Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Why do people say they are concerned about climate change, but refuse to pay more taxes to fix the problem?
The Unprecedented Surge in Fear About Climate Change
More Americans than ever are worried about climate change, but they’re not willing to pay much to stop it.
ROBINSON MEYER
JAN 23, 2019A surging number of Americans understand that climate change is happening and believe that it could harm their family and the country, according to a new poll from Yale and George Mason University.
But at the same time, Americans are not any more willing to pay money to fight climate change than they were three years ago, says another new poll, conducted by the Associated Press and the University of Chicago.
…
The data are still striking, suggesting that U.S. concern about climate change has leapt by several points in just the past year. More than seven out of 10 Americans now say that global warming is “personally important” to them, an increase of nine points since March 2018, according to the Yale poll. More Americans than ever—29 percent—also say they are “very worried” about climate change, an eight-point increase.
…
These changes show up in both new polls. The AP survey found that seven out of 10 of Americans understand climate change is happening. Even more notable: A slim majority of Republicans—52 percent—understand that climate change is real. (The AP asked questions about “climate change,” while Yale polled about “global warming.” The difference in language didn’t seem to change how people replied.)
…
Yet it’s not clear that Americans are willing to do anything about fighting climate change. Many economists support a carbon tax, a policy that makes polluters pay for emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Forty-four percent of Americans say they would support such a tax, according to the AP.
Americans become more supportive of a carbon tax, though, when they know where the money it collects will go. Sixty-seven percent of Americans would support a carbon tax if it were used to restore forests and wetlands. Majorities also endorse a tax that would support renewable-energy R&D or public-transit improvements. But even then, most people are not willing to spend much. Seventy percent say they would vote against a $10 monthly fee tacked on to their power bill. Forty percent would oppose a $1 monthly increase.
These results don’t lend themselves to straightforward answers about what actions to take next.
…
Assuming there is nothing wrong with the surveys or methodology, why aren’t people willing to pay to fix a problem they say they are concerned about?
Part of the problem might be that people don’t trust politicians. Spending the money on renovation of forests and wetlands attracts more support, presumably on the assumption that the expenditure would be transparent, that the money would actually be used for a good cause. But The Atlantic article goes on to discuss the surprise loss of a carbon tax vote in Washington State, a plebiscite which promised a lot of the carbon tax money raised would be distributed to community organisations.
The real problem might be deceptive marketing, all the years that greens have been telling us that renewable energy is the cheapest option.
Why would anyone want to pay more for something which is supposed to be cheaper?
Demands for more money to fund “cheaper” renewable energy programmes simply looks dishonest. It looks like green politicians are trying to cash in on public sympathy.
Greens neglected to explain that when they say renewables are “cheaper”, they are usually not talking about electricity bills; their cost claims are mostly based on dubious assumptions about externalities and “fossil fuel subsidies“.
Voters who have bought into the political spin about climate change and cheap renewable electricity are waiting for their green electricity bills to fall. Poor people paying the energy bills of the rich is probably not what they had in mind.
“…Claim: Climate Change Concern is Surging – But Nobody wants to Pay More Taxes…”
…or significantly sacrifice our quality of life and standard of living. We’ve all worked too hard all of our lives to earn it.
” All questionnaires were self-administered by respondents in a web-based environment. The survey took, on average, 27 minutes to complete.”
Self-selection of respondents is a major failure of methodology.
“The data are still striking, suggesting that U.S. concern about climate change has leapt by several points in just the past year. More than seven out of 10 Americans now say that global warming is “personally important” to them, an increase of nine points since March 2018, according to the Yale poll. More Americans than ever—29 percent—also say they are “very worried” about climate change, an eight-point increase.”
The Poll is highly misleading because it was a SINGLE ISSUE (Climate Change/Global Warming) set of questions. If they allowed a number of other concerns in the poll questions, such as Economy, Terrorism, Immigration and so on, then it would quickly dive to the bottom of the list of concerns to the average American.
I went over this at a forum recently, pointed this out, they suddenly go quiet. Look through the PDF to see that it was only about one thing, this is misleading, trying to make it appear it is a big deal to the average American when it is not.
The US Federal government has just reopened in case you don’t notice
It was closed???
What is that supposed to mean??
Does it mean that in March 2018 only 6.1 out of 10 Americans said that global warming is “personally important”.
Or is it just drivel, as usual?
The desperation is strong with this one.
They are going to pay through the nose whether they want it or not. It’s not going to be a choice. Or at least until the economy totally collapses.
“A surging number of Americans understand that climate change is happening and believe that it could harm their family and the country …”.
=============================================
Climate change™ is an utterly meaningless phrase, it can mean anything from weather variations to The Day After Tomorrow but never good and that’s their propaganda success.
What are we going to do? Pay China to stop burning hydrocarbons?
The US should pledge the same actions to reduce CO2 emissions as China.
Peak emissions no later than 2030.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/01/china-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-than-the-u-s-and-eu-combined/#778e8863628c
“China Emits More Carbon Dioxide Than The U.S. and EU Combined”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/business/china-davos-climate-change.html
“China’s Emissions: More Than U.S. Plus Europe, and Still Rising
Electricity generation from the burning of fossil fuels, almost entirely coal, rose 5.2 percent in China last year.”
NPR found the real problem that needs to be addressed. It is not CAGW or AGW.
China is winning the industrial production competition. We are busy shooting ourselves in the foot.
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/08/591637097/china-churns-out-half-the-worlds-steel-and-other-steelmakers-feel-pinched
“China now produces about half of the world’s steel. It singlehandedly churns out as much steel in one year as the entire world did in 2000.”
Figured it might be time, so I sent all my federal representatives an email. ..
“OK, I should probably be leaving you alone to fund the border patrol plan for border security, but ….
I don’t want to find out that you are copying France’s failed attempt to tax the little people for an imaginary fix to a hypothesized CO2 problem.
I can assure you, if you try that, I will be out there with a yellow vest.”
It’s only in the minds of the greens is the interest in climate change surging…. frantic belief does not translate from the planet warming to extreme cold. I subscribe that the greens should turn off the heat in their houses first ( no heat or electricity). That’ll lower the cost and cut emissions. It’s a win win.
What is interesting is that this study doesn’t break down how each dynamic voted, only listed as (Base: Americans 18+). Well that isn’t very precise and that is important for a few reasons:
CAVEAT: there are better links I’m just throwing in what I can find quickly. There are better sources so my apologies. I read through so much of this stuff I can’t always keep track of it all.
1. It isn’t broken down by age:
According to MSM, metrics are revealing GenZ ( I’m guessing what is labeled here as iGen) as increasingly conservative: https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/eric-metaxas/next-generation-americans-gen-z-may-be-most-conservative-wwii
Forbes backs that up but of course HUFFPO has a different take but it is expected.
Therefore, having the smallest population (6%) be the most likely to have shifted conservative is problematic, especially considering this has been shown to be politically divided (which I assume is another reason party affiliation wasn’t included in the breakdown). Because of this we can’t determine whether the group of younger, less experienced humans are trending towards skepticism when they traditionally support CAGW. Since they are trending Conservative it would be interesting to get some higher resolution into this.
2. It isn’t broken down by party affiliation:
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a25725055/climate-change-poll-republicans-americans-nbc-news/
http://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/
additionally critical in this discussion is the belief system of leftists vs. non leftists. As media has become super saturated with leftist bias, the polls increasingly reflect that trust in those who are left of center.
This also was just confirmed in the social media study that evidenced left leaning folks are less likely to actually be open minded and more likely will eliminate everything outside the echo chamber:
https://defyccc.com/leftist-echo-chamber-digital-age/
I can’t find the exact article but it just came out from what I understand.
3. They don’t break this down by race, and it is well demonstrated latin immigrants are not supportive of 1st and 2nd amendments, so they lean left and they are more likely to be skewed towards believing in CAGW.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/10/16/chapter-2-latinos-views-on-selected-2014-ballot-measure-issues/
https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/content/latinos_and_climate_change_factsheet_0317_refresh.pdf
4. they don’t break it down by gender (women are more likely to support a belief in CAGW)
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/02/women-more-than-men-say-climate-change-will-harm-them-personally/
5. they don’t break it down by income (I couldn’t find a study and this is interesting considering the ample evidence energy austerity through carbon taxes and higher energy prices hurts the poorest the most
6. they don’t break it down by education (which is interesting to see how the onslaught of CAGW/CACC/disruption/weirding/reallystinkyafterthanksgivinggas propaganda is fairing)
https://qz.com/1060080/the-biggest-divide-on-climate-change-is-among-the-most-highly-educated/
This is the resolution we need to compare to previous information, because it will tell us exactly who is believing in the climate propaganda. Then we can determine why this would be based on their IQ, Genetics, culture, educational background, political leanings, and exposure to this propaganda. Without a very rigorous examination of those categories, this “survey” (in which they supply computers to those who don’t have them but wish to participate- which doesn’t require much imagination as to what groups would need this assistance)
“Those contacted who would choose to join the panel but do not have access
to the Internet are loaned computers and given Internet access so they may participate. ” Pg. 47, paragraph 2
additionally,
section 4.2 – people are getting bombarded by the MSM, with at least 79% reporting up to a few times per year, and 56% at least once a month yet they only hear others discuss it 50% and 26% respectively with those timeframes.
If the interest was growing as steadily as this poorly executed research makes it out to be, those numbers should be much more closely aligned.
ugh. I should break this down even further tonight. It appears to me, from every other metric I’ve read, the propaganda is working on:
1. females (millenial aged and older)
2. minorities
3. males of weak constitution [(also known as Beta-cucks in some communities) mostly “educated” in Universities)]
“this survey….is insufficient/incomplete”
too longwinded. I lost cohesion as usual.
The problem is the survey question. Everybody wants a clean and safe environment. Everybody also wants to pay the least amount in taxes. When you put the two ideas together, everybody evaluates them separately, not as linked, even though the question is framed as linked. The concepts are somewhat nebulous as well. How clean is a clean environment? What do I forfeit when I have to pay more tax? There’s too much going on behind the scene when trying to answer what seems like a simple question.
The first letter says it all. This is not a problem for the Western countries to solve, , but it is a possible problem for the likes of India and China where all the excess CO2 is coming from, but that is only if they to believe in the fairy tales that we in the West seem to believe in.
Its also time we got back to the original “Global Warming. That is what started this nonsense in the first place.
So if someone says to you that you should be concerned about “Climate Change , counter” them by saying”, Oh do you men the Global Warming which you originally said caused Climate Change.
Hopefully they ” will somewhat reluctantly admit that is true, you can then say, “You mean the point seven of one degree C since 1880,
The Warmers lobby very successfully introduced Climate Change because everyone would agree that the climate doe indeed change, its far too easy for them, so counter this by getting back by saying that “Do you agree that at the root of the Global Warming is the gas CO2, from all of this burning of the fossal fuel.”
Next question could be, “But what about t the fact that you breath out this same CO2, as do all of life on this Planet, and by now hopefully they will not know where to go from here. Throw in the proven Greening g of the Planet.
Sorry this is so long, but it might just work with the slightly Green people, , but not of course with the committed ones, they have a very different agenda, and it has nothing to do with ” Saving the Planet”
Now for those who will say, “But look at Australia, its very very hot, so the Greenies are right.
Unlike the US TV we see, we here in Australia still use Isobars on our weather pictures, so its easy for any reasonably well educated person to see where the heat is coming from,. Its Monsoon season up North , plus a very hot desert to add to the heat as it comes South..
MJE
I find it interesting that the author frames it as people understanding that climate change is real instead of believing that climate change in real. I tried to follow links to find out the actual questions, but the fact sheet somehow left out the first question about climate change, or what definition (if any) was used.
Still, the Yale survey has 71% saying that climate change is happening, and of those just 60% believed that it was mostly/entirely the result of human activities. So that’s a whopping 42% of people with a full-out endorsement of AGW, let alone CAGW.
48% find climate science “more convincing” than 5 years ago, while just 14% find it less convincing. But why do they find it more convincing? Multiple reasons, but the most popular (76%) is extreme weather events — something that actual climate science doesn’t claim can actually be detected as an effect right now. 63% are “arguments that support the existence of climate change”, which doesn’t exactly describe any interesting climate science. 57% is “personal observations of weather in your area”, despite the warming be too slow and too small for a mere human to observe directly. News stories comes in at 37%, followed by arguments against (31%), views of political leaders (18%) and views of religious leaders (12%).
Was studying actual climate science not one of the options here?
The money question is the most illuminating. What percentage of Americans would support $1 per month on their electric bill to combat climate change? 57%. Upping it to $10 is 39%. Given that, it seems incredible that 44% would support a carbon tax (with support fluctuating depending on what the tax is spent on). Perhaps instead of altering how the money is spent, they should have framed the carbon tax in terms of what it would cost them.
the questions are listed in the report summary, link is at the top of the article.
Then you scroll down to the box that says” go to report summary”
you can then download the report
each page lists the breakdown by age and the question asked, underneath the bar graphs or other types of graphs in each box.
“More than half of Americans understand that most scientists agree global warming is happening.”
It really can’t get much dumber than that. Inane questions filled with inane assumptions and meaningless statements like “global warming is happening”. Pure drivel.
No one I know expresses any worry or concern about climate change. That ship sailed years ago.
‘Global warming is “personally important”’ to me; I want more of it.
The words before the “But” have nothing to do with the words after.
What does paying taxes have to do with the climate?
Similarly,
What does a witchdoctor demanding sacrifices from a village have to do with a nearby volcano?
So, if so many people are so concerned, the situation should correct itself by the actions of those people who are so concerned. No need for any government action of any kind.
In parts of Australia at the moment the main concern is the power outage caused by poor decision making, caused by climate change derangement syndrome, caused by climate change, and naturally all of the above is caused and driven by CO2. …http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/what-caused-the-blackouts-in-melbourne-and-do-victorians-need-to-get-used-to-power-cuts/529137
Do Victorians need to get used to power cuts?
YES!. And South Australians and New South Welshmen. Until the governments of Australia abandon their crazy belief in the climate change fraud, this problem will continue to get worse with the closure of every reliable power station and hope that the wind will blow at just the right amount to power our homes and industry.
I believe this falls under the old investment advice, that when taxi drivers and mothers at the supermarkets claim to know about the topic, then it has passed discussion and has entered the realm of fashion.
Fads and fashions fail under their own weight when it becomes unfashionable to discuss. As the fad and fashion moves to new topics.
Remember, to get to this level of interest, the alarmists have expended trillions of dollars, which does not cover all of the free publicity given to alarmist claims and nonsensical research.
C’est la vie
Money talks,BS walks.
Naturally most voters are “concerned about x,the undefined subject”,their true level of concern is measured using the number of dollars they are prepared to allocate to that subject.
The governments spend word salads fretting about an endless number of problems,many imaginary and even more self created.
The taxpayer tunes out,energy is short and politics endless,until the parasites attempt to extort the money.Only then is the subject given reality and usually that is when the misguided politicians get evicted from power.
So watch Canada,I predict the “Carbon Tax” (which is a tax on everything subject to the GST Goods and services tax and provincial tax,so we get taxed,taxed and taxed) will result in the incumbent federal government getting destroyed .
The cited polls are precious,Climate Change is undefined.
So I would agree,I am concerned about climate change,assuming you are talking about the massive corruption of civil institutions which the Climate Doom meme supports.
And I too am willing to spend zero dollars to do anything about the weather.
Polls are such fun.
Just ask President Hillary…Oh right.
“…Sixty-seven percent of Americans would support a carbon tax if it were used to restore forests and wetlands…”
What percentage of Americans would instead support a forest and wetlands restoration tax to be used to restore forests and wetlands? Why tie it to “carbon?”
There are two social responses to a question. A, the virtue signalling response so the person feels safe. B. What they will actually pay for. B describes the real issue urgency. Saying people care but won’t pay for something is an oxymoron. People only pay for what they are truly concerned about.
“The real problem might be deceptive marketing.”
It is definitely deceptive marketing, but on all fronts imaginable, not just price, and it’s very obvious if you come from marketing. I’m not a scientist. But have significant marketing background. I’ve been thrust into this climate change fraud because my own family represents a mind-numbing political force in both climate change and socialism.
I worked with Colorado GOP this voting season as a volunteer with very little knowledge of state politics. We experienced the worst defeat in state history which will likely set us back 20 years, so say the people in the know. Basically, California came here and if you know anything about the purpleness of Texas, you at least fear they are next. If Texas goes blue, it becomes a much shorter jaunt to quash our freedoms at ever-greater speeds.
In my view, this could very well mean global governance, ultimately.
Seeing the GOP in action, it was immediately apparent the lack of organization. Alternatively, the Dems have a “rolling machine” that has nothing to do with issues or qualified candidates. They don’t care about those things. They don’t wait for primaries (candidates to work with is not the point). They are constantly building the voting infrastructure to register new voters (even as Independents), and move district lines, etc., etc. (as Orwell would say).
When the primaries come, they basically plug in anyone who will run who is “clean”. The GOP had much higher-qualified candidates with excellent messages, by far. The CO electorate was still a few points redder than blue. It didn’t matter. They then followed up with a superior ground game visiting their newly enlarged base 5 times and harvested ballots through Election Day. Of course they controlled all the media with smear and top-2-issue messaging.
In effect, they reverse-engineer their target market. Their polling already tells them where they’re at with whatever the top issues may be. This time it was climate and socialism (thanks to the marketing done at the University, media, Hollywood, etc. levels). Nothing else matters, not even which issues are on the ballot. If they can focus on the top 2 polling issues, even if they lose on the [often-related] ballot issues, their candidates still win and they not only have control, but already have in place the “work-arounds” to the ballot issues voted down.
In fact, the left already knew they were likely going to lose on the fracking setbacks ballot issue because it’s such a large economic factor in CO. Yet in week #1 2019, they were already working on their work-around plan to subvert the voters’ fracking wishes. Corruption defined.
The point du jour is climate and socialism. We ignore hitting these hard at our peril. The fact that the survey may have been skewed in its making DOES NOT MATTER. It’s part of their very patient marketing strategy, no different than the sensational climate claims debunked here every day. The headline is read and the damage is done. Mission accomplished. They are satisfied to methodically inch their way up the food chain stepping on every stupid, uneducated voter on the way.
Sorry I’m too long on this, but this survey trend should NOT be ignored. Getting people to pay carbon taxes or AOC’s 70% is just a matter of time, which is speeding up with this kind of momentum. Of course, 2020 is their goal. Skeptic scientists need to step up, gather together, and look to partner with a competent marketing machine. Hopefully it’s a ‘woke’ RNC and other network. Are there resources in the scientific community to add to the mix?
I would add that this marketing scheme is what got AOC elected. Do not underestimate this momentum.