While paid political activist Bill McKibben wails about the “new normal” of supposed climate change driven severe weather stated here on CNN, buoyed by emotion but which is totally unsupported by the data, we have this new inconvenient truth:
Climate Change Poll Finds Most Americans Unwilling To Pay Higher Energy Costs
WASHINGTON — Only one in five Americans would be willing to pay significantly more for gas or electricity, even if they were assured that it meant solving the climate change crisis, according to a HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted this week.
Most Americans, according to the survey, believe that climate change is occurring and that it causes serious problems, including more frequent and severe natural disasters. But only 21 percent said they would be willing to pay 50 percent more at the pump or for electricity bills to fight it. Fifty-four percent say they would be unwilling to do so. The rest were unsure.
The reluctance to pay significantly more for energy to stop climate change isn’t limited to deniers or to those who think it’s an insignificant problem.
More here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blackberry/p.html?id=2067125
Remember these sorts of pronouncements post hurricane Katrina?
Hurricanes were supposed to get bigger and more frequent, instead we’ve had an unbroken 7 years long drought for major Cat3-5 hurricanes, and Sandy wasn’t even a hurricane when it made landfall. The last Category 3 or stronger storm to make landfall was Hurricane Wilma making landfall on October 24, 2005. The more than seven years (2568 days as of today – ref here) since then is the longest such span in over a century.
Challenge to readers: find a similar buzzword statement of “new normal” made in the press on on blogs post-Katrina
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Poor Ericgrimsrud! He drank the koolaid and is, unquestioningly,, repeating the meme he was taught. There is no “death grip” on the political system by the fossil fuel industry. They go with the flow, as it were. Give us some facts, Mr Eric.
And the evil Koch brothers. You forgot to mention them. Another paper tiger for you to demonize and destroy.
Mr Eric, this is about science and facts. That is all, beginning and end. If you paid more attention to reality, which the facts tell us — beyond the deliberate scare, which is designed to frighten us into unthinking compliance — you might learn something. Drop the rhetoric. Just the facts, sir.
…..Lady in Red
Ross Lea says:
November 4, 2012 at 3:01 am
Why has Mitt Romney not pointed out that the money wasted on Wind Turbines and other useless green projects should have been spent on improving flood defences for places like New York and New Orleans ?
Even though that is a position I’m sure he would agree with, he’s politically savvy enough to know that that would not be a good thing to point out now. Plus, capitalizing on people’s misery is something Democrats are more apt to do.
Bloke down the pub says: @ur momisugly November 3, 2012 at 11:22 am
Just heard Bloomberg on the news criticizing the power companies for not doing enough to restore supply…..
____________________________
So why isn’t Bloomberg criticizing the unions for refusing to allow the repair crews from Georgia and other states to help just because they are none union workers???
Hurricane-Devastated NJ Town Rejects Non-Union Alabama Electrical Workers
Non-Union Crews Prevented From Helping Sandy Victims
There’s more: Georgia power crew turned away from Sandy-stricken New York for refusing to join union
After the story hit the media it was of course spun.
Lots of cover-up and plausible deniability with a very prominent withdrawal of the story in the news yet skeptics don’t even get a one liner hidden in the personals when we uncover bloopers like 97% of climate scientists agree with CAGW.
But, but it’s different this time or it’s a new normal or a new paradigm:
1. Stock market in 1999
2. Silver market in 1979
3. Gold market circa 2012
4. Transocean shipping rates 2006-2008
5. Homeownership rate in 2006
6. Climate change hysteria market 1999
What all of these “markets” have in common is that they all reverted to their long run means. In the case of the market for hysterias humans are fascinated by tragedy and forecasts of future doom so this market regularly goes through its peaks and troughs according to the disaster de jour. We are currently seeing the climate change hysteria market’s prices fall as measured by polls but they’ve been falling steadily since 1999 with minor spikes around well covered weather disasters.
ericgrimsrud says: @ur momisugly November 3, 2012 at 4:37 pm
The fossil fuel industries have such a strong death grip on our political system that very few electred (sic) officials dare to mention the words, man-caused global warming.
____________________________
ROTFLMAO!
DirkH says: @ur momisugly November 3, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Rockefeller Family Foundation >> Sustainable Markets Foundation >> 350.org….
___________________________
I suggest Eric do a little fact checking into what Rockefeller (Standard oil) supports before uttering that whopper again!
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Rockefeller Family Fund
Rockefeller Foundation
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors
Oppenheimer Family Foundation
I did the hard part for you Eric. I got you the names: Rockefeller, Rothschild, Samuel, Nobel and Oppenheimer and the British and Dutch royals. You can do the work of connecting them to the World Bank, WWF and the rest who are pushing CAGW. (And using it for an excuse to charge a heck of a lot more at the pump) Oh, and do not forget the Saudi/Rockefeller/Maurice Strong connection. (Snicker, guffaw)
Simon Filiatrault says November 3, 2012 at 11:14 am
“spending more in on place will consume more fossil in another place. Make sense?”
Sure. Perpetual motion machines don’t work.
Alarmists known that too. Their dirty little secret is really less people,
A re-elected President Obama will institute a “carbon tax” within the first months of his second term….he’ll want the cash to pay for Obama-care, and he also wants to leave a climate control legacy. You heard it from me first. Cheers, Charles the DrPH p.s. I still miss REP!
@ur momisugly Dennis Nikols November 3, 2012 at 11:16 am
“pendents” – NO
“pedants” – YES
IanM [in pedantic mode]
P.S. – It’s a very common error. I hear it regularly on the radio.
Want to bring manufacturing jobs back to home turf? Stop all subsidies for solar and wind generation and let them compete in the private world of capitalism, turn on all turbines and dust off nuclear plants, freeze minimum wage for 5 years, provide college style manufacturing skill-directed pell grants to middle aged displaced workers, and break open private investment in start up domestic oil and gas refineries, increased production of current facilities, and exploration for the next 15 years by rolling back governmental interference and unreasonable law suits that hinder such activities. And for heaven’s sake, start cutting some trees! The price of imported oil will drop like a stone due to competition fears.
Then of course there is a difference between what the 21 percent say on a poll and what they will do in reality.
Pamela, using trees for energy has problems, not least of which is that you pretty much need to clear-cut to make it economically feasible, and the further away your source is, the less feasible it becomes due to the trucking costs. Sensible forestry practices are one thing. Trees for biofuels are not a good use.
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
November 4, 2012 at 9:58 am
A re-elected President Obama will institute a “carbon tax” within the first months of his second term….he’ll want the cash to pay for Obama-care, and he also wants to leave a climate control legacy. You heard it from me first. Cheers, Charles the DrPH p.s. I still miss REP!
====================================================================
It’s in the works.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/11/01/eco-taxes-study-financed-by-us-treasury-will-link-tax-code-to-carbon-emissions/
PS I also still miss REP and still pray for his family when they come to mind.
Bruce, my somewhat off topic issue of trees had to do with logging for lumber as well as opening up federal forests to folks who gather wood for fuel. I was not thinking at all about biofuel from forest products.
Bill McKibben is debating Alex Epstein, an advocate of fossil fuels, at Duke University on November 5.
Watch live at:
http://fossilfueldebate.com.
It would be nice to see McKibben answered effectively, and that may very well happen.
Bruce Cobb says:
November 4, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Pamela, using trees for energy has problems, not least of which is that you pretty much need to clear-cut to make it economically feasible, and the further away your source is, the less feasible it becomes due to the trucking costs. Sensible forestry practices are one thing. Trees for biofuels are not a good use.
______________________________
You do what was done on my land. Cut for lumber and chip the trash (limbs/leaves) for biofuel. It doesn’t matter whether you clear cut or not. (It also helps if you are only a few miles from the R/R lumber shipping terminal and a multi-fuel burning power plant)
Regarding the debate; What side was Epstein on again?
The question wasn’t asked, “Do you believe that globbal warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2.” So the response indicates that they disbelieve, or are dubious, that paying more at the gas pump will alleviate global warming. The last question was “even” if you believed, in order to capture all those who don’t believe. So no hypocrisy, no disconnect.