Polling Data Swinging Against Climate Denial
June 10, 2014
A new Public Policy Polling survey finds that the carbon emission reduction standards announced by President Obama yesterday are popular with voters across the country, and that voters have little tolerance for a Presidential candidate in 2016 who doesn’t believe that climate change is caused by human activity. Crucial independent voters, in particular, are not sympathetic to the GOP’s climate skepticism.
Key findings from the survey include:
-Voters support the 30% reduction standard in carbon pollution from existing power plants by an 18 point margin, 53/35. Independents (59/29) are particularly strong in their support for the standards.
-Voters, and particularly independents, don’t have much tolerance for climate skeptics when it comes to the 2016 Presidential race. Only 38% of voters say they’d be willing to support a candidate who doesn’t believe global warming is caused by human activity, and by an 11 point margin they say they would be less likely to vote for such a candidate. When it comes to independents just 29% would be open to supporting a climate skeptic.
-This issue could be particularly problematic for Senator Marco Rubio given his recent comments on it. Voters say by a 56/33 margin that they have more faith in the scientists than Rubio when it comes to the issue of climate change, and among independents it’s 57/27. Rubio starts out trailing Hillary Clinton by a 49/42 spread in a hypothetical match up anyway, and when respondents were informed about Rubio’s stance on climate change it pushed Clinton’s lead up to 9 points at 50/41. That’s a wider margin than Barack Obama won either of his elections by.
Climate Denial Crock of the Week 
June 10, 2014 at 9:44 am
This is good news but for the fact that the Tea Party fanatics and other mindless conservatives look like they’re going to maintain control of the House and maybe even take the Senate in November That’s going to make Obama’s last two years a tough road to travel, and inhibit progress on many fronts until after the 2016 elections. Rubio is toast, IMO. He will likely go the way of Perry, Bachmann, The Newt, Cain, Santorum, and the other members of the last Traveling Clown Circus as the Repugnants again race to the bottom while at the same time attempting to find an “electable ” candidate. IMO, the Dems have a lock on the presidency in 2016, and it’s Hillary’s if she wants it (and she does).
We need some more bad news climate change wise to open some more eyes. Maybe a huge melt of the arctic ice and the Greenland ice sheet this summer will do the trick. A massive heat dump from the oceans in the Super El Nino may come too late for November, but may make big news and change some minds in 2015.
June 10, 2014 at 3:12 pm
Do you think that Martin O’Malley and Jay Inslee are plausible candidates?
June 10, 2014 at 11:08 pm
Re: “Do you think that Martin O’Malley and Jay Inslee are plausible candidates?”
O’Malley? First I’ve heard of him. He might need to work on name recognition.
Inslee? Maybe Washington needs a few more landslides to bump his numbers. [wink]
I’m in the camp of “anyone but Hillary”. I see no good coming from Hillary on the climate issue.
June 11, 2014 at 12:34 am
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/02/12022769-clinton-highlights-importance-of-oil-rich-arctic?lite
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clintons-transcanada-pipeline-connection-is-just-part-of-the-story/
June 11, 2014 at 12:34 am
http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/2013/10/07/in-oneida-county-hillary-clinton-touts-u-s-oil-and-gas-production/
That being said, Hillary Clinton would be better than Ted Cruz or Paul Ryan. And that being said, voting for her would be like voting for Vlad the Impaler because her opponent is el Diablo.
Clinton has the nomination in the bag. Obama took it from her in 2008 only because he is magnificently charismatic. There is no such Democratic contender in 2016.
June 11, 2014 at 11:56 pm
Re: “Obama took it from her in 2008 only because he is magnificently charismatic.”
A trait Obama shares with all successful snake oil salesmen.
June 12, 2014 at 6:05 am
To Ray and jimbills as well.
IMO, O’Malley and Inslee are in somewhat the same position as Huntsman was for the Repugs—-certainly “plausible” but perhaps a bit too far out for national electability. (And O’Malley DOES have a lot of :”name recognition” here, Ray, since MD wraps around DC and is hard for the “inside the Beltway” types to ignore).
I think it is unkind to compare Hillary with Vlad the Impaler except in the metaphorical (and hyperbolic) sense. Both Vlad and El Diablo were men, as were Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, all serial killers and school shooters, etc. I for one am about ready to turn the country over to the women—-that’s why I support Emily’s List and Hillary. I’d like to believe that Hillary will move in the right direction on climate change—she must if she wants to win.
June 12, 2014 at 3:27 pm
It’s hyperbole, of course. But I really think Clinton’s record shows she won’t be a forceful advocate for AGW mitigation. She’ll acknowledge it and maybe pass a decree or two. She’ll also support fracking and the oil industry. It’d be better than a GOP candidate (with the possible exception of Christie) who would rigorously fight against any mitigation efforts.
But it’s also a deep compromise for environmentalists. We keep supporting these people who are really just corporate enablers. The question is if these people are really doing enough, and if not, was it worth it to support them? Should we just accept the argument that the other guy would have been a lot worse?
I don’t have any issue with Hillary being a woman.
June 12, 2014 at 3:43 pm
I wish my crystal ball was as clear as yours. If she does little about climate change, CO2, and fossil fuels during her eight years, we are doomed. I myself think she will be forced to take action when the SHTF during her first term. Gilding in The Great Disruption has predicted that will happen in 2018, and I tend to agree with him.
Both Clintons have perhaps been far too much “corporate enablers”, but the real truth is that ALL AMERICANS are the real corporate enablers, and it will remain that way until we change our core values and lifestyles.
June 10, 2014 at 1:39 pm
http://www.gallup.com/poll/170885/smaller-majorities-favor-gov-pollution-controls.aspx
“Obama’s recent executive actions proposing significantly stricter carbon pollution standards on energy-producing plants appear to be generally in tune with majority public opinion. Americans favor setting higher emissions and pollution standards on business and imposing mandatory controls on carbon emissions, and at this point tilt toward actions that would protect the environment even at the cost of some traditional oil, gas, and coal production.
The argument against new emissions standards is that they would ultimately require the American public to pay more for energy, that they would cost American jobs, and that they would have relatively little impact on global warming. These alternatives are not addressed directly in the trend questions reviewed here, and it is possible that when presented with specific tradeoff costs of setting higher carbon pollution standards, support would be lower.”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/168620/one-four-solidly-skeptical-global-warming.aspx
“The broader, and perhaps more important, point is that even while skepticism rose — causing a corresponding increase in the percentage of Americans who can be categorized as “Cool Skeptics” — the percentage of “Concerned Believers” has recovered to pre-Climategate levels, while the Mixed Middle has dwindled. As with many issues in the past decade, Americans’ views have grown more polarized.”
June 10, 2014 at 1:47 pm
The question, really, is how many voters will prioritize environmental issues over the other issues. This has been historically low, and it doesn’t look like it will change for 2014:
http://www.gallup.com/video/169082/2014-election-economy-federal-budget-deficit-important.aspx
A voter can think Rubio is an idiot about climate change, but if they care more about taxes, they’re still likely to swing Republican. Rubio won’t get the nomination, too. It’s far more likely to be Cruz, Christie, or Ryan.
June 10, 2014 at 3:49 pm
Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL) is a grassroots, nonpartisan group creating the political will for a stable climate. CCL champions a revenue-neutral carbon tax or carbon “fee and dividend.” CCL views this as a way to “level the playing field” by internalizing the social costs to society of greenhouse gas emissions.
Here is the page with details: http://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-tax/
Of particular note is a recently commissioned study that shows that a fee on carbon, if done the right way, will actually add jobs and improve the United States economy. The study turns the common wisdom on its head. Essentially, it’s a myth that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will result in job loss and slow growth.
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/press-release-june-9-2014/
June 13, 2014 at 6:10 pm
Dana Nuccitelli summarized projections of a revenue neutral carbon tax starting at $10 / ton, increasing $10 per year. CO2 emissions would be 52% less in 20 years than in a “business as usual” scenario.
“A key finding in the study is that personal disposable income would increase under a revenue-neutral carbon tax in every region except for a slight decrease in the fossil fuel-heavy west south central states of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Arkansas.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/13/how-revenue-neutral-carbon-tax-creates-jobs-grows-economy
June 10, 2014 at 8:16 pm
It sounds like some of you are buying into Obama’s plan like it was serious. I know I linked to this story before, but for those of you missed it:
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/24205-obamas-flawed-emissions-proposal-cap-and-trade-offsets-allow-plants-to-pay-to-pollute
Wall Street loves cap-and-trade – it’s more business for them. Originally, it was conservative Republicans who enthusiastically endorsed cap-and-trade, now it’s the Democrats who have fallen in love with it while the Republicans point out (correctly, for once) what a POS it is. Of course, the Republicans claim that AGW is a “hoax,” and they only disowned cap-and-trade so they could use it as a hammer against the Democrats.
This is all one big diversion from getting serious about tackling AGW. The “big plan” is really to let future generations deal with it. In a rare moment of honesty, George W Bush admitted that we can ignore AGW because “we’ll be dead by the time it’s a problem.” Of course, he’s wrong about that too, but then again he was wrong about almost everything else. However, if you’re rich enough, you can avoid the worst AGW disasters – the rich can always fly off to their villas in Alaska while folks in Florida drown.
June 10, 2014 at 11:14 pm
Cy,
I’m in agreement with you about Obama being little more than a poodle for the interests of the 1%. Much as the UK’s Tony Blair was derided for being a mere poodle to Dick Cheney’s imperial war policies. Look where it’s gotten Blair! He’s being paid $12 Million per year by Jamie Dimon at JPM-Chase for doing nothing.
I’m sure Obama’s angling for a similar deal.
June 10, 2014 at 8:51 pm
Since the cliamte pre the science is not changed when CO2 levels change how does paying carbon taxes make any difference except to make some rich and a whole lot of people poorer.
June 10, 2014 at 11:17 pm
mbe11,
You might want to learn something about basic science. Your statement is incorrect. Climate changes are not based on our observation of them (i.e. science). Climate change and CO2 levels are linked.
Your basic premise needs to be re-considered. As written, it makes no sense.
June 12, 2014 at 10:30 pm
[…] Polling Data Swinging Against Climate Denial (Climate Crocks) […]
June 12, 2014 at 11:56 pm
The polling won’t matter much if the same mechanisms that blunted real change in the current administration are still in place come next election.
Citizens United still stands, Astroturfing is alive and well, the gerrymandering of 2010 can’t be mitigated or undone until 2020 and we’ll have to wait and see who holds the Senate and if it’s filibuster-proof.