New Poll: Americans Aren’t Willing to Pay for the ‘Green New Deal’ — And It’s Not Even Close

[Michie]

Hopefully, this polling will mean that ultra-expensive, big-government approaches to addressing climate change are taken off the table.

Americans largely agree that climate change and pollution are real problems. But a new poll reveals that they aren’t interested in shelling out massive amounts from their wallets in pursuit of progressive, big-government “solutions” like the so-called “Green New Deal.”

$600,000 Per US Household? No Thank You!

After all, the Green New Deal would cost taxpayers up to $93 trillion, a truly astounding sum that comes out to nearly $600,000 per US household. Yet most Americans aren’t even willing to sacrifice $50 a month to mitigate climate change. At least, that’s the finding of newly-released polling from the fiscally-conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

CEI surveyed a representative sample of 1,200 registered voters on environmental issues, and their findings have a margin of error of 2.83 percent.

A strong majority of respondents said they were somewhat or very concerned about the issue of climate change. However, one of the most interesting follow-up questions was this: “How much of your own money would you be willing to personally spend each month to reduce the impact of climate change?”

The vast majority of voters were only willing to make very minimal financial sacrifices.

About 35 percent said they wouldn’t be willing to spend anything, with another 15 percent saying they’d only sacrifice $1-$10. Another 6 percent were willing to give up $11-$20, while 5 percent said they’d sacrifice $21-$30. In all, a whopping 75 percent of respondents were not willing to pay more than $50 a month.

Continued below.
New Poll: Americans Aren’t Willing to Pay for the ‘Green New Deal’ — And It’s Not Even Close | The Stream

 

[chevyontheriver]

Hopefully, this polling will mean that ultra-expensive, big-government approaches to addressing climate change are taken off the table.

Americans largely agree that climate change and pollution are real problems. But a new poll reveals that they aren’t interested in shelling out massive amounts from their wallets in pursuit of progressive, big-government “solutions” like the so-called “Green New Deal.”

$600,000 Per US Household? No Thank You!

After all, the Green New Deal would cost taxpayers up to $93 trillion, a truly astounding sum that comes out to nearly $600,000 per US household. Yet most Americans aren’t even willing to sacrifice $50 a month to mitigate climate change. At least, that’s the finding of newly-released polling from the fiscally-conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

CEI surveyed a representative sample of 1,200 registered voters on environmental issues, and their findings have a margin of error of 2.83 percent.

A strong majority of respondents said they were somewhat or very concerned about the issue of climate change. However, one of the most interesting follow-up questions was this: “How much of your own money would you be willing to personally spend each month to reduce the impact of climate change?”

The vast majority of voters were only willing to make very minimal financial sacrifices.

About 35 percent said they wouldn’t be willing to spend anything, with another 15 percent saying they’d only sacrifice $1-$10. Another 6 percent were willing to give up $11-$20, while 5 percent said they’d sacrifice $21-$30. In all, a whopping 75 percent of respondents were not willing to pay more than $50 a month.

Continued below.
New Poll: Americans Aren’t Willing to Pay for the ‘Green New Deal’ — And It’s Not Even Close | The Stream

There is a thing called 'Soft Energy Paths' made popular by Amory Lovins almost 40 years ago now. Point was you make small changes and they eventually add up. When the old car finally dies you get a more efficient one. When the light bulb burns out you replace it with a more efficient one. You don't have to get bleeding edge technology at a high price, but just something better. When it comes time to replace something, replace it with a new more efficient something. No grandiose schemes. No draconian measures. Some directed research and then normal market forces. We see this most obviously with lightbulbs, a phenomenal success story. We don't see it as much with cars because everybody wants a SUV. Mostly to protect against all that metal in the other SUVs.

 

[Fantine]

The article said most of those costs would come from job guarantees and Medicare for All.

The green new deal isn't a monolithic piece of legislation. It is a visionary plan. You can support the climate aspects and forget the others if you choose.

Even supporters of the green new deal would be well served to focus on individual policies.

The fossil fuel industry has embraced this term, as it has 'socialism,' as a good way to frighten and distract people away from necessary climate initiatives.

In my red state, towns all around are installing solar fields to run all the city functions and departments, with net savings to taxpayers. They are abandoning fossil fuels, saving money, and lowering their carbon footprint in a smart conservative move.

I would advise people to look at the policies one by one and stop listening to scare tactics.

 

[disciple Clint]

Hopefully, this polling will mean that ultra-expensive, big-government approaches to addressing climate change are taken off the table.

Americans largely agree that climate change and pollution are real problems. But a new poll reveals that they aren’t interested in shelling out massive amounts from their wallets in pursuit of progressive, big-government “solutions” like the so-called “Green New Deal.”

$600,000 Per US Household? No Thank You!

After all, the Green New Deal would cost taxpayers up to $93 trillion, a truly astounding sum that comes out to nearly $600,000 per US household. Yet most Americans aren’t even willing to sacrifice $50 a month to mitigate climate change. At least, that’s the finding of newly-released polling from the fiscally-conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

CEI surveyed a representative sample of 1,200 registered voters on environmental issues, and their findings have a margin of error of 2.83 percent.

A strong majority of respondents said they were somewhat or very concerned about the issue of climate change. However, one of the most interesting follow-up questions was this: “How much of your own money would you be willing to personally spend each month to reduce the impact of climate change?”

The vast majority of voters were only willing to make very minimal financial sacrifices.

About 35 percent said they wouldn’t be willing to spend anything, with another 15 percent saying they’d only sacrifice $1-$10. Another 6 percent were willing to give up $11-$20, while 5 percent said they’d sacrifice $21-$30. In all, a whopping 75 percent of respondents were not willing to pay more than $50 a month.

Continued below.
New Poll: Americans Aren’t Willing to Pay for the ‘Green New Deal’ — And It’s Not Even Close | The Stream

We need to stop with the spending in this administration.

 

[Fantine]

Let's look at charging stations on interstates, for example. That would give a huge boost to electric cars. Noiseless. No pollution. Fewer parts and easier to maintain. When they are mass produced they will reduce the cost of driving considerably.

Just as the towns near me are investing to save, so are many of the programs in the infrastructure plan.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Let's look at charging stations on interstates, for example. That would give a huge boost to electric cars. Noiseless. No pollution. Fewer parts and easier to maintain. When they are mass produced they will reduce the cost of driving considerably.

Just as the towns near me are investing to save, so are many of the programs in the infrastructure plan.

I know a tiny bit about charging stations. I won’t go into it except to say I know the hardware and have spoken with charging station owners. They cost a great deal and the ROI is negligible. Most will never pay for themselves. Because of the cost many chargers are not fast chargers but more of the sort that will charge you up 20 miles in an hour. Or half of that if two cars charge at the same time. Maybe that will change, but for now, except for the Tesla stations, you would limp across the country.

These cars are not pollution free. The batteries have a large environmental cost. And the electricity is not pollution free either. Nuclear plants are being shut down and not replaced due to the problems with disposal. Dams are being abandoned and deconstructed because of their problems with wildlife. Which leaves windmills and solar, for now a drop in the bucket. Or coal. Let’s build coal power plants everywhere. But NIMBY. Or BANANA.

 

[Fantine]

And innovative minds are working on solving those problems right now.

Because all the "easy" oil and gas is gone, we have to rely on more expensive and environmentally hazardous ways to get it. Fracking.

My friend lives 150 miles from the site of a level 5 Oklahoma earthquake. Her house fell off its foundation, costing her $10,000.

And now Oklahoma has banned fracking in some parts of the state.

Better and better hybrids are being built that can be charged at night and, when they have to use gasoline, are being charged while the car is moving. Until better charging stations are available, that's the best option. Or get an electric car and rent gas powered car for long trips.

 

[chevyontheriver]

And innovative minds are working on solving those problems right now.

Because all the "easy" oil and gas is gone, we have to rely on more expensive and environmentally hazardous ways to get it. Fracking.

My friend lives 150 miles from the site of a level 5 Oklahoma earthquake. Her house fell off its foundation, costing her $10,000.

And now Oklahoma has banned fracking in some parts of the state.

Better and better hybrids are being built that can be charged at night and, when they have to use gasoline, are being charged while the car is moving. Until better charging stations are available, that's the best option. Or get an electric car and rent gas powered car for long trips.

Most electric cars are being sold in California, the home of rolling brownouts and blackouts. Can we all rent gasoline powered cars when the electricity is out?

What we are going to have if the Green New Deal is implemented on us is is a series of unanticipated failures that would not have happened to the same extent if a Soft Energy Path was used instead.

 

[iarwain]

After all, the Green New Deal would cost taxpayers up to $93 trillion, a truly astounding sum that comes out to nearly $600,000 per US household.

Wow, how long do I have to come up with that $600,000?

 

[Fantine]

Don't worry, the article is a hyped up piece of propaganda that has already been debunked.

Never heard the terms soft and hard energy paths, but I believe it's no longer sufficient for people and small businesses, etc. To take their own steps to conserve. We've waited too long and the crisis is too imminent.

We need individuals to act but we also need to take dramatic steps. Soft and hard paths.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Never heard the terms soft and hard energy paths, but I believe it's no longer sufficient for people and small businesses, etc. To take their own steps to conserve. We've waited too long and the crisis is too imminent.

We need individuals to act but we also need to take dramatic steps. Soft and hard paths.

Hard paths are totalitarian. Soft paths respect people and markets.

If you are serious about energy you need to know who Amory Lovins is. Here are some links.

Amory Lovins - Wikipedia
Amory Lovins - RMI
Amory Lovins | Speaker | TED

 

[Fantine]

When catastrophe is imminent, you must respect the catastrophe.

 

[disciple Clint]

Let's look at charging stations on interstates, for example. That would give a huge boost to electric cars. Noiseless. No pollution. Fewer parts and easier to maintain. When they are mass produced they will reduce the cost of driving considerably.

Just as the towns near me are investing to save, so are many of the programs in the infrastructure plan.

And they have batteries that need to be replaced, those batteries are not only made in China but they are hazardous waste. We have plenty of fuel here in our nation now that puts money in the hands of Americans. Also our nations contribution to pollution is minuscule and China and India have no intention of reducing their levels of pollution even though we will be paying them to do so.

 

[Fantine]

You don't calculate the effect of fossil fuels in our atmosphere and in raising ocean temperatures, for example?

 

[chevyontheriver]

When catastrophe is imminent, you must respect the catastrophe.

When someone says catastrophe is imminent you check to see if they are totalitarians seeking power over you and then you resist them.

 

[Fantine]

Opposing dictatorship is exactly why I voted against Donald Trump.

I am very aware of the anti-democratic forces we face, and they aren't climate activists.

 

[The Barbarian]

Ultimately, we'll go there, just because it's more economical to do so. A lot has already been done with fuel-efficient cars, LED lights, etc. It won't be a big "new deal"; it will gradually come to be.

No matter who wants it or doesn't want it.

Economics.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Opposing dictatorship is exactly why I voted against Donald Trump.

Exactly why I couldn’t vote for the Democrat.

I am very aware of the anti-democratic forces we face, and they aren't climate activists.

I’m not beholden to the parties of Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum. There are plenty of totalitarian wannabes in the Democratic Party, including the proposer of the Green New Deal. Don’t let your politics blind you.

 

[FanthatSpark]

We will pay for it in foreign spending as it has been for 40 years. Under foreign spending there is no "end point" of where (your tax) money goes. This is why Paris accord has been reinstated so funds can be diverted here to lets say hack an oil company. They pay the ransome and jack the price up where we pay the ransome and the hacking op too. I hope we start waking up soon that this is not a left right thing but a nation globalist thing.