Most Americans Support Government Action On Climate Change

mdsolar points out this report in the NY Times: An overwhelming majority of the American public, including nearly half of Republicans, support government action to curb global warming, according to a poll conducted by The New York Times, Stanford University and the nonpartisan environmental research group Resources for the Future. In a finding that could have implications for the 2016 presidential campaign, the poll also found that two-thirds of Americans say they are more likely to vote for political candidates who campaign on fighting climate change. They are less likely to vote for candidates who question or deny the science of human-caused global warming.

Among Republicans, 48 percent said they are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports fighting climate change, a result that Jon A. Krosnick, a professor of political science at Stanford University and an author of the survey, called "the most powerful finding" in the poll. Many Republican candidates either question the science of climate change or do not publicly address the issue.

Comments

Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for

[Bartles]

Yeah, and if you actually read the poll, you will see when specific items are listed (tax elecricity, gasoline, tax breaks for nuclear power) they oppose them 2 to 1. Another misleading Slashdot headline.

It doesn't matter what people think...

[mspohr]

Politicians don't pay attention to voters. They follow the money. Koch et al who are making big bucks from fossil fuels control the politicians.
You can find similar polls on other topics... gun control, health care, education, etc. Politicians vote for the policies of their donors.
The US has the most corrupt political system... it's really fascism where the corporations and the rich control the government.

Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for

[something_wicked_thi]

There is no overwhelming evidence towards AGW.

Yeah, you're right, if you ignore sea surface temperatures, atmospheric temperature readings, deep ocean temperatures, or any other data. Other than that, no evidence at all.

The models have all failed to predict the non-growth in GW over the last decade.

Even if the models are flawed (they're fine except for the large error bars), and even if the hiatus were real (it's not), a decade isn't that long in climate terms. But those things aren't true. As they say, no useful lie ever dies, right?

And worse, the predictions (no ice cap, bad hurricanes ....) all have failed.

You do understand these predictions aren't going to come true for 100 years or more, right? Or do you get all your science from conspiracy theorists incapable of reading scientific papers themselves?

And when Sandy hits it is AGW, but when no hurricanes hit it is or worse when it is really cold "don't you know the difference between weather and climate" (apparently AGW proponents don't either).

Again, you need to stop listening to stupid people. No storm can be caused by global warming any more than an avalanche can be caused by a snowflake. They're contributors that raise the odds of these events happening.

And you have failed to prove that government can solve any problem.

The national highway system, the Hoover dam, landing a man on the moon, creating the internet, providing health care in any country not called The United States of America, FDIC, rescuing GM, safety improvements in the auto industry, stopping Thalidomide in the US, banning CFCs...

That's just a few examples I can think of off the top of my head, though. Actual research would yield a bunch more, I'm sure. The fact you clearly haven't done it says a lot about why you believe the things you do.

But I'm not sure why I'm explaining this. You're not going to listen or understand any of it, are you?

Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for

[microbox]

There are always winners and loser when incentive structures change. The real question is who is being subsized by the status quo, and is it fair. Fighting AGW will produce winners and losers but the consensus among economists it that it will have a negligble effect on overall economic growth. That means we can move away from fossil fuels and, on average, we will still be as rich in the future even if AGW is a hoax. If it isn't a hoax, then we will be a lot richer in the future if the USA still keeps all the naval bases and city facilities and property that are at sea level -- to name merely one certain economic downside of warming.

A revenue neutral pollution tax can be used to compensate the losers, other than the fossil fuel industry, who are enjoying huge negative externalities right now. No wonder Koch and Koch are spending so much money shaping political perceptions on the issue.