“…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.
If we are to have an energy transition, for heaven's sake let us make it an effective one. Banning gas stoves and gas water heaters will not make a scintilla's worth of difference to global temperatures. A renaissance of nuclear power would. Forcing truckers to buy electric trucks at twice the price, with 1/10th the range, of diesel-powered trucks, is not policy, it is folly. So why is folly and ineffectiveness enshrined in mandates from the present administration?
The disconnect between voters and Washington is startling. The survey respondents show a level of common sense and good judgement sadly lacking in our political ruling class.
The nations which contain more than 80% of the global population, based on their actions, believe that carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant.
For example, in 2000 the carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. were a third more than the combined emissions of China and India. Today the combined emissions of China and India are three times the U.S. emissions. And that gap is growing monthly.
Other undeveloped and developing nations also want to follow Roger's Iron Law, and they will use more fossil fuels.
To elites of a certain political leaning, climate change is a religion and they are un-persuadable using facts. As such, they don't care what the great unwashed wants or can afford. This will only be settled at the ballot box.
If the US and the EU had a tax on net emissions of CO2 with even a pretty crude border fee on imports from countries that did not have such a tax, India and China would have no reason not to come along. The tax though not without SOME deadweight loss, is the lowest cost policy for reducing net emissions.
In Canada the Trudeau government, and there band of climate extremists, have legislated a carbon tax, limited the development of pipelines, put in place an unconstitutional environment assessment act and ruled that LNG exports lack a "business case". Thankfully we only have a short time until this government meets its demise.
The entire premise of CO2 alarm is FAKE, it is China's best ever psyop and millions in the west have fallen for it. CO2 is not a problem and men cannot have babies either.
“…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 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.
I’m afraid our Blue nomenklatura couldn’t care less what the voter think.
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.
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.
If we are to have an energy transition, for heaven's sake let us make it an effective one. Banning gas stoves and gas water heaters will not make a scintilla's worth of difference to global temperatures. A renaissance of nuclear power would. Forcing truckers to buy electric trucks at twice the price, with 1/10th the range, of diesel-powered trucks, is not policy, it is folly. So why is folly and ineffectiveness enshrined in mandates from the present administration?
The disconnect between voters and Washington is startling. The survey respondents show a level of common sense and good judgement sadly lacking in our political ruling class.
And let's not mention Teslas' [and other electrics'] fate in Helene and Milton's wake!
Environmentalists and politicians have not looked carefully at the cost-effectivenesss of different policies.
Here is an under-discussed issue.
The nations which contain more than 80% of the global population, based on their actions, believe that carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant.
For example, in 2000 the carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. were a third more than the combined emissions of China and India. Today the combined emissions of China and India are three times the U.S. emissions. And that gap is growing monthly.
Other undeveloped and developing nations also want to follow Roger's Iron Law, and they will use more fossil fuels.
What Western Nations do is largely irrelevant.
To elites of a certain political leaning, climate change is a religion and they are un-persuadable using facts. As such, they don't care what the great unwashed wants or can afford. This will only be settled at the ballot box.
If the US and the EU had a tax on net emissions of CO2 with even a pretty crude border fee on imports from countries that did not have such a tax, India and China would have no reason not to come along. The tax though not without SOME deadweight loss, is the lowest cost policy for reducing net emissions.
I seriously doubt that. A carbon tax large enough to make a difference would be extremely expensive and very unpopular.
In Canada the Trudeau government, and there band of climate extremists, have legislated a carbon tax, limited the development of pipelines, put in place an unconstitutional environment assessment act and ruled that LNG exports lack a "business case". Thankfully we only have a short time until this government meets its demise.
Good
Yup, depending on one’s political views, a number of things rank higher than climate policy from abortion, wars, inflation, etc.
The entire premise of CO2 alarm is FAKE, it is China's best ever psyop and millions in the west have fallen for it. CO2 is not a problem and men cannot have babies either.