Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Climate Change (Ipsos 12/3-6)


Ipsos / McClatchy
12/3-6/09; 1,120 adults, 3% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Ipsos release)

National

You may have heard about the idea that the world's temperature may have been going up slowly over the past 100 years. What is your personal opinion on this? Do you think this has probably been happening, or do you think it probably has not been happening? (If Yes) Do you believe that the earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, OR, mostly because of natural patterns in the earth's environment?
43% Has been happening mostly because of human activity
24% Has been happening mostly because of natural patterns
28% Hasn't been happening

There's a proposed system called 'cap and trade' that some say would lower the pollution levels that lead to global warming. With Cap and Trade, the government would issue permits limiting the amount of greenhouse gases companies can put out. Companies that did not use all their permits could sell them to other companies. The idea is that many companies would find ways to put out less greenhouse gases, because that would be cheaper than buying permits. Would you support or oppose this system?
52% Support, 41% Oppose

(remaining questions asked of half samples)

What if a cap and trade program significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly electrical bill by 10 dollars a month? In that case would you support or oppose it?
50% Support, 48% Oppose

What if a cap and trade program raised your monthly electrical bill by 10 dollars a month but also created a significant number of 'GREEN' jobs in the United States? In that case would you support or oppose it?
69% Support, 29% Oppose

What if a cap and trade program significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly electrical bill by 25 dollars a month? In that case would you support or oppose it?
43% Support, 55% Oppose

What if a cap and trade program raised your monthly electrical bill by 25 dollars a month but also created a significant number of 'GREEN' jobs in the United States? In that case would you support or oppose it?
60% Support, 36% Oppose

 

Comments
Field Marshal:

I would love to know how it would create one Green job? What a joke.

Still, a majority of people do not believe that climate change is man made. Not to get into THAT conversation again.

Why can't the people who support cap and trade, be the one's who pay for it?

Spain recently had issues in creating Green jobs.

Every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job, says a new study released this month. The study draws parallels with the green jobs programs of the Obama administration.

http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf

____________________

LordMike:

Those jobs are leaving the country anyways thanks to conservative free trade policies. In Michigan about the only new jobs are green jobs, and they are good jobs. The U.S. has to make something, you know.

____________________

LordMike:

Those jobs are leaving the country anyways thanks to conservative free trade policies. In Michigan about the only new jobs are green jobs, and they are good jobs. The U.S. has to make something, you know.

____________________

Xenobion:

Uhhh if you tax 10 or 25 dollars that effectively is a job since the program is only overheaded by taxes and the issued permits just like any permit based job (planner, enviro tech, ect.)

But I find this poll to be a misnomer. The Cap and Trade system is a permitted tax on industries not individuals so the tax hike of 10 or 25 doesn't make sense unless they are including individuals in emissions reductions through purchasing more expensive energy (wind, solar, hydro, ect.)

Most of the United States industries are already monitored through Clean Air Act provisions, the barter system of climate pollution provisions will really be a boon for those smart industries that have been able to reduce their emissions at a higher overhead cost.

____________________

Field Marshal:

X,

Yes, its on industries who will pass it on to individuals. There are estimates that it will raise utility bills by about $25 per month.

LM,

You do realize last year we manufactured more goods than any other year. And that has happened in almost every year since WWII. We just do it with less people because of technological advances.

But we could follow liberal trade policies and allow unions to run things and then close our borders to Asian goods, that way everything will cost 10 times as much and we'd all be thriving! LOL.

____________________

Wong:

Field Marshal

Because your imagination seems to be stifled by your ideology. Imagine 1.2 million wind turbines manufactured in the midwest to be placed in the central plains. Imagine twelve 1000 acre solar farms in the California/ Nevada desert. Imagine 40 to 50 nuclear power plants under construction. Imagine drilling and extracting clean burning natural gas From our own nation.

All green jobs from my perspective incentivized by taxes on the burning of coal and oil.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Wong,

No ideology but your scenario would be great. However, most studies show that the losses in jobs from Oil, Nat gas and coal industries would be much greater than those gained.

We need a total return approach. We don't have the technology to solve our energy needs from wind and solar.

We need to be more like France and have 90% or more energy come from nuclear. The technology today is far more advanced than those of just 20 years ago. Breeder technology, the program which Carter killed, has exploded in Japan, France and the rest of Europe.

____________________

LordMike:

Being a child of the 80's, I never thought that I'd ever hear the day when people would actually advocate for nuclear power. You criticise Carter, and assuming that the accusation is true, one must remember that the 3 mile island incident happened in the late 70's. No one wanted to touch nuclear power with a 10 foot pole after that. Opening up a nuclear power plant in a community meant the end of property values and everyone moving out ASAP. No one wanted a plant in their back yard.

The big problem with nuclear isn't the waste but the cost. Plants are extremely expensive to build and maintain. Power costs in Northeast Ohio, where there are two nuclear power plants, are twice those of the rest of the state, where there are none. Nuclear power may be clean, but it isn't cheap at all. Solar farms such as in the Southwest and windfarms in the north give way more bang for the buck.

____________________

Field Marshal:

True LM.

We need to change the culture and mindset for the people. In France, communities actually fight to get nuclear plants put in their town- going so far as to give tax breaks.

The cost for Nuclear stems from liability and regulatory costs. We need to create a cookie cutter nuclear plant design (breeder program) that will reduce design and build costs and then streamline the regulatory process.

There are now 15 applications for new plants awaiting approval. Just to get acceptance on the application takes 4-6 years.

The big problem with solar and wind is that you could cover the desert and plains with panels and windmills and you would still only get to about 30% of TODAYS energy needs. It has to become a lot cheaper and a lot more efficient before it becomes feasible to get off coal in this country.

A huge step took place the other day when Lowes began stocking small solar panels in their stores.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

FM,

Solar and wind can contribute more than what you suggest. The wind farms in west TX are quite effective and create good jobs. The local leaders out there absolutely love it. But I don't think anyone argues that solar and wind can *replace* fossil fuels, just reduce the dependance.

____________________

obamalover:

I'm surprised by how many anti-science people there are in this country. Half of the denialists don't even know or refuse to know it is happening, and the other half know it is happening but don't want to be responsible for it.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Aaron,

It will be tough to even reduce dependence because wind and solar are so inefficient currently not to mention unreliable (what happens if there is no wind or sun?). The current technology doesn't allow much for storage so these alternatives need to be connected to the national grid so they can immediately go to meet demand- and the farther the energy travels to meet that demand, the more inefficient it becomes.

I see these tools as local energy producers. For instance, the Denver International Airport has its own array of solar panels to produce power for the airport. In addition, solar panels on most roofs in the west are inevitable. One company recently issued a patent for solar shingles!

However, like i said, i think most wind and solar will be used for large institutions like airports, refineries, ports, and military bases.

But, we need to get moving on nuclear asap to avoid skyrocketing energy concerns by the end of the decade.

I will make this prediction though, by the end of my lifetime, i think energy will be free.

OL,
Just because someone disagrees with a theory, does not make them anti-science.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

It is not a theory. Polar ice caps are disappearing. Sea levels are higher. Warmest decade on record. All in direct correlation with CO2 emissions. Those are facts.

How about this: I'll say the world is flat. How does that sound? And I'll ignore all the scientific data that says otherwise, because I don't want to believe in your round earth "theory".

____________________

Wong:

I've always felt that the progressives did the nation a disservice with the knee-jerk anti nuclear movement. Nuclear power does have inherit risks, but those can be managed and are preferable to transferring our wealth to oil producing countries.

Studies that I have read indicate a robust policy of wind and solar can provide much more than 30% of our energy needs. But those numbers can always be manipulated. The bottom line is there exists widespread agreement that we cannot continue to use foreign oil as our primary energy resource.

Oil companies will fight cap and trade with every lying lobbyist they can muster,but the truth is that we must end our addiction to foreign oil, and I believe the American people know it.

____________________

Field Marshal:

OL,

Here is an article about the melting ice caps myth.

Remember, the northern ice caps have been completely melted several times over the last 50,000 years.

How about this, i'll say there is amply evidence God exists. I mean, why are all these churches and priests and 80% of the worlds population believe in One. And since you don't you are anti-science and think the world is flat. LOL. Give me a break.

____________________

Field Marshal:
____________________

obamalover:

@FM

Firstly, I didn't realize priests were scientists. That probably explains why you people want to teach the bible in science classrooms. So right there your analogy makes zero sense. Secondly, I wasn't referring to consensus as scientific evidence. In fact I didn't even mention consensus in my post. Scientific evidence is data on Earth temperatures, sea levels, etc.

Furthermore, you keep on ignoring the fact that it is not that the polar ice cap is melting that is the problem. The problem is the RATE at which it is melting. It has NEVER melted this fast in history. Gradual is ok because it allows animal species to adapt (even though you anti-science people don't believe in evolution).

____________________

Bigmike:

obamalover:

"It is not a theory. Polar ice caps are disappearing. Sea levels are higher. Warmest decade on record. All in direct correlation with CO2 emissions. Those are facts."

Have you heard of phrase ipso facto. Just because it is raining today and today is Saturday can I say it rains every Saturday?

Our climate records only go back maybe a hundred years. The exact number isn't important. Whatever the actual number is, given the history of the weather it is a very small sample. If the first two M&M's out of the bag are red did I get a bag of just red M&M's?

My conclusion about the correlation between warmer weather and co2 emissions is that is justification increase our efforts to explore the facts. It is not a reason to run around saying the sky is falling.

LordMike:

"Power costs in Northeast Ohio, where there are two nuclear power plants, are twice those of the rest of the state, where there are none."

Repeat of the Ipso facto argument. I honestly don't know enough about energy markets in Ohio to say you are wrong, but your facts don't prove a correlation.

____________________

obamalover:

@Bigmike

Scientists can estimate temperatures of past millennia with a very good degree of certainty. They do it using this thing called "science".

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR