You will find a similar gap between the public and those determining policies on contentious issues of race and sexuality. Has there always been this gap? This may be the explanation for the decline in trust in our institutions. Is there a limit to the gap between the ambitions of the elite and the needs of the masses? Maybe this explains the political swing to the right in Europe—the UK being the exception.
People are willing to only spend a small amount on climate action. Well, they already are, just not directly. It's put on my grandchildrens' tab.
Secondly, as Nassim Taleb has pointed out, an intolerant minority usually gets its way. And the Climate Only Cultists are certainly a well-organized, well-funded intolerant minority.
Thomas Hutcheson below and others repeat the argument that a carbon tax is the simplest most cost effective method to reduce emissions and I’m not arguing this point, I just think he fails to factor in politicians are human (most of them).
Here in Canada Trudeau campaigned in 2015 on bringing in a carbon tax as the best way to reduce emissions, and they quoted several economists on that.
But what ALL those economists say is introduce an increasing carbon tax BUT in return get rid of all other programs, taxes, caps and subsidies and let the carbon tax do its thing.
But the woke progressive climate/insane are as unable to get out of their own way any more than Trump is able to and so they accelerated the growth of all these other programs because they must be SEEN to be doing something. A tax quietly working in the background generates no photo ops, no ribbon cuttings, no clips handing out big fake checks to battery manufacturers for something no one wants.
Then the government was caught giving a break on the tax to regions where their vote is slipping making it political.
Trudeau, who will never be mistaken as smart, actually stood up a couple months ago and forcefully defended the carbon tax as the best way to reduce emissions instead of the heavy hand of government regulation.
Now, non-Canadians would say he cannot be that dumb as he himself has spread the heavy hand of government regulation at every turn, but I assure you he can implement an emissions cap on the oilsands and in the same speech claim to be using the carbon tax to avoid the heavy hand of regulation.
That’s who you have to deal with.
It’s why I don’t support the concept of guaranteed minimum income as the theorists say this will replace all the other government social programs but of course that won’t happen, it will instead get layered on top making the nanny state even worse.
A promising survey yet people still aren’t studying the issue enough.
“Voters are most positive about the impact of an energy transition on job opportunities in the energy sector”.
Green energy jobs is a fallacy
And 9 very likely is simply inertia from the Trump years. You have to be pretty myopic to suggest the biden admin supports oil and gas, that would be like saying canadian production has increased therefore the Trudeau govt supports it. 🙄
Dr. Pielke ==> It is improper to say "But only 17 percent of voters are aware that the Biden administration has increased oil production on federal lands."
The "Biden administration" does not control production, only leases, and those not in an immediate time frame. My understanding is that it takes years to explore, drill, and start production of oil and gas once leases are granted.
It is true that oil production from federal lands has increased during the Biden administration -- but not because of the Biden administration.
As in all polls, exact wording of questions is extremely important, and great care should be taken to keep the wording of the question itself, as opposed to the view being sought, from biasing answers.
In my mind, a better question might have been asked if voters were "aware that oil production from Federal lands had increased over the last 4 years...." or were aware that "In 2023, the US produced 21.91 million barrels of oil per day (bpd), which is 20.1% of the world's crude oil production. This is the sixth year in a row that the US has led the world in oil production."
IIRC, Congress passed a bipartisan bill that forced the Biden-Harris admin to conduct actual material lease sales on Federal lands. IIRC, Biden had stopped that, and had to be forced to do so. (I'm 65, so IIRC may not be exactly correct, but at least generally correct. <smile>)
It's wonderful that the political establishment of both parties, with the help of a compliant media, have been largely unable to persuade the public that climate stability is a thing or that historically normal weather activity is related to CO2 emissions. It's also noteworthy that the public does notice increasing electricity prices, decreasing grid stability and the harm of administrative state mandates on everything from home appliances to passenger and commercial vehicles. Let's hope some of the more free market oriented republicans can make a compelling pitch that they stand against the tyranny of the administrative state as there is no clearer failure of an "industrial policy run by bureaucrats" that the government forced energy transition.
Really interesting statistics, thank you for sharing. It actually makes me realize that voters are really reasonable, and the extremes are only the loudest online and the mass “mainstream” media (which tends to usually be the case).
Addressing point 3 about paying in their energy bill to combat climate change, in my own opinion, I know I would be heavily reluctant because I have little-to-no faith that the money would wholeheartedly go to a good program that would actually fight climate change. If I had a guarantee of its use and a real way of knowing what the dollars were being used to legitimately combat climate change, I would be much more likely to donate. But considering most of these supposed donation campaigns probably go towards supporting some other agenda or political campaign, I have no clue where the money actually ends up, so I’d rather not donate.
“…the Biden administration has increased production on federal lands.” Based on Roger’s guest post from a couple of weeks ago it might be more accurate to say that “..the Biden administration did not stop development on the federal lands that the Trump administration allowed to be leased although subsequent leasing has been significantly curtailed by Biden.” This would provide a more accurate comparison of the two administrations when it came to domestic oil&gas development.
As I was reading this I thought I was hearing Copland's "Fanfare for the Common Man!" Now if those in power would actually govern instead of spin ... reinvigorate the American Dream instead of trying to kill it [or deny its existence!] ... have a cogent plan for our energy future instead of a blind repeat of what's hasn't worked well in CA.
It is very interesting that with the enormous focus on climate change in the media and politics over the last 30 years, the American public is still very skeptical of the need to take serious action.
I think that this should give pause to people who claim that public opinion is easily changed by propaganda and misinformation. Even voters with relatively low levels of knowledge are still capable of thinking for themselves.
These results are interesting and plausible, but mainly reflect specific language in the questions, (e.g., "all of the above"). This is not to down play the issues of language for politics and the importance of those who wish to reduce net emissions to not to use off-putting language. Maybe it would be good to couple these "language" polls with others that are closer to the actual issues, say, comparing attitudes to deficit-reducing carbon tax to deficit-increasing subsidies that have the same effect on net emissions.
I think you would be very disappointed with polling results accurately measuring support for a carbon tax large enough to make a difference to overall carbon dioxide emissions.
All our survey questions were created with an eye to maintain some consistency with past policies and polling so that we can to some degree compare results over time
“All of the above” of course comes from the Obama Administration
This gives me great hope and assurances that the presidential election will not be as close as many polls indicate. These are pertinent questions that people vote on.
Agree very strongly with Don Meeks in the first comment. It is a deep mistake to attribute things that happen during the term of any president to the administration of that president.
Especially macroeconomic events like inflation and employment' under the right circumstances, interest rates maybe. The financial crisis was not Bush's fault and the slow recovery was not Obama's fault; both were Fed mistakes.
The financial crisis was largely the doing of Fannie Mae who lobbied (and threatened) pols in both parties to prevent regulation of the mortgage market.
You will find a similar gap between the public and those determining policies on contentious issues of race and sexuality. Has there always been this gap? This may be the explanation for the decline in trust in our institutions. Is there a limit to the gap between the ambitions of the elite and the needs of the masses? Maybe this explains the political swing to the right in Europe—the UK being the exception.
Couple thoughts:
People are willing to only spend a small amount on climate action. Well, they already are, just not directly. It's put on my grandchildrens' tab.
Secondly, as Nassim Taleb has pointed out, an intolerant minority usually gets its way. And the Climate Only Cultists are certainly a well-organized, well-funded intolerant minority.
Thomas Hutcheson below and others repeat the argument that a carbon tax is the simplest most cost effective method to reduce emissions and I’m not arguing this point, I just think he fails to factor in politicians are human (most of them).
Here in Canada Trudeau campaigned in 2015 on bringing in a carbon tax as the best way to reduce emissions, and they quoted several economists on that.
But what ALL those economists say is introduce an increasing carbon tax BUT in return get rid of all other programs, taxes, caps and subsidies and let the carbon tax do its thing.
But the woke progressive climate/insane are as unable to get out of their own way any more than Trump is able to and so they accelerated the growth of all these other programs because they must be SEEN to be doing something. A tax quietly working in the background generates no photo ops, no ribbon cuttings, no clips handing out big fake checks to battery manufacturers for something no one wants.
Then the government was caught giving a break on the tax to regions where their vote is slipping making it political.
Trudeau, who will never be mistaken as smart, actually stood up a couple months ago and forcefully defended the carbon tax as the best way to reduce emissions instead of the heavy hand of government regulation.
Now, non-Canadians would say he cannot be that dumb as he himself has spread the heavy hand of government regulation at every turn, but I assure you he can implement an emissions cap on the oilsands and in the same speech claim to be using the carbon tax to avoid the heavy hand of regulation.
That’s who you have to deal with.
It’s why I don’t support the concept of guaranteed minimum income as the theorists say this will replace all the other government social programs but of course that won’t happen, it will instead get layered on top making the nanny state even worse.
A promising survey yet people still aren’t studying the issue enough.
“Voters are most positive about the impact of an energy transition on job opportunities in the energy sector”.
Green energy jobs is a fallacy
And 9 very likely is simply inertia from the Trump years. You have to be pretty myopic to suggest the biden admin supports oil and gas, that would be like saying canadian production has increased therefore the Trudeau govt supports it. 🙄
It mostly shows that demand will be filled
Dr. Pielke ==> It is improper to say "But only 17 percent of voters are aware that the Biden administration has increased oil production on federal lands."
The "Biden administration" does not control production, only leases, and those not in an immediate time frame. My understanding is that it takes years to explore, drill, and start production of oil and gas once leases are granted.
It is true that oil production from federal lands has increased during the Biden administration -- but not because of the Biden administration.
As in all polls, exact wording of questions is extremely important, and great care should be taken to keep the wording of the question itself, as opposed to the view being sought, from biasing answers.
In my mind, a better question might have been asked if voters were "aware that oil production from Federal lands had increased over the last 4 years...." or were aware that "In 2023, the US produced 21.91 million barrels of oil per day (bpd), which is 20.1% of the world's crude oil production. This is the sixth year in a row that the US has led the world in oil production."
IIRC, Congress passed a bipartisan bill that forced the Biden-Harris admin to conduct actual material lease sales on Federal lands. IIRC, Biden had stopped that, and had to be forced to do so. (I'm 65, so IIRC may not be exactly correct, but at least generally correct. <smile>)
It's wonderful that the political establishment of both parties, with the help of a compliant media, have been largely unable to persuade the public that climate stability is a thing or that historically normal weather activity is related to CO2 emissions. It's also noteworthy that the public does notice increasing electricity prices, decreasing grid stability and the harm of administrative state mandates on everything from home appliances to passenger and commercial vehicles. Let's hope some of the more free market oriented republicans can make a compelling pitch that they stand against the tyranny of the administrative state as there is no clearer failure of an "industrial policy run by bureaucrats" that the government forced energy transition.
Really interesting statistics, thank you for sharing. It actually makes me realize that voters are really reasonable, and the extremes are only the loudest online and the mass “mainstream” media (which tends to usually be the case).
Addressing point 3 about paying in their energy bill to combat climate change, in my own opinion, I know I would be heavily reluctant because I have little-to-no faith that the money would wholeheartedly go to a good program that would actually fight climate change. If I had a guarantee of its use and a real way of knowing what the dollars were being used to legitimately combat climate change, I would be much more likely to donate. But considering most of these supposed donation campaigns probably go towards supporting some other agenda or political campaign, I have no clue where the money actually ends up, so I’d rather not donate.
It’s not a donation.
Renewable electricity costs more, everywhere it’s implemented the cost goes up, so it’s just your “fair share”.
Of course for years in Europe and canada and USA they told us the price would as renewables are too cheap to meter.
An outright lie, always was
Frog in boiling water, right from the beginning.
“…the Biden administration has increased production on federal lands.” Based on Roger’s guest post from a couple of weeks ago it might be more accurate to say that “..the Biden administration did not stop development on the federal lands that the Trump administration allowed to be leased although subsequent leasing has been significantly curtailed by Biden.” This would provide a more accurate comparison of the two administrations when it came to domestic oil&gas development.
As I was reading this I thought I was hearing Copland's "Fanfare for the Common Man!" Now if those in power would actually govern instead of spin ... reinvigorate the American Dream instead of trying to kill it [or deny its existence!] ... have a cogent plan for our energy future instead of a blind repeat of what's hasn't worked well in CA.
It is very interesting that with the enormous focus on climate change in the media and politics over the last 30 years, the American public is still very skeptical of the need to take serious action.
I think that this should give pause to people who claim that public opinion is easily changed by propaganda and misinformation. Even voters with relatively low levels of knowledge are still capable of thinking for themselves.
And why is this a voter problem? Like others here I am actually uplifted by the sanity of the results
I think the thrust is that the climate/insane have a voter problem, not us.
I wonder why this doesn't seem to be the same as this Yale Climate Opinion Map 2023? https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us/
Some of the questions seem similar.
Yale is a pure advocacy group that uses focus groups and other marketing techniques to sell global warming like toothpaste.
I’m afraid our Blue nomenklatura couldn’t care less what the voter think.
That is why people like Roger have to hold their noses and vote GOP ticket.
The climate/insane and censorship/insane own the current democrat party, a vote for them is a vote against the future and vision of The Honest Broker
These results are interesting and plausible, but mainly reflect specific language in the questions, (e.g., "all of the above"). This is not to down play the issues of language for politics and the importance of those who wish to reduce net emissions to not to use off-putting language. Maybe it would be good to couple these "language" polls with others that are closer to the actual issues, say, comparing attitudes to deficit-reducing carbon tax to deficit-increasing subsidies that have the same effect on net emissions.
We in Canada have a carbon tax as well as subsidies, caps, regulations, etc and our emissions continue to increase.
How about them apples?
I think you would be very disappointed with polling results accurately measuring support for a carbon tax large enough to make a difference to overall carbon dioxide emissions.
My guess is that it would be extremely unpopular.
All our survey questions were created with an eye to maintain some consistency with past policies and polling so that we can to some degree compare results over time
“All of the above” of course comes from the Obama Administration
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/05/29/new-report-all-above-energy-strategy-Path-sustainable-economic-growth
This gives me great hope and assurances that the presidential election will not be as close as many polls indicate. These are pertinent questions that people vote on.
Agree very strongly with Don Meeks in the first comment. It is a deep mistake to attribute things that happen during the term of any president to the administration of that president.
Especially macroeconomic events like inflation and employment' under the right circumstances, interest rates maybe. The financial crisis was not Bush's fault and the slow recovery was not Obama's fault; both were Fed mistakes.
The financial crisis was largely the doing of Fannie Mae who lobbied (and threatened) pols in both parties to prevent regulation of the mortgage market.
The financial crisis was built by all administrations since the 80s, giving out sub prime mortgages.
Who wanted to be the politician to say it’s bad to try and get everyone into home ownership?
“None of the above”