Rasmussen survey finds concern over global warming among likely US voters at highest level in 2.5 years; 30% say very serious
07 January 2012
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters in the US found that 64% say global warming is at least a somewhat serious problem, including 30% who say it’s very serious.
One-third (33%) believe climate change is not a serious problem, with 14% who feel it’s Not At All Serious.
40% ascribed global warming to human activity, 39% to planetary trends, and 8% to “other reason”.
I wonder what the results of a survey would be with this follow-up question:
Would you support Americans being forced to double/ triple/quadruple their energy costs to be carbon-free while Brazil, Russia, India, China and other developing nations of the world were allowed the unlimited use of coal & crude oil indefinitely?
Posted by: ejj | 07 January 2012 at 08:57 AM
Bush said we could do nothing because it would harm the economy, well we ended up with a crashed economy AND a mess. Nothing like the old scare tactics, you will lose your job and freeze in the dark. That controls people and makes them do what you want, even if it is not in their best interests.
Posted by: SJC | 07 January 2012 at 09:33 AM
Why should Americans make all the sacrifices (including give up freedoms) if the rest of the world gets to do what it wants (thus nullifying whatever sacrifices Americans make...meaningless sacrifices)? So the socialists in our country can control our lives more via the regulatory bureaucracies.
Posted by: ejj | 07 January 2012 at 09:57 AM
What regulatory bureaucracies? oh, like the SEC?
Posted by: danm | 07 January 2012 at 10:09 AM
Come on...please to not throw roses around where it is not deserved. Americans, Canadians and Australians are still the worse per capita polluters of the whole world at close to 25-ton/year each. Brazil, China, Russia and India per capita is 1/4 to 1/2 ours. The average per capita pollution for those 4 countries is under 1/3 ours.
We were and still are the main fat polluters. One of those days, we may have to pay for what we have done to ourselves, our children and the rest of the world.
It's good to read that the majority is starting to see the light.
Posted by: HarveyD | 07 January 2012 at 11:34 AM
If we replaced all our coal power plants at the end of their current lives (which they will be anyway) with a mix of nukes, wind and CCGTs it wouldn't really increase energy cost that much as they all have a similar LCOE to coal. There is also good reason for expecting continuing increases in the cost of the coal.
In the US mined (coal) tonnage is increasing but BTU's are decreasing resulting in a strong decline in EROEI
If we switch to low carbon electricity, passihaus and hybrids I can't see how anyone can argue that is a bad thing!
Lower living costs, less instability, less exported money and better air quality
Posted by: 3PeaceSweet | 07 January 2012 at 12:14 PM
Obama told us it would be impossible under his administration to construct a coal-fired power plant, but had no problem signing legislation authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline & promising Brazil to be their best customers of oil. Obama & Pelosi also flew to Copenhagen, pumping thousands of tons of CO & CO2 into the atmosphere in the process. Obama's 90+ rounds of golf and numerous vacations to Hawaii, Spain, Martha's Vineyard, etc, while the people struggle with 12-15% real unemployment, has also resulted in thousands of tons of CO and CO2 pumped into the atmosphere also. Obama has reached for the stars in demonstrating new levels of hypocrisy.
Posted by: ejj | 07 January 2012 at 01:54 PM
Glad to see that you're concerned about tons of CO2 pumped into the athmosphere.
Posted by: danm | 07 January 2012 at 02:25 PM
Obama, Pelosi, Reid et. al. say they are, but live lives that are totally the opposite of what they say. Glad to see you love hypocrite politicians.
Posted by: ejj | 07 January 2012 at 02:40 PM
ejj, this is such ancient propaganda! Of all the diplomats and commercial travelers who fly around the world, you single out the ones for their carbon footprints who are *talking about it* while giving the others a pass?? So typical. What's even more tragic is that contrary to the BAU propaganda, cutting carbon could *save* $5 trillion, not quadruple energy prices as the carbon FUD peddlers continue to claim.
Posted by: Sean Prophet | 07 January 2012 at 03:08 PM
http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/11/reinventing-fire-cuts-carbon-82-saving-5-trillion/
Posted by: Sean Prophet | 07 January 2012 at 03:08 PM
Thorium is cheap and abundant. Thorium-powered molten salt reactors can provide cheap, abundant, green energy without the many of the problems inherent in current generation nuclear power plants. There is no reason besides a lack of imagination and will that we can't have essentially unlimited, cheap, carbon-free power.
See:
http://energyfromthorium.com/
and:
http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/MSR-Molten-salt-reactor.pdf
and:
http://home.earthlink.net/~bhoglund/uri_MSR_WPu.html
Posted by: Nick Lyons | 07 January 2012 at 05:01 PM
Obama told us it would be impossible under his administration to construct a coal-fired power plant, but had no problem signing legislation authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline & promising Brazil to be their best customers of oil. Obama & Pelosi also flew to Copenhagen, pumping thousands of tons of CO & CO2 into the atmosphere in the process. Obama's 90+ rounds of golf and numerous vacations to Hawaii, Spain, Martha's Vineyard, etc, while the people struggle with 12-15% real unemployment, has also resulted in thousands of tons of CO and CO2 pumped into the atmosphere also. Obama has reached for the stars in demonstrating new levels of hypocrisy.
Posted by: ejj | 07 January 2012 at 06:29 PM
Sean, you need to be careful about citing anything by Amory Lovins. He's been so consistently wrong, and his claims so obviously shaky, that if the media could commit malpractice just about anyone who wrote an article with Lovins as a source would be liable.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 07 January 2012 at 07:18 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/17/eveningnews/main20093801.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20094576-503544.html
http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-bush-vacation
Posted by: ai_vin | 08 January 2012 at 09:14 AM
Big difference in spending the bulk of one's vacation time at a sprawling ranch vs. glitzy locations in numerous places around the world, with all the added costs of secret service and the rest of the entourage...especially when the country has ~15% real unemployment (vs. the 8.5% we're told exists from the government using it's enron-style accounting in an election year).
Posted by: ejj | 08 January 2012 at 10:05 AM
Well, that's down from 15.6 percent the previous month. And it's in spite of all the "work" the congressional repubs did to keep americans unemployed: They'll vote to reaffirm “In God We Trust” as America's national motto, they'll vote for tax cuts for the "job exporters" and they'll vote against a woman's right to choose - but they wont vote for a jobs bill.
Posted by: ai_vin | 08 January 2012 at 11:04 AM
Blame your Democrat-controlled Senate & Dingy Harry.
Posted by: ejj | 08 January 2012 at 03:04 PM
Democrat-controlled Senate??? What, you mean the one where the repubs set records for the number of filibusters in a session and keep forcing a super-majority vote? or do you mean the one where Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) thinks the US economy is "a hostage that’s worth ransoming?"
Posted by: ai_vin | 08 January 2012 at 09:12 PM
ejj,
you really think the republicans are going to do anything about illegal aliens, if they get elected? It's called campaign rhetoric. (obama: "no coal plants")
Posted by: danm | 09 January 2012 at 07:25 AM
How many Americans know that 46% of the high (over $250K) income earners did not have to pay income taxes in 2010 while about 100% of the people (xx millions of) making a mere $30K to $50K had to pay taxes. With (R) in power, the 46% may go up to 66+% rather quickly.
It is a national shame!
Posted by: HarveyD | 09 January 2012 at 12:46 PM
Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%
Posted by: danm | 09 January 2012 at 02:40 PM
Harvey, sometimes not only DON'T the wealthiset pay taxes but, to add insult to injury, they also get a refund;
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=67562604-8280-4d56-8af4-a27f59d70de5
Also, anybody who thinks the repubs would be better for the economy should read this;
http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2010/07/why-elections-matter-the-economy-always-does-better-under-democrats.html
Posted by: ai_vin | 09 January 2012 at 02:54 PM
BTW, here's something that should make you question the repub sourced numbers on Obama's vacations (or anything else);
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#40018314
Posted by: ai_vin | 09 January 2012 at 03:04 PM
I read Obama had 6 weeks the first 30 months, Reagan had 12 and Bush had 20. He always seemed to be down in Texas cuttin' brush.
Posted by: SJC | 10 January 2012 at 10:10 AM