Reply With Quote
Amazing how propaganda affects the mind of the people. It has always been used in war time, too bad the alarmists are waging war on the public.
A recent survey found that most Republicans want the government to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, and regulate carbon pollution. And the vast majority of Americans believe the U.S. should take action to reduce global warming, regardless of any perceived cost to the economy.
The new poll by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication found that 83 percent of Americans want their country to make an effort to reduce global warming, even if it has economic costs. Despite calls for American inaction on climate until other countries act first, 60 percent of Americans think the U.S. should act “regardless of what other countries do.”
Americans ranked global warming 11th out of 13 listed national issues. Yet a solid majority — 71 percent — thinks that global warming should be at least a medium priority. Thirty-seven percent say it should be a high priority.
While 57 percent of Democrats — and just 19 percent of Republicans — believe climate change should be a high or very high priority for Congress or President Obama, there were areas of something that somewhat resembled partisan agreement. Both groups think CO2 should be regulated as a pollutant (85 percent of Democrats, 55 percent of Republicans). Both want to cut all fossil fuel subsidies (67 percent vs 52 percent). And big majorities of both groups want more funding and more tax rebates for renewable energy and efficient cars.
In general, Americans want less fossil fuels and more low-carbon energy — with many willing to pay more for those benefits:
- 67 percent want to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant
- 59 percent want to cut fossil fuel subsidies entirely — while 60 percent think cutting renewable subsidies is a bad idea
- 56 percent would pay an extra $100 a year if it meant their electric utility was required to produce more than 20 percent electricity from renewables
- 72 percent want more research funding for renewable energy
Sixty-five percent think corporations and industry should be doing more to address climate change. And 52 percent think Congress should be doing more — but just 46 percent believe the same for President Obama. Even less believe local governments should be doing more. This makes some sense, as many city, state, and local governments have taken the lead on addressing climate change. Still, only 39 percent believed federal, state, or local government can help reduce global warming, or protect people from the impacts of climate change.
Support for regulating carbon dioxide from existing power plants dropped 4 percent when it was described as a directive from President Obama to the EPA — and strong opposition rose 8 percent. Still, even with that 4 percent drop, 59 percent of Americans want the EPA to regulate carbon pollution from power plants. Different versions of a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax gained the support of almost half of respondents.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...-climate-poll/
http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/public-support-climate-energy-policies-November-2013/
Last edited by boutons_deux; 02-12-2014 at 09:30 PM.
Amazing how propaganda affects the mind of the people. It has always been used in war time, too bad the alarmists are waging war on the public.
bamboozlers!
https://wolfstreet.com/2018/10/12/ex...or-carbon-tax/It’s not every day that two former Republican US Senators, currently full-time oil lobbyists, advocate for a carbon tax. When one of their main clients, Exxon Corp., also decides to publicly and financially support this effort for $1 million, it deserves attention.
Former Senators Trent Lott (MS) and John Breaux (LA), both with substantial ties to the US energy industry, recently formed a political action committee, Americans for Carbon Dividends (AfCD). This group now advocates for a carbon tax. The actual proposal was released by a related organization, the Climate Leadership Council (CLC), which is headed by former Secretary of State and longtime Republican grandee, James A. Baker, lll.
This proposal has four key parts:
- A $40 per ton tax on carbon rising annually at a gradual rate;
- Tax revenues generated would be refunded to all citizens (hence the name, “Carbon Dividends”);
- This plan would terminate the EPA’s regulatory authority over carbon emissions and specifically terminate the recently enacted Clean Power Plan;
- Require “border carbon adjustments to level the playing field and permit American compe iveness.” (Other relatively high CO2 emitting countries apart from the US are China and Russia).
"Tax revenues generated would be refunded to all citizens (hence the name, “Carbon Dividends”);"
no! never gonna happen.
the oligarchy/Repugs created/creating huge deficits will say the deficit must be paid down with "carbon taxes" collected mostly from citizens, not industry. iow, just another exploitative wealth transfer to the oligarchy
I NEVER trust the Exxons, the avaricious, predatory oligarchy to support, in good faith, ANYTHING that is good for anybody except themselves.
Exxon is trying to get out in front of the conversation, set parameters for policy debate.
The Permian oil patch isn't going away, indeed the current trend of capitalization locks us into increasing production for decades to come.
Establishing a permanent fund that pays citizens may not be the worst idea for getting public support for extractive industries.
In this case it would come at the cost of gutting the EPA and setting carbon prices at an artificially low level as environmental/social costs mount.
"Exxon is trying to get out in front of the conversation, set parameters for policy debate."
Exxon is taking care of Exxon, nobody else.
Would Exxon support a carbon tax on carbon fuels (gas, diesel)
Would Exxon stop subsidizing all the politicians and judges who vote and rule in Exxon's favor?
of course not, silly
this proposal came from the very same lobbyists
get back to us when ANYTHING progressive, helpful For The People, problems solved, occurs, just ing ANYTHING
I'm watching what the other side is doing.
What are progressives doing?
Obama's Exec attacked pollution quite aggressively, all of which is being annulled by Trash and his Exec
Progressives are out of power now, aka, powerless. Can't do
Even if Dems take the House, they will not be able to stop Trash and his Exec from injuring, killing people with more pollution, nor stop them destroying the fauna and flora and appeal of Federal lands
If they sued, eg EPA, it would go to oligarchy's tainted Federal judiciary and SCOTUS to lose 5-4, for decades.
America is ed and un able.
Oligarchy's negligent, even willful manslaughter and environmental destruction for profit, for amassing Capital, will increase, protected by the regulatory, legislative, executive capture.
NEARLY EVERY MEMBER OF THE CONGRESSIONAL PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS STILL TAKES CORPORATE PAC MONEY
https://theintercept.com/2018/10/14/...ate-pac-money/
Can anybody show where there is any hope that America is NOT broken, not in permanent, oligarchy-driven decline?
anti-business environmental extremism has quickly (in 10 years or so) become the conventional wisdom:
^I must be reading a different article. That's not a tweet or comment I'd write from that article.
Cornyn was planting a flag.
The deal proposed by energy lobbyists is for energy companies to accede to a carbon tax in exchange for immunity from lawsuits pertaining to climate change.
You mean as opposed to Germany spending billions on climate change to no effect? And using data from (a deceptive) 1990? People skip over all that in the article to go to carbon tax? More taxes? For climate change? And that's gonna help? while China and India continue to pollute?
That's what the energy companies and the Congresscritters that carry water for them seem to want.
There are probably enough Democratic centrists like Beto to make it so before too long.
Better get myself a yellow jacket then.
If you wanted leverage over China and India it were wise for the USA to have stayed in the Paris Accord.
Trump gave it the finger, and along with it, any leverage we might have had with India and China to clean up their act.
"Germany spending billions on climate change to no effect"
The "effect" has been to "stagnate" pollution, emissions at the 2009 level, as if limiting AGW causes were useless, rather than the ing goal.
The WSJ asshole also says, in conclusion, that "tax reform" is needed for growth of countries, iow, tax cuts for the oligarchy, which we have seen only "grows" the wealth of the oligarchy, not the economy for the non-oligarchy.
We know that 90%+ of all growth in GDP, eg, since 2008, and wealth goes to the oligarchy, while the non-oligarchy suffers under austerity and stagnant real incomes, so small as to be eaten by just 2% inflation.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-27-2018 at 02:29 PM.
The failure to act on this issue is the greatest failure of this generation.
Maybe you should have "oligarchy" saved somewhere - with the number of times you type it a day.
IMO, the public school system has really done a job on this generation convincing them of this and that we can do anything about it. My advice as always is if you really believe you can make a difference, sell your car and bike/walk to work and don't fly in an airplane either.
Your advice as usual is re ed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
