too badly. I’ll accept all criticism. I thought it might serve to motivate others and I didn’t know how else to post it.
To Whom It May Concern:
Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere are currently estimated at 385 ppm, that is parts per million. That means (as sited in WIKIPEDIA) 0.0385% of the atmospheric make up. Carbon Dioxide has no toxic effects to plants or animals at these levels – none if they double – none if they triple or none that are known if levels increase 10X to 0.385%. I do not believe the endangerment finding is justified.
OSHA begins imposing exposure limits above this 10 X figure at 0.5% and that is an absurd number that cannot be shown to cause any negative effects. I believe the main concern for OSHA is that commercial greenhouses are controlled from 0.5% CO2 up to 2% in some cases and this allows OSHA to mandate exposure levels. Toxicity to plants has not been defined in any study that I am aware of – it acts as a fertiller to increase plant growth and thus the increased demands retards further atmospheric growth as a negative feedback. I believe estimates of toxicity concerns for animals start around 5% of the atmosphere, but this is also challenged by geological studies that show animal life thriving for MILLIONS of years where atmospheric CO2 remained between 5-7% of the composition. Again, I do not believe the endangerment finding is justified.
Honestly, your group would not be considering such action without the THEORY of AGW, which has only been actively studied for 30-40 years. At this point in scientific study of the human body and medicine – leeches were probably the common practice. With modern tools, one can argue our “learning curve” is better, but not by much! The tools are mostly just exagerating AGW claims so far and they are being rewarded with increased funding. If NASA reversed it’s politically motivated activism, they could expect their budget to be cut 100-300 million per year.
The IPPC predicted 15 years ago that CO2 would rise and temperatures would rise as well. In the last 15 years, we saw temps rise for 8 years after this prediction, then fall for the next 7 – Globally, even while CO2 levels rose! This result is way outside of their 90% confidence levels – even their most conservative “C” estimate – yet they say it’s accelerating. I believe they understanding the window is closing to even have an AGW THEORY and that this will soon be a footnote in history. This data of cooling is NOT disputed by all 4 governing data sets – throw out NASA who alone says only 4 years of cooling – as they have demonstrated political activism, inconsistent methodolgy and “manipulated data”. Addionally, the cooling of the last 7 years has “overpowered” the rate of warming of the previous 13 years, so that these same 4 groups show a net cooling 20 year trend for the Globe over the last 18 months.
If justification for endangerment is around “Greenhouse Effect”, water vapor contributes 60-90% of this Effect, again undisputed (but not fully defined in this “baby” science), can we regulate that? Obviously lower our atmosphere’s moisture would be a terrible thing, so would lowering CO2. CO2 is 97% naturally occuring, 3% man made – is further controlling 3% of 0.0385% a control we need? If temperatures continue to cool, CO2 natural inputs will go down (less will evaporate) far in excess of any modest cuts that developed nations can contribute.
The word is getting out – slowly, due to Media bias and Political Agendas, but as a “protection agency” you need to try and hold yourself to a higher than political standard. You’re paid to protect us from harmful emmissions, not enable excess taxes! Less than 38% of Americans polled favor the belief that environmental legislation of this type is needed – after it’s devastating effects are felt – believe me that number will plunge. President George Bush had way over 60% in favor of the Iraqui conflict, popular opinion changes once costs are understood!
If Congress commits political suicide with “energy legislation”, that is their concern and they will be replaced if (when) they are (shown) wrong. If your agency finds “endangerment” on a non-toxic, naturally occurring component of the air we breathe – when they are replaced – your group will suffer as well in the new political environment, rightly so as you will have not done your duty in today’s environment.
Please protect us as is your mandate, limit SO4 or NO2 or any toxic gases necessary that are justifyable by scientific study – we really might need CO2 levels to be higher and to act as fertilizer for the biosphere if the Global Cooling rate of 3.4 degrees per century continues or accelerates. At the current rate, Canada will not be growing wheat in 10 years, this is where study needs to take place, based on data not on Theories that spin out for 100’s of years and failed in predictions during their first decade of existence.
If you check the research, you will find the Artic Ice is presently at a 8 year high and has been growing since 2007 – which was only at a low point since 1959. Antarctica’s Ice and greenland’s Ice are both above 20 year norms and the Ocean’s level has had no recorded rising in the last 3 years – does this really sound like acceleration of an “urgent” problem? I ask you to question these facts and what you’ve been told and make an honest assessment.
Sincerely,
Dave DXXXXXXXX – my real last name was in the doc I sent!
Moderator, if I’ve sinned by wandering too far, maybe I could send this to start another blog?
Hey wake up people and smell what you’re shoveling. Free market ideology has had a very long run and has led us straight to the crapper. It was Bush not Obama who started this bailout business and it is the same economist BS’ers that had stupidly pushed non-interference dogma who are now stupidly advising exactly the opposite. Don’t blame the politicos – they are merely being stupid to believe that the people who got us into this mess can somehow get us out again.
Adolfo, The Washington consensus was tried everywhere by the World bank and the IMF in a one-size-fits-all manner and it failed everywhere; most especially in the poster child of Argentina. This is all admitted by the World bank and the IMF’s own reports. The Washington consensus made people poorer – it’s a proven fact. There’s a reason that South America swung to the left and it was because the forced sales of national assets such as water and fuel to disastrous monopolists like Enron made them poorer and hungrier. It’s time to get off your comfy pedestals, look at the real world and see what happened. The debt disaster took longer to arrive to the US and Europe than it should have, but it was inevitable. Unbelievably the only real economic success stories are China and Russia, thanks to tight state control.
On the Bush home, ignore Gore’s obvious hypocrisy for a moment and have a look at what we could all be doing if we invested money in geothermal heat pumps instead of buying a depreciating SUV.