Climate Policy: Hit Reset or Start Over?
To understand why the new global warming survey by Stanford’s Jon Krosnick is such a mixed bag for climate advocates, just read Kevin Drum’s despairing reaction to it.
But I’m getting ahead of myself. As Krosnick lays out convincingly in this meaty NYT op-ed:
https://www.scarpellino.com/wfdk6cixhttps://www.onoranzefunebriurbino.com/9axc5104 huge majorities of Americans still believe the earth has been gradually warming as the result of human activity and want the government to institute regulations to stop it.
So far, so good, right? Read on (emphasis added):
https://www.salernoformazione.com/rhnkx1yfbyBuy Clonazepam 1Mg Fully 86 percent of our respondents said they wanted the federal government to limit the amount of air pollution that businesses emit, and 76 percent favored government limiting business’s emissions of greenhouse gases in particular. Not a majority of 55 or 60 percent “” but 76 percent.
Clonazepam For Sleephttps://www.scarpellino.com/74argwgum https://yourartbeat.net/2025/03/11/mo91pvzvngj Large majorities opposed taxes on electricity (78 percent) and gasoline (72 percent) to reduce consumption. But 84 percent favored the federal government offering tax breaks to encourage utilities to make more electricity from water, wind and solar power.
https://ballymenachamber.co.uk/?p=ertkh80wbchttps://www.mdifitness.com/cz2wuzasfb And huge majorities favored government requiring, or offering tax breaks to encourage, each of the following: manufacturing cars that use less gasoline (81 percent); manufacturing appliances that use less electricity (80 percent); and building homes and office buildings that require less energy to heat and cool (80 percent).
https://www.andrewlhicksjrfoundation.org/uncategorized/qhd7b0vq29
Klonopin Prescription Free Now do you see why Drum is pounding his head against the wall? If not, let him explain (emphasis added):
Buy Ambien Online Next Day DeliveryBuy Ambien Overnight So there you have it: the American public believes in global warming and wants the government to do something about it. However, the American public doesn’t want to do anything “” carbon taxes or cap-and-trade “” that might actually work. But they do want to open the federal goody bag and dole out subsidies and tax breaks to everyone under the sun, presumably because these all sound like pleasant things to do and they’re under the impression that they’re all “free.” Whether they work or not isn’t really on their radar.
https://www.plantillaslago.com/l299ei4ks
https://hazenfoundation.org/ycx8rw22hv7 Whether they work or not. I submit that this crucial question (which should include carbon tax and cap & trade) hasn’t been much on the radar of bloggers like Drum or Matthew Yglesias, who takes issue with Drum’s dire assessment. The problem with Yeglesias’s analysis of the Krosnick poll is that he’s blaming conservatives for making the American public dumb and resistant on the issue of taxes. Whether that’s true or not isn’t important right now. What’s important is that Americans have no interest whatsoever in cutting back their consumption or taking money out of their wallets to help arrest climate change. That should be the takeaway message from Krosnick’s survey.
https://yourartbeat.net/2025/03/11/kjxar543l5oSo these latest polling results, combined with Senator Lindsey Graham’s latest pirouette, should serve as a loud wake-up call to climate advocates. But the early indications are that denial has set in. For example, on the import of Graham’s turnabout, David Roberts at Grist seems willfully oblivious:
https://www.fogliandpartners.com/8gm7nudx33So the climate bill’s already slim chances are now considerably slimmer. But the basic calculus hasn’t changed: If Obama goes all-out after a bill, it could happen. If he doesn’t, it can’t.
Really? I bet Obama thinks the calculus has changed considerably.
https://municion.org/g9rblbrg6gt So are we ready to move on yet and take up Drum’s fundamental question (which has to include all policy levers): whether what’s being proposed will work or not? Are we ready to listen to outside-the-beltway perspectives, some of which favor decoupling climate change from energy policy?
https://www.fogliandpartners.com/85a69uq9 Does any one have a policy/plan to do what the physics dictates i.e. 40% emissions reduction by 2020?
Cheapest Zolpidem Online Given the short time span the danger is that doing something that accomplishes little lulls us into thinking we have addressed the problem. The counter is that doing anything at least gets the ball rolling.
https://www.wefairplay.org/2025/03/11/fiaw4t7obf5 As for Hartwell paper, anything that Lomborg endorses is no go territory for me.
Keith just what is a 'climate advocate'? Someone who likes a nice stable climate? If so count me in.
Order Zolpidem Online Uk Folks are tossing around a lot of labels these days without defining them. That is not helpful.
Stephen, you wrote:
"As for Hartwell paper, anything that Lomborg endorses is no go territory for me."
What ridiculous logic. Lomborg also endorses providing clean water and sanitation for millions in the developing world. Does that mean you are against that?
https://ballymenachamber.co.uk/?p=1jbycjrz Stephen,
https://ottawaphotographer.com/txofnj8tk Would you mind telling in which of the scientific journals was published the dictum of 40% emissions reduction by 2020?
Back to the post: the amazing thing about all this is the hubris. These people believe that they understand the dangers of climate change and that they know how to best deal with it. Everything is clear to them.
https://www.plantillaslago.com/muofce8xyo Of course I was referring only to Lomborg on climate and slightly tongue in cheek. Lomborg has an agenda, a particular economic viewpoint and selects what fits…plus I spent 2 wks w the guy in Copenhagen press room.
https://www.fogliandpartners.com/kpsjyhc5 Science, Nature to name a couple. It's not a dictum. Its a guideline, it is advice and has nothing to do with hubris. Allow me translate: Based on current state of the science if you want global avg temps to be less than 2C then developed countries need to cut their emissions 40% by 2020.
Ambien Cr Order Online […] blogger shares Kevin Drum’s despair over the recent turn of events, which I discussed here yesterday. Like me, the Economist writer noted the salient findings from that Stanford poll. And he […]
Ambien Sales Online Yes mankind has an effect on climate through changes in land use like deforestation, irrigation, and especially urbanization, the greenhouse gase shave no effect. When you look at rural temperatures there is no net warming and no correlation with CO2 but a strong correlation with multi decadal ocean cycles and secular solar cycle changes.
https://hazenfoundation.org/shpa9lm Carbon was introduced (by Enron) as an issue by those that see huge potential in trading it and revenues from taxing it and by those that want to use it to control what energy we use and how we live our our lives. Most everyone would support conservation and smart energy policy but not the rest. The EPA and congressional actions would that leave our economy in tatters like the early adopters in Europe have found. European countries are abandoning the enviro policies and solar and wind power super subsidies our government are pushing.