Yet another poll shows Americans support the bipartisan climate and clean energy jobs bill — and know the planet is warming — even in face of anti-science noise machine

Posted on  

"Yet another poll shows Americans support the bipartisan climate and clean energy jobs bill — and know the planet is warming — even in face of anti-science noise machine"

A McClatchy-Ipsos poll from December 3-6 – taken at the height of the stolen email media feeding frenzy – found that that 70% of Americans believe that global warming is indeed a reality.

McClatchy also found that 52% of Americans polled still support passing “cap and trade” legislation in Congress.  And that’s despite relentless attacks on climate science and the solutions — with big oil and other special energy interests having spent millions of dollars spreading falsehoods about clean energy reforms and the climate bill — as well as the weakest economy in 80 years.

Even more Americans – 69% of those polled – support cap and trade legislation if it will create a significant number of American jobs, even if it will cost them $10 a month, while 60% support cap and trade at a cost of $25 a month if it creates jobs.

The good news is that essentially every major independent analysis finds the cost around $10 a month:

And analysis shows the the bipartisan climate and clean energy bill will create 1.7 million clean energy jobs.

Significantly, this new poll is consistent with every other recent poll:

Finally, recent polling from 3 key states “” and 5 key districts “” finds strong support for the bipartisan climate and clean energy bill (see here, from November):

  • 75% of voters in Michigan favor.
  • 68% of voters in Ohio favor.
  • 67% of voters in Missouri favor.
  • 61% of voters in Florida’s 2nd district support.
  • 69% of voters in New Mexico’s 2nd district support.
  • 63% of voters in Ohio’s 16th district support.
  • 70% of voters in Virginia’s 5th district support.
  • 68% of voters in Washington’s 8th district support.

So, yes, the public can see through the lies.  Can 60+ Senators?

Tina Ramos, Special Assistant for Energy Policy at the Center for American Progress, helped with this post.

« »

7 Responses to Yet another poll shows Americans support the bipartisan climate and clean energy jobs bill — and know the planet is warming — even in face of anti-science noise machine

  1. WAG says:

    hmmm, what kinds of adjustments were made to this poll? I want to see the raw data! Must be the work of Phil Jones and the East Anglia CRU

  2. Robert of ACT says:

    Long LIVED the REPUBLIC-CANed Party!

    Yes, their party is over. These poles are the proof for all who have common sense and a heart that sees truth.

    Their leaders are still running right of the right and truth be told, many see through their spin scam. They are bought and paid for via Fossil Fuels campaign donations. Sooner or later those who live the lie will pay! How sad it is! Common sense says a strong 2 party system will help keep a balance in governance. But as long as the ‘insane’ McCains and the ‘Rah rah’ Sarahs of this world are willing to play the oil lobby’s line against the people, we all loose. Lies will never be a substitute for leaders. ‘Integrity ‘for sale’ will always be a house of cards. It defines the polluted politicians and marks them as the target of the voter’s rebuttal.
    Reality beckons those who have a wit of common sense. Our country’s problems are real and ignoring or spinning them guarantees they will get worse fast! Truth should never be the hallmark of any one party. Our nation’s strength lies in the ability of the best and the brightest to lead. That’s how it’s supposes to be! Thanks to the exposure by the internet, truth can’t hide! People are wise to the ways of those who sell their sole and bend their principles for the favors of the corporate coffers. That’s not compromise; we call it corruption.

  3. Leif says:

    I often get asked the question. How can a measly 100 ppm change in atmospheric CO2 make any difference in the temperature of the world? I have not been able to give an intuitive answer until now.

    Last night I did the following experiment. Needs to be fact checked and refined.

    One drop of food coloring, I used blue, in a quart of water = 1 p / 10,700 or about 100 ppm. So—

    2 drops = 200+ ppm, 3 drops = 300 ppm, etc.

    I set up three quarts and put 2 drops in one, 3 & 4 in the next.
    Clearly darker

    Refinements:

    Large flat thin containers. More closely resembling the atmosphere. Quarts tend to progress to a darker shade of “black”
    Perhaps a calibrated thermometer in each and place in the sun. (or behind each), (Live in PNW and can’t do that part in winter.) I am quite sure the darker would absorb a measurable amount of heat. Although other factors might overwhelm that part. (3/4″ thermal-pane windows?)
    A different dye might be more appropriate as well as better accuracy in the ppm, etc.

    All in all it looked very effective.

    [JR: And don't forget -- Science: CO2 levels haven’t been this high for 15 million years, when it was 5° to 10°F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher — “We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in CO2 levels of about 100 ppm.”]

  4. John Hirsch says:

    I have to agree with Cynthia and Dr. Eisner who posted elsewhere, that the proposed plans and legislation (4% down from 1990)are not nearly enough to keep us from getting to over 450 ppm and rather dramatic effects.

    To those who note that this will be bad news for Tuvalu, Bangladesh, the Maldives, etc., I would add that we should all be looking closer to home and see how we feel about millions of climate refugees from the hot regions wanting into North America and even how we feel about climate refugees from California and Texas wanting to move up to Oregon, New York, Canada and so on.

    As someone previously said – if this is all we can do – we are doomed.

    [JR: While 2020 is important, the rate of decline post-2020 is more important, and in that regard, the U.S. climate bill is in fact good enough.]

  5. Andy Bauer says:

    Leif,
    I often use the analogy of the size of 2 aspirins vs. the size a person, or the smell of vanilla vs. the taste of vanilla.

    The point: It’s all about the concentration (or, in the spirit of the Holidays, “Little Things Mean a Lot”).

    Not the most exacting equation, but it’s quick and usually matches the climate knowledge of the average person.

  6. MarkB says:

    It’s interesting to see the difference in the polling results depending on how the questions are phrased.

    1. Basic support for cap and trade (neutral phrasing):

    51%-42%

    2. Support for cap and trade if it raises your electric bill by $10 per month (negative phrasing):

    50%-48%

    3. Support for cap and trade if it raises your electric bill by $10 per month but created a significant number of green jobs (on balance, neutral phrasing since it contains a negative and positive aspect):

    69%-29%

    Note there is no specifically positive phrasing in any question (one that mentions the jobs but not potential costs).

    Interesting that question 3 generates much more support than question 1, indicating that “on the fence” folks value green jobs for their fellow Americans more than paying a bit more per month. We see the same pattern when they state the cost of $25 per month.

    It would also be interesting if they did more complex polling based on income. Since CBO estimates the lowest income quintile will actually come out slightly ahead and the 2nd lowest quintile pays only $40 per year (< $4 per month), support might increase if they tailored the question based on their income. Those likely to be more concerned about $10 or $25 per month are generally lower-income Americans.

  7. Ecopundit says:

    MarkB’s comment on the responses of people at different income levels is very important, especially since the use of an “average” impact is so incredibly bogus — as in some discussions of “average” tax increases for American households when the tax is question is to be levied only on the rich.

    The problem here is that the positives are still insanely low, given the scientific evidence and the acceptance of it elsewhere in the world. In the global context, the data are a sad reflection on the USA … and on the electoral front, they leave politicians worrying that the margins are not large enough for the positives, going along with a policy, to outweigh the negatives, who may be exercised and more likely to vote. That leaves us with a BIG problem in the Senate.