Brookings Institution survey: Public Concern over Climate Still Bottom of the List
Guest essay by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Public opinion surveys are notoriously easy to manipulate. Depending on how you ask the survey question, you can get just about any results you want.
A recently publicized Washington Post – ABC News poll, timed to coincide with the recent announcement of the Obama EPA proposed power plant CO2 emissions regulations, found a majority of Americans supported CO2 restrictions on coal-fired power plants. But the way the question was asked minimized the supposed cost, and maximized the supposed benefit, of such restrictions on the American economy.
Quoting from the HuffPo article about the survey results:
“Asked whether Washington should still go forward with limits if they “significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly energy expenses by 20 dollars a month,” 63 percent of respondents say yes, including 51 percent of Republicans, 64 percent of independents and 71 percent of Democrats.”
Hell, even *I* would probably support $20 more a month if it “significantly lowered greenhouse gases”, just to be on the safe side. But it’s NOT going to significantly lower greenhouse gases (on a global basis, which is what matters), nor is it going to cost only $20 a month.
The poll question was so poorly worded and misleading, I think the pollsters should be ashamed of themselves.
A more recent survey of American attitudes on immigration and other matters (including how the various news outlets rank for trustworthiness) was just announced yesterday by the Brookings Institution, and buried in it was the following chart that showed how Americans with different political leanings ranked various concerns.
As is usually the case, “climate” comes in dead last with all groups except self-described “liberals”:
Clearly, jobs and the deficit — basically, “the economy” — is the main concern that most Americans have. And the proposed EPA regulations will hurt far more people than they would help…especially the poor.
Generally speaking, the public has lost faith in scientists whose profession requires them to sound the alarm over global warming climate change climate disruption. Most Americans understand that forecasts of gloom and doom as predicted by “scientific experts” are not as reliable as predictions of, say, this afternoon’s weather.
In fact they have a history of almost zero reliability.
We can predict the time of sunrise in Podunk, Michigan on July 17, fifty years in advance. But not all scientific disciplines are created equally, climate prediction is still in its infancy, and fortunately the public understands that.
Dr. Roy Spencer writes regularly here, please add him to your bookmarked list of sites to visit.
=========================================================
Related:
John Holdren’s ‘personal’ Bi-Polar Vortex video
Quote of the Week – dictators and climate change
“Hell, even *I* would probably support $20 more a month if it “significantly lowered greenhouse gases”, just to be on the safe side. “
Dr Spencer – your statement buys into the notion that CO2 is a problem that needs to be addressed. You are allowing political advocacy to frame the argument.
My view? CO2 is NOT a problem.
Start there when dealing with these people.
To a liberal, when he hears the word morals in a political context, he thinks of people who are religious fanatics who tout their morality, such as people who believe they ought to have the moral right to kill other people who believe abortions should be legal. To a liberal, the word moral has a very negative connotation because of the religious nutjobs who always seem to hypocritically claim to have the moral high ground. In other words, you might as well ask a liberal if he likes hypocrisy.
Most liberals are extremely moral when it comes to believing the average person should get a fair break or chance in life.
And Hydro Quebec also supplies electricity to the U.S. There is a planned HVDC cable down the Hudson River to N.Y.C. to be supplied by Hydro Quebec.
Easy to be sustainable when another country will supply your electricity. Also won’t have to flood anyplaces in the U.S. to produce hydro power.
The sun is setting on coal as a fuel for electricity generation. Photo-voltaic systems are kicking coal’s butt.
http://www.eei.org/ourissues/finance/documents/disruptivechallenges.pdf
Using wind and solar to supply electricity requires demand side management. When wind and solar power suddenly drop or are not available then customer usage has to be curtailed if there are not sufficient power supplies from other sources.
Sure, Obama can talk about cutting U.S. CO2 emissions all around the world when another country is supplying or going to supply the U.S. with electricity.
Don’t kid yourselves, look at the experience in Europe and Australia where electricity prices have doubled from this nonsense. It’s not $20 and it’s not going to hit you once. This hurts, and it hurts the poor most, and it won’t be rolled back later. Oppose it now while you can. Get onto those coal state Democrats and let them know what will happen to them next election if your electricity bill increases exceed CPI. Get your friends and neighbours to vote against any politician that supports AGW or the UN Sustainability Plan. Use November wisely, Democrats are scared about what this will do to them in the senate, so now it’s your turn to use scare tactics – let them know what this will do, what YOU will do, to make sure they do not get a seat in the senate. That should go for ANY candidate supporting AGW or Sustainability (Agenda 21) whatever party they are from.
Grassroots revolts do happen, we got our PM Abbott that way in “The day the electorate went nuts” half the country phoned in to the opposition and told them the ETS ( Cap and trade ) legislation was not to be passed.Tony Abbott rolled Malcolm Turnbull (opposition leader) that very night and the ETS was stopped in the senate. Admittedly due to the foibles of our system 2 years later Julia Gillard had the numbers and lumbered us with a carbon tax anyway (after promising not to). The grass roots were enraged, and held the rage for 3 years – fuelled by each and every power bill, Julia Gillards party was rolled in a record landslide by the enraged grassroots voters. If every sceptic in America managed to get 5 others to vote against AGW supporting candidates, then you could be free of this crap for a term or so.
Use our experience, our last election decimated the progressive parties, the issues were national debt and carbon taxes… Show the democrats they face the same fate in November unless the president and EPA are stopped.
June 11, 2014 at 10:55 am | herkimer says
…
Luxury! We’re already paying +27c/KwH in Australia with a 13% hike to come next month.
Streetcred
US electricity rates( currently about 12 cents per kwh) may sound as a luxury to Australians. However when you are not a basic commodity supplier like Australia , but a manufacturer, you are competing with China and Asia for manufacturing jobs with their lower labour rate and lower energy costs . If US energy costs double or triple and with their higher labour costs, it will be tough to hold on to manufacturing jobs. China energy rate is 8 cents per kwh . Australia does not have to compete with China for the sales of iron ore or coal. Also Australia does not have to use electrical energy to heat winter homes to the extent that North America needs. So I think we are more sensitive to electrical rate increases
Meanwhile one of the companies in the demand side management business has close ties to Obama.
To put the message that Roy posed at the beginning of this track in different context , would the American public be willing to experience less economic growth, reduced household disposable income , higher electricity costs. less employment and increased compliance costs to lower the total US CO2 emissions by 1-2% to achieve a reduction in global temperatures of less than two one hundredth of a degree C when CO2 emissions are coming down anyway through normal market forces and the global temperatures show no upward trend for 17 years
Herkimer: You missed your calling. You could get a job as a legal assistant drafting Requests for Admissions. Can’t tell you how many Requests I got over the years that resembled what you wrote in the numbers of different issues or factors in a single sentence.