One-third of Americans unwilling to spend $1 to fight climate change


MAY 26, 2021

By Paul Homewood

h/t Dennis Ambler

From the Washington Post:


President Biden wants to spend in excess of $1 trillion to combat climate change, but more than one-third of Americans are unwilling to chip in a single buck.

A poll of 1,200 registered voters released Tuesday by the Competitive Enterprise Institute found that 35% were unwilling to spend any of their own money to reduce the impact of climate change, with another 15% saying they would only go as high as $10 per month.

Another 6% said they would be willing to spend between $11 and $20 per month. At the other end of the spectrum were those who said they would part with between $901 and $1,000 per month on climate — they numbered 1%.

The results of the survey by CRC Research are consistent with previous polls showing that by and large, Americans are climate tightwads.

The 2019 AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs survey that found 57% were willing to spend an additional $1 per month on climate change, but only 28% would pay $10.

I have long complained about biased polls, which ask whether people are concerned about climate change, but fail to question how much they would be prepared to pay.

This latest poll suggests that 56% would not want to pay more than $20 a month. By contrast, only 1% would pay $1000 a month; indeed only the wealthiest could afford to pay that much.

4.7 20 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 27, 2021 6:07 am

So 2/3 of Americans ARE willing to spend a dollar to fight climate change?

Reply to  Chaamjamal
May 27, 2021 8:05 am

There are already environmental fees for bottle deposits, car oil changes, electronics recycling, green/blue bin garbage collection fees, plastic shopping bag charges, air conditioner tax on cars, etc. etc, that add up to way more than a dollar per day…..

Reply to  DMacKenzie,
May 27, 2021 2:59 pm

Air conditionaer tax on cars?? Please don’t tell Newsom or the California legislature.

Martin Pinder
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
May 30, 2021 8:11 am

Don’t tell Boris Johnson either!

Bill Powers
Reply to  Chaamjamal
May 27, 2021 9:34 am

Since we know the climate changes always has and always will, even after sloughing off all these brainwashed Homo Sapiens, seems that 2/3 of Americans have been vaccinated against independent thought.

I am convinced a majority of that 2/3 could be convinced by the Propaganda Press to spend a dollar to fight the sun going down in the evening. ” We MUST stop this world from spinning it is all man’s fault.”

Come to the light side you buck spenders.

Reply to  Chaamjamal
May 27, 2021 1:46 pm

No. Supposedly 2/3 of the people polled SAID they would be willing to spend a dollar. The poll did not follow through and ask them to reach into their pocket and pull the money out.

There is a big difference between what people SAY to pollsters and what they will actually do.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Taphonomic
May 27, 2021 1:55 pm

Exactly, leftist idiots will say anything to appear virtuous, but handing over their cash is a different kettle of fish altogether.
Sure they would hand some over if they could record it and then put it on social media to virtue signal, but pay it out as a tax with zero social credit for it, not a chance.

Reply to  Gary Ashe
May 27, 2021 3:00 pm

Or if it is tax deductible, or, better yet, a tax credit.

Reply to  Gary Ashe
May 28, 2021 2:44 am

“Exactly, leftist idiots will say anything to appear virtuous, but handing over their cash is a different kettle of fish altogether.”

I think leftist idiots will spend their money on the stupidest things.
What this poll indicates is 14% will spend $90 to $100 Per Month on something that has no chance of working as planned.

And 14% of US pop is 45 million people or 4.5 billion dollars per month.
So just repeat poll but this time, take the next step and get the 14% to spend the $100 per month.
Tell them, let’s start now, don’t you think it should be started as soon as possible??
Tell them they are 14% which will begin the real change.
All which is needed is for the 14% is to do what they say they willing to do.
And if they will do it, others will follow their virtuous action.
And of course if the pay $100 per month they will have their names on a list.
And the list with all these idiots willing to pay $100 per month will worth a lot money. And perhaps more idiots will want to be on the list {making the list worth even more money].
It’s win, win.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Taphonomic
May 27, 2021 7:06 pm

I was thinking along the same lines.
How many of those that said they were willing to spend a dollar or more actually pay taxes?
How many of them meant they were willing for the Government to spend other peoples dollars?

M Courtney
May 27, 2021 6:13 am

Not a problem.
Renewables are so much cheaper than fossil fuels that the electricity companies will be offering rebates and all the cars and planes will be half the price.

Reply to  M Courtney
May 27, 2021 7:00 am

Yeah, maybe even our taxes will go down.

Reply to  Scissor
May 27, 2021 10:07 am


Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Scissor
May 27, 2021 7:40 pm

Yeah, maybe even our taxes will go down.

You win the internet for today

Reply to  M Courtney
May 27, 2021 10:23 am

Yep, as they said about Nuclear Power in its earlier days, “It will be to cheap to meter”

Reply to  cms
May 28, 2021 4:36 am

It’s not ‘to’ or ‘two’ it’s … *too* !!!

John the Econ
May 27, 2021 6:20 am

That’s the funny thing with modern Progressives: It’s always up to someone else to make the real sacrifices for the agenda.

B Clarke
May 27, 2021 6:21 am

As a uk citizen I would be prepared to pay zilch,, but we all know being American citizen, uk citizen we are already paying climate stealth taxes,

There’s polls and there’s polls , could this be a loaded poll to show “not enough on board”

Who picks who is questioned in a poll ? Is it just possible that the negative result is because the participants were chosen for thier likely answer .

Bill Toland
Reply to  B Clarke
May 27, 2021 9:20 am

The average British household is already paying £350 extra annually in their electricity bills in green subsidies which works out to £30 per month. Of course, most Britons don’t realise this as the useless British media won’t publicise this fact.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Bill Toland
May 27, 2021 9:38 am

Nearly a quid a day. They give you 15 free days a year.

Reply to  Bill Toland
May 27, 2021 10:22 am

I don’t believe you. Itemize it!

(and why no objection to the subsidy you’ll be paying directly for the Hinkley nuclear reactor? If it ever gets finished…)

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
May 27, 2021 10:44 am

I actually understated the costs of the green subsidies. It was £340 per year in 2019. Of course, it is now considerably higher.

Reply to  griff
May 27, 2021 8:06 pm

The reactor will be cost effective, efficient, and a positive return on investment.

The green crap is not.

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
May 27, 2021 10:40 pm

Griff, if you are concerned about subsidies for power plants, we could always go back to building coal fired power stations. That would really cut the cost of electricity.

Martin Pinder
Reply to  Bill Toland
May 30, 2021 8:17 am

£11 billion subsidies to wind farms. The GWPF is demanding that the UK government uses a transparent method of subsidy so that consumers can see how much they are paying the wind farm owners for their expensive electricity.

Steve Case
May 27, 2021 6:27 am

By the same token don’t check that little box on your tax form to give $1 to the politicians.

Reply to  Steve Case
May 27, 2021 9:30 am

Never do.

Reply to  Drake
May 27, 2021 2:50 pm

Very few people do anymore. A few years ago they were discussing other ways to keep that particular slush fund full.
Then candidates stopped taking matching funds because they could get more outside the system, so it doesn’t matter much anymore.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Steve Case
May 27, 2021 7:42 pm

By the same token don’t check that little box on your tax form to give $1 to the politicians.

I thought this was a joke, but the replies seem to indicate that it is real. Can someone explain?

Hal McCombs
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
May 27, 2021 8:27 pm

It’s on the tax forms. But now it says 3 dollars

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Hal McCombs
May 28, 2021 8:16 am

I believe the Democrats are pushing a bill to pay politicians election expenses out of federal tax revenues.

If something like that passed, then your tax money would be going to fund politicians you don’t want elected.

John Endicott
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
June 2, 2021 4:09 am

Zig Zag, on the US federal tax form there is a (currently) optional box for giving $1 (or is it more now, I never check the box so don’t pay attention to the amount) of your tax money to go to political campaigns that accept federal funds on the theory that such politicans would then not be beholden to the special interests that would otherwise be funding their campaigns.

May 27, 2021 6:27 am

I’m not impressed by this poll, although it’s useful for demagoguery and making the political case against spending money for climate change. Why am I not impressed? Because if you asked the same questions, but substituted issues like: (1) national defense, (2) education, (3) assisting the poor, (4) etc., you’d likely get low “willingness to spend” results.

Further, isn’t it the case that ~35% of Americans pay little or no Federal income tax? If so, then it’s not surprising ~35% would not be willing to spend their money on climate change…or on other things on which our Federal government spends money.

Reply to  Meisha
May 27, 2021 7:08 am

It’s also the case that the majority of the 35% who pay no taxes are most likely to want our recently emasculated federal government to spend massive amounts of other peoples money on the climate change boondoggle. The fact that the genesis of this was science corrupted to support an evil agenda to equalize global wealth by destroying western wealth just makes this insanity so much worse, especially since those who are not paying taxes are the ones who will be harmed the most by the repressive energy policies being pursued in the name of climate change.

Ron Long
Reply to  Meisha
May 27, 2021 7:42 am

My opinion, Meisha, is that you are trying to spin reality. There is a concrete example that supports the poll result. The state of Oregon has sponsored many wind turbines along the Columbia Gorge. The utility company then gave Oregonians the option of checking “yes, I want the renewable electricity” and they increase your monthly utility bill by 20% to partially offset the increased cost of renewables. Guess what? Less than 1% checked yes, the rest voted by their silence.

Reply to  Ron Long
May 27, 2021 8:13 am

Wasn’t the result the same with airlines asking passengers to pay a little bit more to offset their travel “carbon” emissions?

Reply to  Meisha
May 27, 2021 9:48 am

Although I currently wish for the elimination of all “income” taxes, and the IRS, and would prefer the Fair Tax, in the past I wished for a personal vote on expenditures on everyone’s tax return.

All federal expenditures divided into 50 equal line items. Some department budgets would have multiple lines.
Each person could put from 0 to 5% of their taxes in each line item.

Anything “underfunded” would be cut in size Any Excess to a particular would go to reducing the debt once the budget was in surplus.

I would personally only fund those items which are constitutional Ex. no welfare, no Medicaid, no FBI, no D of education or energy, etc. Most underfunded social programs would be left to the states, then we would see how the leftist really feel about them, when they would need to take money from their government union employees to give to the poor.

Defense, borders, federal courts, etc. only those items specified in the constitution, not as added by rulings of the SCOTUS.

In this way the producers would limit the size of government and the politicians would no longer be able to buy campaign contributions and votes with OPM, and the federal government would be reduced to a reasonable level.

Reply to  Drake
May 27, 2021 2:51 pm

I’ve toyed with the notion that only those who are net taxpayers should be allowed to vote.
No representation without taxation.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  MarkW
May 27, 2021 7:47 pm

I’ve toyed with the notion that only those who are net taxpayers should be allowed to vote.

I’ve heard yes argument before. Added to it was anybody working for the government should not be allowed to vote.

Either way, the result would be a conservative landslide. That is a very interesting conclusion: Conservatives fund governments.

Richard Petschauer
Reply to  Meisha
May 27, 2021 2:30 pm

I agree a bad pool. It sounds like they are asked if they want to donate extra money like to a charity.

Joseph Zorzin
May 27, 2021 6:34 am

President Biden wants to spend in excess of $1 trillion to combat climate change, but more than one-third of Americans are unwilling to chip in a single buck.”

Unfortunately, we’ll all be paying with our taxes and for many decades.

Alex Epstein’s videos often discuss the immense cost of this energy transition:

Off topic, but: “56 million-year-old fish fossils in Egypt thrived in 95 degrees seas”

“Researchers have discovered 56 million-year-old fish fossils in an eastern Egyptian desert that show the fish were able to exist in seas with temperatures approaching 95 degrees Fahrenheit.”

Wow, and yet the climatistas say that a degree C increase in ocean temperature will result in a mass extinction of ocean life.

May 27, 2021 6:35 am

“This latest poll suggests that 56% would not want to pay more than $20 a month. By contrast, only 1% would pay $1000 a month; indeed only the wealthiest could afford to pay that much.”

So 44% would pay more than $20 per month to “fight climate change”. About half!

“Think of how stupid the average person is; and then realize half of them are stupider than that!” – George Carlin

May 27, 2021 7:30 am

Stupid, green, and, of course, the phobic forcings: the eyes are a window to viral and social contagion. Also, a sadomasochistic minority: take a knee, beg, good boy, girl, whatever.

Jeffery P
May 27, 2021 6:43 am

I would spend to dollar, just to say I did my “fair share” — but only if I get a sticker.

Reply to  Jeffery P
May 27, 2021 7:27 am

A sticker, a yellow sticker, perhaps in the shape of a star, affixed to a uniform for clear identification.

Jeffery P
Reply to  n.n
May 27, 2021 8:24 am

That reference is uncalled for. Perhaps you don’t understand.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  n.n
May 27, 2021 2:07 pm

No those yellow stickers are for the un-vaccinated, you will have to pick another colour.

Reply to  Jeffery P
May 27, 2021 10:09 am

So you’re very cheaply bought, and a bit fick.

Jeffery P
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
May 27, 2021 12:19 pm

Apparently you don’t understand humor or sarcasm. Why anybody would compare asking for a silly sticker with Jews being forced to wear the Star of David in Nazi Germany completely evades me and anybody else with some functioning brain cells.

Reply to  Jeffery P
May 27, 2021 8:15 pm

I would prefer that the vaccine passport include space for such stickers, that way we could have proof of our goodness & dogliness.

Reply to  DonM
May 28, 2021 10:32 am

And then there was the dyslexic agnostic, who said: “There is no Dog!”

May 27, 2021 7:19 am

He wants a trillion bucks to fight something that isn’t happening so imagined money should be used to pay for it. To paraphrase, re-imagine the money in virtual terms. That would be not real but appears to be.

May 27, 2021 7:25 am

Not just $1 but $2. $1 to adapt (e.g. parkas, swimsuits) to Her choice. $1 to fight a climate of [sociopolitical] corruption.

Bruce Cobb
May 27, 2021 7:31 am

If we fight climate change and win, won’t we have to give it reparations? Wouldn’t it be better and cheaper to negotiate a settlement? What did climate change ever do to us anyway? Why all the hate? Can’t we just get along?
Sorry, in a philosophical frame of mind.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 27, 2021 7:55 am

Ask not what climate change can do for you…ask what you can do for climate change….and….don’t feed the hand that bites you…..and remember, just one small step for climate can be one giant leap for climate change.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Anti-griff
May 27, 2021 8:54 am

Right on brotha! Give peas a chance!

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 27, 2021 9:58 am

Whirled peas!

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 27, 2021 1:43 pm

Our [unPlanned] Posterity will not know what is to pee in the snow, then they will, then they won’t, and so on and so forth in irregular intervals. Chaos (“evolution”) is Gaia’s prerogative.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 27, 2021 1:44 pm

Green peas. With bacon, even better. Yum.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 27, 2021 2:10 pm

Dont go all mushy on us son.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 27, 2021 1:39 pm

Yes, indeed, good principles (e.g. Pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness) and deeds (e.g. stand against slavery and diversity [dogma]) are the foundation of progressive judgments, labels, inequity, and exclusion. Can they abort the baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too?

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 27, 2021 7:53 pm

What did climate change ever do to us anyway?


Apart from longer growing seasons, slightly warmer weather, slightly less cold winters, fewer hurricanes & cyclones, what has Climate Change ever done for us?

Steve Z
May 27, 2021 8:31 am

Put another way, a worker making $15 per hour full-time (40 hours per week) would make an average of $2,600 per month, and the median household income was over $5,000 per month. The poll shows that 56% of the population are not willing to spend more than $20 per month, or about 0.77% of the salary of a low-wage worker, or 0.40% of the income of the median household, to fight climate change.

People are only willing to spend Other People’s Money to fight climate change, not their own, not even half a penny on the dollar!

Of course, with the increase in fuel prices since Biden’s inauguration, roughly $1.00 per gallon, for someone who drives 1,000 miles per month and gets 20 miles per gallon, is already spending $50 per month “to fight climate change”, and this doesn’t include the increased cost of home heating, and indirect effects of price increases of food and other goods transported to market in trucks or trains using diesel fuel.

It seems like young people, such as college students and 20-somethings, are the most gullible to climate-change propaganda (due to lack of experience with long-term climate change or lack thereof), and support spending trillions of dollars to fight climate change. But they need to do the math: even if “only” $1 trillion is spent over 10 years, for a population of 330 million, that comes out to $25 per month per person, which more than half the population is unwilling to spend!

May 27, 2021 9:24 am

Why would I spend 1$ for something as pointless as to fight the rising sun in the east ?

May 27, 2021 9:25 am

About 1% of survey respondents are certifiable village idiots who tend to get in the news more often and tend to get heard by politicos and reporters more often than the average person. Ask them if they would give up their stimulus check or student loan bailout or EITC tax credit or weekly ration of smokes or marijuana.

May 27, 2021 9:30 am

Actually, I would be willing to contribute $1 per month to fight the climate crusades and $20 per month to fight agenda science.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
May 27, 2021 10:11 am

Nobody is stopping you writing a cheque. Just don’t expect us to join you.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
May 27, 2021 5:23 pm

You misunderstand his comment

He’s willing to pay 20x as much to combat climate Scientology

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  ResourceGuy
May 27, 2021 8:00 pm

I would be willing to contribute $1 per month to fight the climate crusades and $20 per month to fight agenda science.

Finally a cause I can get behind. Time to contribute to the tip jar, methinks?

May 27, 2021 10:11 am

That 1% must be Gates , Gore and other idiots with more money than brains. Biden steals more than $1000 per month. Everyone is paying huge subsidies via taxes to the useless wind and solar companies. This moronic climate alarmism has to stop.

Reply to  Thaipixie
May 27, 2021 2:58 pm

I doubt it, liberals never spend their own money, regardless of how much they have.

May 27, 2021 10:45 am

Polls are only useful to hang an editorial on. Editorials are the opinion of the publisher. This editorial compares two contradictory ideas for a meaningless result. But depending on the reader’s position, generates a polarized and completely irrational response. Quick sort of stories like this is to read the publisher and the title and move on to something useful, unless one needs them as entertainment.

May 27, 2021 10:46 am

“The Germans are resisting UK efforts aimed at forcing major companies to report how exposed they are to the risk of climate change, sources said”

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Vuk
May 27, 2021 8:03 pm

I can’t wait for companies to just report “no impact at all” for these ridiculous requirements. It may start a movement.

Pat from Kerbob
May 27, 2021 10:52 am

Since the cost of what is proposed is in the tens of trillions minimum, Biden’s proposal is garbage and so is the survey.
Ask an honest question.

State it will take X many trillions and your standard of living must decline by Y percentage in order to eliminate CO2 emissions and see what the response is to that survey.

Everything else is just lies and misdirection.

Leo Smith
May 27, 2021 12:02 pm

ok, they will have to be TOLD to pay, won’t they

May 27, 2021 12:05 pm

They never quit…..‘Tree Farts’ are the next environmental catastrophe

‘Tree farts’ contribute about a fifth of greenhouse gases from ghost forestsThe findings are helping researchers get a detailed accounting of the planet’s carbon budget

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
May 27, 2021 8:07 pm

What complete twaddle (sorry, is the only appropriate word).

All plants and animals are 100% ‘carbon’ neutral, pretty much by definition.

Try pointing this out to anyone recommending going vegetarian or even vegan, and they get furious. So the ‘meat industry’ apparently uses fossil fuels as well, is the argument. My response is that so does everything else, so you would need to stop EVERYTHING in that case.

May 27, 2021 12:29 pm

Because they refuse to spend 1 dollar on the largest scam in history.

Doug Huffman
May 27, 2021 1:42 pm

Understand that the $1 bet is the fundamental subjective value of Bayesian Inference.

E. T. Jaynes taught MaxEnt, admit ignorance rather than guessing and painting yourself into an entropic corner.

henry Chance
May 27, 2021 3:15 pm

Bring it on. It kills pathogens.

May 27, 2021 6:53 pm

Why would anyone spend a dollar to help the ‘green’ industry when every form of green energy is unsustainable from start to finish. Then power companies are blackmailed by corrupt bureaucrats and forced to pay up to five times as much for power they could have generated themselves. One of the biggest scams ever, right next to Covid.

Mark Pawelek
May 27, 2021 10:43 pm

One third of Americans see through the climate change scam. This scam has nothing to do with climate change. It’s a pro-poverty agenda designed to give anti-humanists political control. Climate change is an attempt to guilt-trip and gaslight humanity. It’s akin to religion, done with maths. Like the Aztec religion, 

The rationale for Aztec human sacrifice was, first and foremost, a matter of survival. According to Aztec cosmology, the sun god Huitzilopochtli was waging a constant war against darkness, and if the darkness won, the world would end. The keep the sun moving across the sky and preserve their very lives, the Aztecs had to feed Huitzilopochtli with human hearts and blood.

Dave Roos

This battle between Aztec Gods and darkness could not be ‘won’. The darkness could not be vanquished forever. So it was a kind of equilibrium maintained by the Gods by their constant sacrifice for our sake. Like a mortgage debt, or a bondage debt, it had to be repaid: by our sacrifice. Including mass human sacrifice.

None of ideas behind the climate scam make sense. Those ideas are models which have never been validated, any empirical falsification attempts are demonized as ‘denialism’.

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  Mark Pawelek
May 27, 2021 11:02 pm

Supporting evidence. Attached.

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  Mark Pawelek
May 27, 2021 11:05 pm

HDI = Human Development Index.

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  Mark Pawelek
May 28, 2021 1:11 am

Human development index, HDI, and carbon emissions are closely correlated. Spending money to stop climate change will lower emissions, so lower HDI. Spending money to stop climate change is equivalent to spending money to make oneself poorer. It’s insane. 33% of Americans are sane, the other 67% are crazy.

May 27, 2021 11:40 pm

Isn’t this from the Washington Times, not the Post?

May 28, 2021 6:53 am

I’ll chip in for some oxy-combustion coal research.
I love to point out to folks that “We’ve got a lot of coal in this world and it’s going to be used so lets do it intelligently and as clean as possible”.
The only problem is that they have to get their head wrapped around the fact that CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

Wish me luck LOL

Nils Rømcke
May 28, 2021 12:38 pm

The wealthiest do not spend money on fighting climate change. They make money on it . . .

May 29, 2021 9:53 am

That checks out. same proportion of “Americans” who don’t think elections should matter if their guy loses.

May 30, 2021 8:17 am

I would give them a dollar to shut up and go the f*ck away. Once they break the contract we can force them to shut up and go the f*ck away. What a bargain!

Verified by MonsterInsights