Posted on 10/23/2017 11:48:12 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
According to a new study published by Yale, Americans are willing to pay a carbon tax that would increase their household energy bills by $15 per month, or about 15%, on average. This result is consistent with a survey from last year that also found Americans are willing to pay an average of $15 to $20 per month to combat climate change.
Another recent Yale survey found that overall, 78% of registered American voters support taxing and/or regulating carbon pollution, including 67% of Republicans and 60% of conservative Republicans.
This raises the question – with such broad support across the political spectrum, why doesn’t America have a carbon tax in place by now? Study co-author Anthony Leiserowitz noted the similarity to public support for many gun control policies.
Public support often doesn’t translate into policy. On the issue of gun control, Republican lawmakers are afraid that if they vote for even the most benign policies like requiring background checks for all gun purchases, the NRA will mobilize its supporters against them. In primary races with relatively low turnout, with partisans more likely to vote, Republican lawmakers fear that mobilizing even a relatively small minority of opposition voters could cost them their jobs. On the issue of climate change and carbon taxes, they have the same fear of the Koch network.
In short, the wealthy and powerful have more influence over American policy than average voters.
Although most Republican Party policymakers continue to oppose taxing carbon pollution, it’s inevitable that the USA will implement national climate policy sooner or later. A revenue-neutral carbon tax seems to represent the path of least resistance. The only question is how much longer the GOP will delay the inevitable.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
From the Digital Journal -
Using a representative survey of 1,226 American adults, respondents were given ten different ways to spend the revenue from a carbon tax and asked whether or not they would support each of these expenditures. Nearly 80 percent were in favor of using the carbon tax revenue for developing renewable energy, or fixing America's infrastructure, like roads and bridges.
Sort of assumes a tax, and a ”how do you want it spent”, doesn't it?
And from the Citizens Climate Lobby -
This survey specifically asked about “requiring fossil fuel companies to pay a carbon tax and using the money to reduce other taxes (such as income tax) by an equal amount,” so we can’t be sure how much support there is for a carbon fee that would return money to households.
I see a carrot being dangled to reduce your other taxes...:^)
And, from one of the authors of the study -
Another key challenge to implementing a carbon tax is communicating effectively with the public, Carattini says. His team used a model of a Swiss economy to measure the effects of many carbon tax designs on greenhouse gas emissions, the economy as a whole, and low-income households — and then communicated those results to voters in their survey.
“What you need to realize, and what we made clear in the paper, is that regardless of the use of revenues, every carbon tax is going to decrease greenhouse gas emissions,” Carattini said. “If you don’t tell people how the carbon taxes work — and that they work — you may have some opposition.”
The Swiss study, he said, suggests a national carbon tax with a lump-sum transfer would be the most popular amongst voters. “It’s a new tax, but it doesn’t mean you’re getting poorer,” he said. “Under this progressive design, low-income households on average get slightly richer.”
More socialism. Do you think the MSM articles are giving you the full view of the survey and it's results?
According to a new study, people think Yale studies lie. (sample size: self)
According to a new study, people think Yale studies lie. (sample size: self)
According to a new study published by Yale, Americans are willing to pay a carbon tax that would increase their household energy bills by $15 per month, or about 15%, on average. This result is consistent with a survey from last year that also found Americans are willing to pay an average of $15 to $20 per month to combat climate change.
Uhm, no. No one asked me, and my answer would be very simply - what combat climate change how, exactly? The sun is the driving factor in all global climate, so how do you propose we fight the sun?
We already pay for our fuel. We don’t want to pay a tax on what isn’t the damn government’s.
I certainly do not want to pay taxes on something I do not even believe is real.
Same here.
So who did they poll for this piece of disinformation? Most Americans realize a tax like this would accomplish nothing but redistribution of wealth. If you poll the right people,I guess you can get any result you want.
Nobody asked me. No, I am not for the boondoggle.
Just mention “tax” and Lefties start salivating. Add in the environmental cause and they hyperventilate.
Liars.
“According to a new study published by Yale, Americans are willing to pay a carbon tax that would increase their household energy bills by $15 per month, or about 15%, on average. This result is consistent with a survey from last year that also found Americans are willing to pay an average of $15 to $20 per month to combat climate change.”
Let me TRANSLATE what this means. It means that most Americans believe that they can maintain their EXACT LIFESTYLE if it costs an additional $15 to $20 per month.
If they were instead asked if they’re willing to live with 82F thermostats in summer, 62F thermostats in winter, and a Yugo instead of their SUV, the support for that would drop to about 12%.
The point being that making life cost $200 more per year, without ANYTHING else being done, as the survey states, is something that most people can live with...particularly if they think they’re somehow saving the world at the same time.
But tell them that their lives must suck in order to change the world, WHICH IS THE CASE (and then still very questionable), and they won’t stand for that, not for a minute!!!
heh. I’ll look into a better writer. If I could get a hug AND a million dollars.....
Politicians: “Trust us. We are going to add Tax A, but we will reduce Tax B to help you.”
Who wouldn’t believe that?
Delingpole: Now 400 Scientific Papers in 2017 Say ‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth
breitbart.com ^ | 10/24/2017 | James Delingpole
Posted on 10/24/2017, 7:09:40 AM by rktman
When I reported earlier this year on the 58 scientific papers published in 2017 that say global warming is a myth the greenies’ heads exploded.
Since then, that figure has risen to 400 scientific papers.
Can you imagine the misery and consternation and horror this is going to cause in the corrupt, rancid, rent-seeking world of the Climate Industrial Complex?
I can. It will look something like this.
Just to be clear, so the greenies can’t bleat about being misrepresented, here is what these various papers say:
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.