Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A recent survey by Rasmussen Reports reveals that 2/3 Americans are unwilling to pay even $100 / annum additional costs to prevent global warming.
According to Rasmussen;
Most voters still aren’t ready to pay much, if anything, to fight global warming, but a slightly higher number are willing to spend more for the cause.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of Likely U.S. Voters say they are willing to pay nothing more in higher taxes and utility costs annually to to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming. But that’s down from 48% last August and the lowest level measured in regular tracking since January 2013. Another 24% are willing to spend only $100 more per year, unchanged from earlier surveys. Twenty-six percent (26%) are ready to spend $300 or more a year to combat global warming, with six percent (6%) who are ready to spend at least $1,000 more annually. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Intriguingly, a lot of people questioned by Rasmussen think global warming is primarily caused by human activity.
GLOBAL WARMING IS PRIMARILY CAUSED BY…
Date Human activity Planetary Trends Other Reason March 2015 45% 35% 8% …
To me this suggests 3 possibilities:
- Many of the people who are concerned about the climate, don’t think paying more tax will help to cool the planet.
- A lot of people who say they are concerned don’t really mean it.
- A combination of the above.
However there is good news for people concerned about climate change. If the 26% of Americans willing to spend $300 / annum, and the 6% of Americans willing to spend $1000 / annum, really mean what they say:
26% x 300 million people x $300 + 6% x 300 million people x $1000
= $23 billion + $18 billion
= $41 billion / annum
$41 billion / annum is just under half of what rich countries promised to pay at Copenhagen 2009.
So my good news is, America’s fair share of the $100 billion rich country tithe can be amply covered by the voluntary pledges of people who say they are willing to pay to save the planet – no need to levy taxes on anyone.
Those who believe now have a real opportunity to make a personal difference. Furthermore, I’m happy to volunteer to help coordinate the effort, you can send your cash c/o WUWT. In the next decade it will become more than obvious how effective my secret $410 billion plan to prevent global warming has been – at least it will be, until NOAA revises their figures again.
Time does change things. Their red and blue graphs after hiatuses are “corrected” show a beautiful symetric pattern repeating around zero. Time will prove that that work of art will be just that, a pattern. But they know that. That is why the BIG PUSH for this carbon tax before it happens… The pattern shows we are in the hottest period and heading into a colder time. Over millions of years this pattern repeats. So nothing is really happening different except it is being recorded in high definition and we are losing our freedoms.
The only question I have is how in the world the other 35% think their contributions will in any way affect the climate.
Heh. They “feel” they will.
(Like Goebbels McKibben and his “feel” for things, per Anthony’s generous (oh, brother, and how!) portrayal of McK.’s mens rea vis a vis AGW).
File that AGW “I’ll buy that phenomenon” Under F.E.A.R. (False Evidence Appearing Real)
Climate Hustler: Save yourself from dying of heat!!! Buy our windmill panacea! (just pennies per day)
35%: I’ll buy that.
Like:
Junk Medicine Hustler: Here. Buy these beetle excrement pills. They’ll keep you from dying of ring worm. If Elvis had had these, he’d be alive today, yessiree.”
35%: I’ll buy that.
(Gotta give credit to Not Really Vlad for inspiration: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/06/2third-americans-100-per-year-too-much-prevent-global-warming/#comment-1955678 )
Already paying WAY more than $100 a year in CA. With the recent 60 cents a gallon CO2 tax on gasoline and the already massive increase in electricity over the past five years, I suspect I am already paying about 300 dollars a month for CO2 tax.
“Intriguingly, a lot of people questioned by Rasmussen think global warming is primarily caused by human activity.”
“To me this suggests 3 possibilities:
1.Many of the people who are concerned about the climate, don’t think paying more tax will help to cool the planet.
2.A lot of people who say they are concerned don’t really mean it.
3.A combination of the above.”
=======================================================
What about 4…
A lot of people think G.W. is primarily caused by humans, and net beneficial? After all, all the hoopla is about CAGW, not GW.
This is not trivial. The false 97 percent consensus junk science was based on just that, leaving the “C” out of CAGW. Skeptics would do well to not repeat this blunder. In a like manner the “Pause” or “hiatus” (but not lull) is an equally false argument, distracting from the clear scientific evidence that minor warming is clearly net beneficial.
Can anybody prove gases are causing GW? – not just imaginary or fake science or metaphorical way. GHG idea is ridiculous. Gases can’t form green house. So GHE due to gases is impossible. GW is manmade but not due gases. Gases are not manmade. Drier the land surface the hotter it is, we all know. So, develop water supply system so that land surface is always kept moist to cool off atmosphere, enhance rain cycle thus add snow on mountains and poles. When the water goes back to the places where it came from, the sea level will also gradually decrease – thus, solve the CC.
How anybody is going to stop GW (it is also misleading term), better say Climate Change?
Indrdev,
Wrong!
Trying to portray climate change as a crisis is meaningless.
The climate has and will always change.
The propaganda is that humans are causing the globe to warm. Climate change is/was a recent attempt at misdirection when it was found that the actual Earth was not cooperating with the hoax
Why do you insist on changing the subject?
Climate change is your meme and your religion, you should own up to it and stop being so wishy washy.
We are at A. How much will it cost and what will the effects be on our standard of life and unemployment levels to reach B? Also what are the benefits to reach B? I would assume the majority of the people know CO2 is essential for life on this planet and that commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into their greenhouses to increase yield and reduce growing times.
The question is disingenuous as the cult of CAWG has not done an unbiased/independent back of the envelope estimate of how much it would cost to reduce CO2 emissions by let say 50% and has not explained how a reduction of CO2 emissions of let say 50% would affect planetary climate based on their incorrect models.
Our standard of life is directly related to how much energy costs. Why is that a big revelation? It is a fact that unemployment will significantly increase and standard of life will be significantly reduced to say reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions by let say 50% without the complete conversion to nuclear power.
To truly reduce world CO2 emissions would require real sacrifices, not attending silly yearly climate summits.
To truly significantly reduce CO2 emissions also requires forced, not voluntary changes in everyone’s life style. Spending more money on energy (tripling the cost of electricity in the US) can only reduce CO2 emission by roughly 20% (not including the CO2 emissions to build and install and maintain the green scams). The question should also have asked would you support a government ban on tourism air travel and a government restriction on house floor space and the banning of recreational property in addition to a tripling of the cost of electricity.
The question is also disingenuous as the assumption is that if we could reduce world CO2 emissions by let say 20%, 30%, or 50% that that change would significantly affect planetary temperature and climate change. The question would have a different answer if the planet is cooling and it becomes apparent that the majority of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes what would your reaction be?
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: The Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years.).
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/is-the-current-global-warming-a-natural-cycle/
Why would you assume that? I suspect that most people would be surprised and / or unbelieving.
Why should Americans pay more than anyone when we done more to clean up our act. I think this is more about politics and power. AL Gore is laughing all the way to the bank.
$100 /year? My electricity bill by a low carbon committed producer is up $100 / month right now. And no, I am not “willing.”
If a carbon tax or cap-and-trade is enacted, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of this revenue ends up towards that 100 billion. I personally believe that is planned.
In addition, if a carbon tax is enacted, the treasury will be swimming in hundreds of billions of dollars. That money may also be used to pay down the debt, fund social programs, get redistributed to the poor, etc. In short, the middle class might end up paying the brunt of these things instead of rich people. This might be why many rich people want a carbon tax.
What is the $100 billion going to be used for? My guess is economic development for some of the following (in no particular order) reasons:
1) Get more women working so that they have less time to make babies.
2) Electrify the rest of the world so that governments and the NSA can spy of the people who currently don’t have cell phones or are living in residences off the grid.
3) Give companies more options to more jobs to other countries. You can bet that new areas that are suddenly developed are going to get new low paying jobs.
As far as volunteering to pay part of the 100 billion, that is an excellent idea. We should also implement a national Higher Optional Tax where the caring and compassionate left can voluntarily pay more of their own wealth via this tax to the government so that this extra money can be used to bolster the current unconstitutional social programs we have in place.
“I’ll throw every tenth fish I catch back in the ocean and you can get it yourselves.” Foxe’s Book of Martyrs
Non sequitur, bogus quote and misspelled the title of the book.
It works well as an anecdote.
And fortunately I don’t need to know Latin. That was another a success of the martyrs.
Eric, if you need any help sorting, counting and bagging the fat stacks of money that will be rolling in, give me a shout.
No, seriously…I do not mind a bit.
I would gladly pay $100 / year if it would shut up the warmists and obviate their need to bloviate.
They are already paying much more than that!
They pay to heat their homes.
How about voluntary payments to an AGW government or nonprofit account? The collection buckets can be placed outside Whole Foods stores and can include bell ringers with slogans on their T-shirts. Why wait for the final over reach govt midnight vote for mandatory payments if the climate really is at stake now with tipping points this and tipping points that? Or just send all of your money to the Clinton Foundation for the emotional feel good indulgence payment.