From the “who to believe” department. First, the pro climate view from NORC AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO:
Most Americans want government to combat climate change
Nearly 4 in 10 Americans have not yet made up their minds on fracking, while just 2 in 10 say they favor the practice. About 8 in 10 say the United States should maintain its commitment under the Paris Agreement–even if other countries do not.
Sixty-five percent of Americans think climate change is a problem that the government needs to address, including 43 percent of Republicans and 84 percent of Democrats, according to a new survey from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago (EPIC) and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. While the major political parties have in recent years frequently clashed over the need to combat climate change, the Paris Agreement, and the role of coal and fracking in our energy system, Americans are largely in favor of efforts on all fronts to combat climate change.
But, how much Americans are willing to pay to confront the climate challenge varies widely. When asked whether they would support a monthly fee on their electric bill to combat climate change, 42 percent of respondents are unwilling to pay even $1. Twenty-nine percent would pay $20, an amount roughly equivalent to what the federal government estimates the damages from climate change would be on each household. And, 20 percent indicate they are willing to pay $50 per month. Party affiliation is the main determinant of how much people are willing to pay, not education, income, or geographic location. Democrats are consistently willing to pay more than Republicans.
“These findings confirm that there is a shift underway in how concerned all Americans are about climate change. It is becoming clear that people are seeing more and more that it is worthwhile to invest some money today to help reduce the odds of the worst climate damages,” said Michael Greenstone, director of EPIC and the Milton Friedman Professor in Economics, the College, and the Harris School. “At EPIC, we are working to better understand how climate change will affect human well-being. We believe this research and its careful communication are critical for aligning public opinion with the best available evidence.”
When it comes to support for policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, most Americans (46 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of Democrats) are in favor of federal regulations that would decrease U.S. coal consumption. If this question is paired with the assertion that such regulations have resulted in the loss of thousands of coal jobs, support wanes slightly from 54 percent to 45 percent. Democrats express the same level of support regardless of whether or not the question includes an assertion about job losses.
Despite low expectations that the United States will fulfill its obligations under the Paris Agreement–and even less confidence in China or India to meet theirs–the vast majority of Americans want the United States to continue working toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions even if other countries do not. That includes 77 percent of Republicans and 91 percent of Democrats.
“While climate change has in the past eight years become an increasingly divisive issue in American politics, we do find widespread agreement that the United States should be a leader on this issue globally,” said Trevor Tompson, director of The AP-NORC Center. “Americans aren’t particularly hopeful that any country will meet its obligation under the Paris Agreement, but more than 7 in 10 in each political party believe that the U.S. should at least try to make progress even if other countries do not.”
Of all the issues surveyed, the role hydraulic fracturing should play in America’s energy mix has traditionally been an issue where Democrats do not agree–with some believing it should continue playing a role under tighter regulations, and others believing it should be banned entirely. The survey found that just 13 percent of Democrats actually favor fracking, as opposed to 36 percent of Republicans. Nearly 4 in 10 Americans don’t offer an opinion at all, suggesting that additional education would make an impact. Of those who have an opinion, twice as many oppose the practice than support it.
At the same time, the poll finds that most Americans significantly underestimate the share of U.S. natural gas that is produced using hydraulic fracturing. Just 1 in 5 correctly say that fracking accounts for about two-thirds of the U.S. natural gas supply.
Some of the poll’s key findings are:
- Sixty-five percent of Americans say climate change is a problem the U.S. government should address. Another 12 percent say climate change is happening, but the government should not be involved in fixing it; 1 in 10 Americans say climate change is not happening; and 13 percent of Americans remain unsure if climate change is happening or not.
- When asked whether they would support a monthly fee on their electric bill to combat climate change, 42 percent of respondents are unwilling to pay even $1. Twenty-nine percent would pay $20, an amount roughly equivalent to what the federal government estimates the damages from climate change would be on each household. And, 20 percent indicate they are willing to pay $50 per month.
- Party affiliation is the main determinant of how much people are willing to pay to combat climate change, not education, income, or geographic location. Democrats are consistently willing to pay more than Republicans.
- Energy issues and climate change are important issues for about half of likely voters as they cast their ballot.
- A majority of Americans underestimate how much of the country’s natural gas supply comes from fracking, and many don’t hold strong attitudes about the practice. Among those who do have an opinion, twice as many oppose its use than support it.
- Only a quarter of Americans are confident that the United States will fulfill its obligations under the Paris Agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
- Americans have even less confidence in China and India meeting their obligations. But even if these countries don’t, 8 in 10 Americans say the United States should continue making progress to meet its own obligations.
###
About the Survey
This survey was conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and with funding from EPIC. Data were collected using AmeriSpeak Omnibus®. The survey was part of a larger study that included questions about other topics not included in this report. Interviews for this survey were conducted between August 11 and 14, 2016, with adults age 18 and over representing the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Panel members were randomly drawn from AmeriSpeak, and 1,096 completed the survey–832 via the web and 264 via telephone. The overall margin of sampling error is +/- 3.6 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level, including the design effect. The margin of sampling error may be higher for subgroups.
About the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago
The Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago (EPIC) is confronting the global energy challenge by working to ensure that energy markets provide access to reliable, affordable energy, while limiting environmental and social damages. We do this using a unique interdisciplinary approach that translates robust, data-driven research into real-world impacts through strategic outreach and training for the next generation of global energy leaders. epic.uchicago.edu @UChiEnergy
About The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research
The AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research taps into the power of social science research and the highest-quality journalism to bring key information to people across the nation and throughout the world. http://www.apnorc.org
The Associated Press (AP) is the essential global news network, delivering fast, unbiased news from every corner of the world to all media platforms and formats. Founded in 1846, AP today is the most trusted source of independent news and information. On any given day, more than half the world’s population sees news from AP. http://www.ap.org
NORC at the University of Chicago is an independent research institution that delivers reliable data and rigorous analysis to guide critical programmatic, business, and policy decisions. Since 1941, NORC has conducted groundbreaking studies, created and applied innovative methods and tools, and advanced principles of scientific integrity and collaboration. Today, government, corporate, and nonprofit clients around the world partner with NORC to transform increasingly complex information into useful knowledge. http://www.norc.org
The two organizations have established The AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research to conduct, analyze, and distribute social science research in the public interest on newsworthy topics, and to use the power of journalism to tell the stories that research reveals.
Now the dissenting view, from the Pew Institute:
The Politics of Climate
Polarized views about climate issues stretch from the causes and cures for climate change to trust in climate scientists and their research. But most Americans support a role for scientists in climate policy, and there is bipartisan support for expanding solar, wind energy
Political fissures on climate issues extend far beyond beliefs about whether climate change is occurring and whether humans are playing a role, according to a new, in-depth survey by Pew Research Center. These divisions reach across every dimension of the climate debate, down to people’s basic trust in the motivations that drive climate scientists to conduct their research.
Specifically, the survey finds wide political divides in views of the potential for devastation to the Earth’s ecosystems and what might be done to address any climate impacts. There are also major divides in the way partisans interpret the current scientific discussion over climate, with the political left and right having vastly divergent perceptions of modern scientific consensus, differing levels of trust in the information they get from professional researchers, and different views as to whether it is the quest for knowledge or the quest for professional advancement that drives climate scientists in their work.
…
The climate-engaged public
Some 36% of Americans are deeply concerned about climate issues, saying they personally care a great deal about the issue of global climate change. This group is composed primarily of Democrats (72%), but roughly a quarter (24%) is Republican. Some 55% are women, making this group slightly more female than the population as a whole. But, they come from a range of age and education groups and from all regions of the country.
There are wide differences in beliefs about climate issues and climate scientists between this more concerned public and other Americans, among both Democrats and Republicans alike. Indeed, people’s expressions of care are strongly correlated with their views, separate and apart from their partisan and ideological affiliations.
Full report here: http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The answer is, on their quarterly bill, say, give the consumers the freedom to choose i.e. pay this amount or if you want to use renewable power pay this amount (maybe alternative percentages could be offered).
If sixty-five percent of Americans think climate change is a problem that the government needs to address they will be keen to feel the warm inner glow of at least pretending to contribute towards a solution.
Its not just utility bills … its everything.
Pass a bill, in congress that requires two more little boxes on the income tax forms:
“Do you want to contribute 2% percent of your overall taxable income to the Climate Change Solution? A yes answer will increase your tax liability.”
“Do you want to contribute a all, or a portion of, your tax refund to the Climate Solution? A yes answer will decrease your refund.”
The hard core CAGW adherents will even think about checking the box. The lack of response will show the true feelings of the US citizens, regardless of the polls.
The hard core CAGW adherents will not even think ….
Once polling became a business the data veracity became questionable.
Not necessarily true.
First off, pollsters who aren’t in business are just as likely to produce false polls as are those who are being paid.
Secondly, pollsters who want to keep getting paid, will produce as accurate as possible polls for those who are doing the paying.
It is real popular with angry old liberal women. No body else cares or believes the nonsense.
If anyone is interested in what Canadians think on similar questions – here is a recent poll. Basically, they are concerned about climate change, but are more concerned about a lot of other things, and don’t feel it is an urgent problems. And they are not really willing to pay much more to try to ‘combat’ it.
http://innovativeresearch.ca/will-canadians-pay-for-their-good-intentions/
I would expect that most Canadians would actually welcome a bit of global warming.
According to today’s news, President Obama says enough countries have ratified the Paris agreement and he is going to make the US comply with its provisions. Of course the provisions are non-binding otherwise the agreement would have to be ratified by the Congress. Welcome to the US dictatorship.
It says the government estimates that the cost of climate damage to each household is $20? What exactly is the damage? The cost to comply? Or some actual damage from a few degrees warming? An inquiring mind wants to know.
“aligning public opinion with the best available evidence”. That’ll be the day.
Climate change? Anthropogenic climate change? Catastrophic anthropogenic climate change?
The first is true as a natural process. The second is believable in local and perhaps regional frames. The last is prophetic and may be accepted by individuals who conflate logical domains, receive their religious instruction from the twilight zone (a.k.a. penumbra), or have ulterior motives.
I checked out at “social science”. Social science is manipulation
Lets widen this out a bit – survey across the world:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/18/what-the-world-thinks-about-climate-change-in-7-charts/
(It particularly notes the Republican/democrat split on the issue in the US…)
and here’s a recent German poll showing Germans continue to support renewable energy…
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/polls-reveal-citizens-support-energiewende
“More than two thirds expect electricity prices to rise if power comes from renewables. But a majority (55 percent) believe the transition to renewables is advancing too slowly, blaming politics, high costs and a blockade by the utilities for the delay. Only 8 percent said renewable development was too fast.”
Opposition to renewables and a belief that the science of climate change is wrong is a political opinion, held mostly by US Republicans and people of a similar political outlook.
It is virtually non-existent in a place like Germany…
If support was as large as claimed it would be easy enough to have energy suppliers create “renewables only” tariffs and “non-renewables tariffs” reflecting the total cost of each (no subsidies) . People could opt for whichever tariff they supported.
I wonder how many takers the renewables tariff would have when they see the price!
Suddenly, the support would disappear. It is only the hidden costs in bills and taxes which keep this scam from being very obvious to the majority of the public.
SteveT
I’m trying to decide if Griff actually is stupid enough to believe the propaganda he keeps pushing?
Facts tend to refute your last three sentences, see https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/ the limit for renewables and a stable grid seems to be a little over 20%, depending on ‘dump’ and ‘shortfall’ availability.
The headline is again misleading. The Pew poll says 74% care deeply or some. The NORC one says 64% think it is a problem the Govt ought to address. There is no contradiction between these two findings. There are no dueling polls – they are in pretty good agreement.
These polls tell us almost nothing about the truth behind the issues. 80% of Americans thought fraking accounted for less gas than it did. That does not make them right.
Gee in my county Dems are 32%, Rep, 13%, Independent 42%, Libertarian 6%. So would most people not even be in the poll?
The part I found interesting was that people were concerned that China and India wouldn’t meet their Paris Agreement obligations. What Obligations?!
People who are being asked have no idea. The biggest misrepresentation by The alarmists is that any action taken by any countries other than China and India is effectively an exercise in futility and there is zero prospect of having any impact on global warming or climate change. Any reduction in CO 2 will be swamped by those two countries.The lack of comprehension of the Paris agreement and the idiocy of the countries who are actually taking measures is something that is not well understood by the vast number of people who actually have limited interest in climate change. If they had a real interest in climate change and wanted something done about it they would realise that India and China have agreed to do nothing.
As others have pointed out, the wording of the poll, and the intent (i.e. which questions are asked) will influence the poll. I searched the site (not exhaustively, but then they did not seem to want to make the data readily available) for the questions and preambles and did not find them. Clearly the 2 polls cannot both be true. So the answer lies in both the way the questions are asked and the preamble to each question. It can also be due to just plain deception (i.e. “Is the plant warming” becomes “Man is causing CAGW”).
Still others here have also stated, which Gallup consistently points out, that when lumped with all the issues of the day, Climate Change ranks dead last consistently.
These factors taken together indicate this latest poll is about “Everyone talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it”. Or can do anything about it since no proposal advanced by any Government agreement yet has been projected to impact the thesis that the planet is warming to any appreciable degree.
As far as those wanting to pay more, it always comes down to the same thing. With OPM. There is no law or prohibition on anyone giving more to the government than they are legally required to. So the only conclusion is they want to give more of OPM to their pet peeve, not their own.
It can also be in how the results are interpreted. In the first survey that started the 97% nonsense, two quite reasonable questions
1) Has the planet warmed?
2) Did man play a role in this warming?
Became CO2 is going to kill everyone, once the activists got done with it.
True, but as many have pointed out, the Doran/Zimmerman preening was not scientific by any stretch of the imagination. I would hope that both of these outfits were more professional.
Looking through the “experts” listed at the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago website, I see it is loaded up with economists, environmentalists and management. Where is the expertise in ENERGY?
It’s another political thinktank like the “Melbourne Energy Institute” which has no one on its staff with any credentials in energy, especially not at utility level
How are these thinktanks funded?
Can someone tell me where the climate has changed or is changing? Last I checked, the Amazon is still a tropical rain forest and the Sahara is still a hot, dusty desert.
Good point, john doe. And the Arctic and Antarctic are still frozen over rock solid AND the troposphere is not suffering from a “temperature” (Algore) — bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaa!
I don’t believe polls. They show general trends. Like the volatility on the Stock markets, they are up one day and down another. It all depends on who’s got the most outrageous sound byte. Ephemeral opinions based upon half wits who are really two wits. (twit for short.)
PEW Questions
Scientists understand very well the best way to address climate change
Liberals 36 percent US total 19 percent.
Climate scientists research findings are influenced MOST OF THE TIME based on best available evidence
only 55 PERCENT of liberals believe that to be true. Even With the qualifier MOST they could barely crack the 50 percent amongst their most ardent supporters. What is the option to using ” best available evidence”
AFP Poll finds vast gaps in US climate views
“More than half of liberal Democrats (54 percent) said climate scientists understand the causes of climate change very well, and 55 percent believe there is “widespread consensus among climate scientists”
97 percent of climate scientists believe these numbers need to be adjusted upwards
People are so cute when they think this might cost them as much as $50 per month. Civilizations have been built using the energy that caused the climate to shift a few tenths of a degree C. How much effort will it take to shift the climate back? $50 a month? Try $500 as a starting point.
I care deeply about “climate change”. I care that we’re being lied to about it, and that “green” energy” is being forced on us, and that multi-$billions have been wasted on a non-problem, and that democratic principles are being trashed because of it.
Wait. That isn’t what they’re asking?
I like the comment about single issue polls. Pew managed to get the percentage of people that believe global warming is man-made up to 48%. However the math they used is at least fuzzy if not corrupted, see my posting here cbdakota.wordpress.com/2016/10/06/pew-research-report-data-not-supported-by-the-interviews-human-caused-co2-claimed-to-be-48-but-in-reality-is-31/
A recent large and highly cited poll in Australia came up with similar findings. As a statistician I looked into it as it didn’t gel with others. Same methodology: a ‘panel study’ reporting margins of error. But most market research ‘professionals’ seemed to have been asleep in week one of their stats 101 unit. That’s when students are taught that a necessary condition before you can extrapolate proportions from a sample to a population is that every sampled response is a RANDOMLY selected one. In neither this survey or the Australian case was this true. Panel members are self selected and usually complete several surveys a month (for some kind of recompense) . The reasons panels are used is that they are cheap: properly randomised samples are orders of magnitude more expensive to conduct. Plus, there is rarely an independent way to find out the true proportion in the population (and so to challenge the survey results) . Clients of these panel studies are rarely psychometric specialists, so don’t understand or focus on randomness either – that’s why panel use has proliferated. But if a survey is based on a non-random sample, all talk about representativeness, error margins or even quality of the questions is like talking about the quality of the radio in a car that has no wheels. Question 1 should always be: ‘how were informants selected’? This ‘survey’ is worthless.