Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Most Americans Support Government Action On Climate Change

Posted by Soulskill on from the politics-of-science dept.

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.

18 of 458 comments (clear)

  1. "Support" != actually sacrifice for by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ask them what they willing to actually SACRIFICE to fix it and I bet you'll get a very different answer.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for by AqD · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes? I'm willing to sacrifice all others to fix it.

    2. Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's the sacrifice though? Having cars that either get really excellent fuel economy or run on battery power? Forcing electrical utilities to switch to separate billing for grid-tie and power consumption, so that customers that want to put solar panels on their roofs aren't shafted in order to have overnight electrical service from base-load power? Mandating emissions inspections based on original standards at the time of manufacture on all vehicles newer than 30 years, so that gross-polluting vehicles that are not running right are either fixed or taken off the road?

      Most of these things don't have all that much cost, and for some of them, they're a cost that the individual should have borne anyway.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for by Bartles · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      lol.. What's the sacrifice you ask then say taking vehicles off the road as if it does not deprive anyone of anything. The problem is all the rest cost money. It costs more money than the current model. So when you raise prices, people will have less. This less means they will sacrifice something- whether it is savings, stability in electric power, a car or whatever. It will only make the world more expensive and people will have to do without. You make it sound like you can just speak it into existence and there is no repercussions. There are and there will be.

    5. Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for by SydShamino · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think a large percentage of baby boomers are starting to realize that they can never retire...

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    6. Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you want to use Food Stamps as evidence of liberal success, I think you have it. More people are on Food Stamps than ever before, SUCCESS!!!!

      Oh, and by your version of reality, conservatives hate bears!
      http://www.niagarafallsreporte...

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for by meglon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, liberals do want to pay for government programs... that's WHY democrats have a more favorable view of taxes; as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr said: "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society."

      Conservatives, on the other hand, don't want to pay for government. They consistently enact policies and tax cuts that hamper, disrupt, and destroy the machinations of a civilized society, while shirking the responsibility to pay for government, and foisting it onto future generations.... usually all the while complaining that government doesn't work.

      Increase taxes, fixing the corporate tax system, and making cuts to our massively bloated military are positions that liberals take, and conservatives hate. The problem isn't with liberals here, it's with conservatives that, once again, hate government.

      As for your actual debt bullshit, which is what it is, you're citing a radical conservative who want's to do away with medicaid, medicare, and health exchanges, and replace them all with vouchers; supports requiring banks and financial institutions to all be changed so they have no liability for the financial vehicles they sell; and eliminate the entire tax structure and replace it with the most regressive form of taxation in the misnamed "fair tax" flat tax system, where the poorest people are the most heavily taxed.

      What this individual does is hype the "debt they're keeping secret" by trying to get people who don't understand basic (VERY BASIC) accounting to think it's all some sort of conspiracy. It's not; he's preying on the ignorance of those he talks to, most of whom probably already hate the government, and filling their heads with bullshit. In the most basic terms, there's two types of accounting for money you'd decided to spend: as you spend it, or all of it at once when you decide to spend it. BOTH are legitimate accounting methods. In the US, we account for it as we spend it. What this guy is saying is that we should be accounting for ALL of it the second we decide to spend it.

      Why we don't do it his way: As an example, in 1996 Lockheed and Boeing were given contracts to produce concepts that were the first phase of the F-35 program. That's 1.5 billion dollars. If we had to account for the total cost of the F-35 program, as in HAVE THAT MONEY IN THE BANK, we'd have needed almost a trillion dollars right from the get go. Every time that the program is re-assessed, it's cost goes up... that would mean that every time those 100's of billions it's projected cost went up, we'd have to come up with RIGHT THEN. Nothing would ever get done, nothing would ever get started, because while that project might get underway for a smaller amount every year for a decade, coming up with that entire decades cost before anything was even started, and packing it away never to be touched, would be a massive waste of resources.

      If you don't think i'm right, go rent an apartment. Figure out how many years you're going to be living there, then pay ALL those monthly rental costs up front. Or how about your electric bill. Sit down, figure out how much electricity costs you this last year... now figure out how long you're going to be alive and pay the electric company for all that electricity you're gong to use in your lifetime RIGHT NOW. That is as absurd as what this Kotlikoff's schtick is.

      The biggest generational theft ever to happen is the tax cuts conservatives have enacted over the last 35 years that have caused the national debt to explode.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    8. Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for by something_wicked_thi · · Score: 3, Informative

      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?

    9. Re:"Support" != actually sacrifice for by thrich81 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is going to sound harsher than intended, but ... from younger days I already have owned a couple of Trans-Ams, Corvettes, a factory 455 cubic inch Buick GS Stage 1, 69 Camaro with a L-88 engine swap, big block El Caminos, etc, all big blocks at least 400 CID and they are all crap compared to what you can get for about $30K now in a new (or much less used) Mustang, Camaro, or Challenger. The old cars weren't that fun to drive because no matter how much power the engines made (and it wasn't as much as everyone 'remembers'), the suspensions could not put the power to the road. If you really want to enjoy a ride, go buy a 2015 Mustang GT which will outrun any old muscle car and do it with full emissions equipment, safety equipment and air conditioning. By the way, if you want 500 HP, don't try it with a Pontiac 455 -- that long stroke motor was a POS -- if you have to do it the hard way with 1960's/70's tech, go with a 427/454 Chevrolet, even then the factory race engines(427-L88 and 427-ZL1) were only making about 550 horses with open headers. Oh and those mid-70's Trans-Ams couldn't take all that much horsepower anyway -- their crappy bodies with the partial subframes twisted all up under real torque, especially the T-Top cars. I was a huge muscle car guy and went through the 70's when "government regulations" killed the muscle car, but the cars now are supercars compared to the best from back then and you don't get a lungful of lead, hydrocarbons and CO from behind them. I'm convinced that this would not be the case had the government not forced the automakers to clean up. If cars can be this good and this clean now then there is no excuse for anything else to be dirty either.

  2. People support a lot of stupid things by bhlowe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Support is fine until it comes out of a paycheck.. then, no flipping way. Watch what happens when Walmart shoppers are asked to pay higher prices for higher wages: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  3. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most Americans support government action on labeling food products that contain DNA. These surveys are worthless.

    1. Re:So what? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Personally, I'd love government action on labeling ALL food products that DON'T contain DNA. It'd be nice to be able to separate the ultra-refined or synthetic foods from the real thing.

  4. nonpartisan environmental research group by Nutria · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Nonpartisan" means that Resources For The Future doesn't officially support the Democrat party. Everyone who works there, however, voted Green or for Obama.

    IOW, it's effectively partisan.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  5. Re:Focus all wrong though by johnlcallaway · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am not opposed to reducing pollution to a level where I can safely walk outside and breath, and fish are reasonably safe to eat.

    I am opposed to reducing pollution to zero and getting rid of all the modern niceties that cause it ... like this computer that I'm typing this post on and the server that is storing it.

    Everything in between is up for discussion and probably has multiple supporters and detractors somewhere.

    I'll wager that almost no one disagrees that reducing pollution is a good thing.

    The discussion is how much are we willing to pay or give up for how big a reduction.

    --
    I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
  6. It doesn't matter what people think... by mspohr · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  7. Most is a Lame Argument by pubwvj · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Most X Support Y" is such a lame argument for doing anything.

    Most people here would like to kick your ass but that doesn't mean we should.

    Most drivers on the freeway would like to speed but that doesn't mean the should.

    Most kids support not brushing their teeth but that doesn't mean they should skip it.

    Most people would like a double-wopper-hopper burger with extra fries but that doesn't mean they should eat it never mind every day.

    Most people supporting something is a lame argument for anything.

    Stop rationalizing and get rational.

  8. Re:in one case, a search and replace update by CaptainLard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As you know, in these institutions updated there materials in the 1970s to early 1980s, from "OMG panic man-made ice age" to "OMG panic global warming"

    Nice myth. The "ice age panic" was one story that made Time magazine at a time when the majority of climate research indicated a warming trend due to human cause CO2 emissions.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...
    And about 1000 other sources if you google "1970 ice age"

    I'm not going to try to convince you that AGW is a problem we should address (note I said "should be addressed", not panic over). Instead, are you afraid of something if those crazy scientists from your anecdotes get their way and the Fed institutes CO2 mitigation? Gas prices jump to $20/gallon? The government mandates CO2 trackers worn all the time? Economic disaster circa 2008?

    I'll cite the elimination of lead in pretty much everything (no economic catastrophe) and the elimination of CFC's (no economic catastrophe). Also some fun facts on how we got to a point of not worrying about acid rain anymore:

    "In 2007, total SO2 emissions were 8.9 million tons, achieving the program's long term goal ahead of the 2010 statutory deadline.[22]

    The EPA estimates that by 2010, the overall costs of complying with the program for businesses and consumers will be $1 billion to $2 billion a year, only one fourth of what was originally predicted"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

    So tell my why addressing CO2 emissions is a bad idea (not that you explicitly stated as much in your comments)