Despite climate doubts, Americans back CO2 curbs
A survey of more than 1,000 Americans suggests that we have increasing doubts about the nature of global climate change and the urgency of acting on the science.
Even the group identified as the most "alarmed" among those surveyed - those convinced that global warming is happening, is caused by humans and is a serious and urgent threat - has 
shrunk from 18 to 10 percent of the total, according to the survey conducted by Yale and George Mason universities.
Groups described as "concerned," "cautious," and "disengaged" also declined as a percentage of the total surveyed. Only those described as "doubtful" and "dismissive" have grown as percentages of the whole - to 29 percent, from less than 20 percent in a 2008 survey.
The study's authors attribute the shift to "gloomy unemployment numbers, public frustration with Washington, attacks on climate science and mobilized opposition to national climate legislation."
But despite our increasing doubts, a strong majority of Americans - in six categories from the "alarmed" to the "dismissive" - still support the allocation of more money for clean energy research, tax rebates for people who make their homes and cars more energy efficient, and they back regulation of carbon dioxide emissions as atmospheric pollutants.
"The fact that five of the six Americas support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant is bound to be of interest to the president, Congress, and the EPA," said Edward Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. "Some business groups and other special interests as opposing EPA regulation, but most of the American people appear to be for it."
You can access the study through a link here.
Comments
Amen! We must get a strong cap and trade bill passed, so that polluters will at least have to pay. Property tax surcharge for McMansions over a certain square footage and a surcharge on utility bills using more than an acceptable amount of power--for starters! The greed of some among us have no conscience to stop themselves, but maybe a bite out of their wallets will! Thanks for this post Frank!
Posted by: Eve Redman | February 23, 2010 2:27 PM
This is crap. Multiple polls that cover thousands of people, not a cherry picked one thousand, state emphatically that the very vast majority REJECT cap and trade as an unnecessary destructive tax.
This type of spin to gather sheep and herd them in the wrong direction is not going to work anymore.
FR: The poll did include questions about a cap and trade system. It found 61 percent of those polled would oppose such a system if it added $15 a month to their energy costs. But if the revenues from cap and trade were used to provide a $180 annual bonus to households, 66 percent would support it. A separate question cited in the post above asked if those polled would support EPA regulation of CO2 as a pollutant. Seventy-one percent said they would.
Posted by: Reality | February 23, 2010 4:02 PM
All trees and other plants need CO2 in order to survive.
Go GREEN... Buy a gas-hog!
Posted by: Green Hornet | February 23, 2010 4:05 PM
Until a realistic, reliable energy source can be had that actually works in an affordable way, all these curbs would do is cost us a LOT of money.
Eve, do you really think just "polluters" will pay? Use your head - any item we buy will have a higher cost added in.
If you want to go live in the woods like Tarzan go right ahead, I'm staying here in my (modest sized) home.
Posted by: Bryan | February 23, 2010 9:13 PM
Bryan: You may be right. But I wonder how much it will cost us, our grandchildren and theirs, if the science is right and we have done nothing. We have made other economically costly changes in our behavior because they were the right things to do, and ultimately they made our lives better: the abolition of slavery and child labor; protecting workers' rights to organize; ending racial segregation in schools and public accommodations; passing clean air, clean water and occupational safety laws, and ... oh heck, requiring seat belts in automobiles, just to name a few. I grant you, regulating carbon emissions would be huge, but so are the potential consequences of not regulating them.
Posted by: Elvira | February 23, 2010 9:28 PM
A survey by Yale saying that Americans support CO2 curbs. What a shocker. Here's where I get my global warming info: http://climatedepot.com
Eve I suggest you check it out. The global warming movement is dead. People are finally waking up.
Posted by: Brett | February 24, 2010 9:28 AM
--
It must be understood that "cap-and-trade" is above all else a tax, and (to quote Heinlein), "Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed."
The purpose of all such carbon trading schemes is to punish people who cause carbon dioxide to be emitted. That punishment is directly and explicitly purposed to reduce atmospheric CO2. There's no other reason to enact and enforce such a law.
If the basis of the "global warming" hypothesis is not correct - that man-made CO2 has had no impact upon global temperatures - then there is no reason at all for this tax to be levied.
People need not be punished for emitting carbon dioxide, need not be taxed to make them reduce their energy use, need not be subsidized by politicians to compensate them for the punishment of "cap-and-trade."
The global warming alarmists are using "Cargo Cult Science" to push a vast and wasteful expenditure, to harm us for no good reason whatsoever.
Mr. Roylance cannot fail to understand this, and therefore cannot be speaking honestly on this matter.
FR: Paragraph 1) Heilein? Really? Pretty amusing quote coming from a member of the socialist End Poverty in California movement. 2) Punishment? I prefer to see it for what it is: An incentive. Like the tobacco and alcohol taxes. Smoke 'em if you must. Or, quit smoking, drink less, be healthier and let someone else pay the tax. 3&4) All moot if you are persuaded the science IS correct (as are the vast majority of the planet's scientists). 5&6) We disagree, and I would be pleased if you would not judge me as dishonest for disagreeing with you. I do not doubt your sincerity.
--
Posted by: Tucci78 | February 27, 2010 4:51 AM