Over the last week or so, some House Republicans have made it clear that they want to “do something” about climate change. That is both bad and not surprising news.
In a world in which millions of people worldwide die from a pandemic, and hundreds die from blackouts in the world’s richest nation, it’s tough to imagine that too many people spend their days worrying a lot about global warming.
But that is exactly the nonsense that some — including an unfortunately large chunk of Republicans — are trying to sell partly to play to corporate donors.
Unfortunately for these people, opinion research tells us that voters don’t prioritize global warming at all.
Global warming is at or near the top of approximately no one’s priority list. MWR Strategies has been starting surveys for years by asking people: “What is the most/second most important or pressing issue facing the United States?”
In 10 years of asking those questions, never have more than 4% of registered (or likely) voters in any single survey identified the environment as one of their top two issues, and a more typical response is just 1% or 2%.
Fewer than that have identified climate change as the most important or second most important or pressing issue — usually as few as four or five respondents out of more than 1,000.
Even when presented with a list of specifics that includes “global warming” or “climate change,” the issue routinely finishes last among the concerns of survey respondents.
In a particularly entertaining and informative example, between January and July 2018, Gallup asked more than 1,000 adults in each of six surveys to identify their most important issue. As best as we can tell from the reported results, not a single respondent out of more than 6,000 respondents said climate change.
Even when we ask about priorities within the narrow topic of the environment, global warming has never been identified as the most pressing environmental issue by more than a third of respondents in any of our surveys.
Opinion research data also tells us that voters don’t want to pay for global warming “solutions.”
When asked how much they are willing to pay each year to address global warming/reduce global average temperatures /to reduce U.S. dependence on fossil fuels, the median response has ranged from $2 to $50. The percentage of respondents who say “zero” or “nothing” is consistently around 40%.
That’s even before questions are raised about increasing the size and reach of government, the efficiency of those expenditures, or who can be trusted to make decisions about what to do with the money.
What else does opinion research tell us?
It tells us that voters are a lot more concerned about energy than they were last year. In March, 73% of respondents told Gallup that they worried about the availability and affordability of energy a great deal or a “fair amount.” That’s a 19-point jump since last year, the biggest increase in 15 years.
Finally, what do experience and common sense tell us?
About a month ago in these pages, the editorial team noted that President Biden’s sort-of infrastructure plan would cost about $1 million per job.
A few weeks ago, that same team noted that the plan as proposed would require American households, on average, to pay about $1,400 a year to address climate change.
That seems like a lot, especially when it is clear that most voters would be willing to pay somewhere closer to $50 a year.
Republicans should focus on the price tag of $1million per job. Or on the price tag of $1,400 per household per year to address global warming. Instead, House Republicans are talking about trees.
Rather than wasting time pretending that voters really want to pay thousands of dollars to address global warming, the Republicans should think about focusing on what voters actually care about — affordable and reliable energy.
The recent blackouts in Texas and California left hundreds dead and millions economically damaged and gave voters a keen sense of the fragility of our electric system, thanks in part to those who maximized reliance on intermittent generation sources such as wind and solar.
That gives Republicans an opportunity to talk about how energy is a good thing, and only the profoundly unwise try to make it more expensive.
By focusing on climate change, the Republicans are conceding the legitimacy of the issue and the deranged amount of attention paid to it by the Biden administration.
Maybe Republican leadership has some grand plan. More likely, this is all about trying to appeal to the very corporations that are waging war against election integrity and who would like to see the Republicans destroyed.
If House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy wants to remain the minority leader and have lots of corporate donors, that’s his business. Everyone else should prefer affordable energy, clear policy distinctions, and distance from increasingly erratic corporations.
Read more at Washington Times
Texas tried using un-affordable energy, and it failed …
https://newtube.app/user/RAOB/8ydbQgs
We cant have our nation depending upon unrelyble Wind Turbines and Solar Panels that brings harm to the birds especialy the large ones like Eagles and Condors and will freeze up on very cold days Texas is a example of that all. Take that Greenpeace Idiots
I have been frustrated for a long time that the Republicans are just as inept in their response to the Democrats climate change agenda as the Democrats are inept in having such an agenda. There are just two facts the Republicans need to communicate to the voters. One, true science does not justify drastic action, and two, the cost of what the Democrats are planning.
There is no ‘climate change crisis’, no climate change national security threat, no reason to suppress the production and use of fossil fuels and no reason to invest in so-called ‘green energy’. The hypothesis that’s devolved into the CO2 anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hoax is based on the flawed predictions of imprecise 1980’s vintage global circulation models that have failed to match observational data both since and prior to their fabrication.
Additionally, water vapor is by far the dominant atmospheric ‘greenhouse’ gas, not CO2, and it’s atmospheric content is determined by the climate, not vice versa. The CO2 content of the atmosphere derived from human fossil-fuel use would have little to do with a ‘climate crisis’ even if there were one since only about 4% of the total CO2 atmospheric content at any given time is attributable to human activity. The ocean dominates the continuous exchange of CO2 between ocean, atmosphere and landmass biota. Partial control of the 4% by suppressing human fossil fuel use would have trivial consequences for climate but massive negative impacts on our energy dependent civilization.
The earth’s climate is determined primarily by the radiation it receives from the sun. The amount of solar radiation the earth receives has natural variabilities caused by both variations in the intrinsic amount of radiation emitted by the sun and by variations in the earth-sun geometry caused by planetary rotational and orbital variations. Together these natural variations cause the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) of the earth to vary cyclically on a number of known periodicities that are synchronized with known past climate changes.
Bronze Age cultures often worshipped the Sun which apparently traverses the sky every day.
Internet Age culture worships Hollywood whose work apparently traverses the World on the energy from a few solar panels on the roof of Leo di Caprio’s trailer.
Yet, despite this worship, if the hoi polloi have to pay for avoiding a crisis that isn’t happening, they would have to find some of that by savings on entertainment.
No more Hollywood…
Now, that’s tempting.