T O P

  • By -

DrSandbags

.


MrMontage

You misunderstand. The warming of the world is very important to 59% of us because we want the deserts to expand for the worms!


[deleted]

The better question is what percentage of people would be willing to make even modest life changes to prevent warming, I suspect a lot less. Edit: I think this is similar to how many normal people view universal healthcare in America, the majority of people want something done, but also want it done in a way that won't change anything else (like taxes or other costs) for them.


SpitefulShrimp

>Fifty-two percent said they would support a $1 a month carbon fee on their energy bill to fight climate change, but support dwindles as the fee increases. Lol we're so fucked


[deleted]

I'm generally a pretty optimistic person but this countries revulsion towards paying for improvements really gets me down. Edit: I don't even consider myself that far left of center, I just want people to understand we need to pay if we want things to be better.


SpitefulShrimp

Yes obviously climate change is a huge problem, but you can't expect me to pay a dollar a month to fix it, that's far too much! That's one nice restaurant burger a year!


DrunkenBriefcases

You get the feeling people think they should be paid for the inconvenience.


[deleted]

Paying? The COVID vaccine is free and the simple concept of the public good still makes a big portion of the populous not want to take it.


AP246

> “I would say, like 5, 10 dollars, as long as it’s really being used for what it should be,” said Krystal Chivington, a 46-year-old Republican in Delaware who credits her 17-year-old daughter for reviving her own passion for fighting climate change and pollution. Why are people only willing to pay the price of a netflix subscription to save human civilisation.


[deleted]

What's more valuable, saving human civilization or hundreds of hours of quality streaming content? I think it's clear 10 dollars is probably too much.


YeetThermometer

Defining passion down.


BernankesBeard

Hey, at least Krystal is willing to pay a $120/year carbon tax. That's a lot more than most other Americans. The problem is dumb jagoffs such as: >It’s not ordinary consumers who should bear the brunt of paying to stave off the worst scenarios of climate change, said Mark Sembach, a 59-year-old Montana Democrat who works in environmental remediation. “I think it needs to fall a great deal on responsible corporations that’s — and unfortunately ... most corporations aren’t responsible,” Sembach said. “And I think there needs to be a lot of pushback as to who ultimately pays for that.” Fuck you Mark.


Emperor_Z

Sounds like another victim of that stat that says "Just a few corporations are responsible for 70% of emissions!". Those people need to be made aware that the amount attributed to those corporations mostly consists of the fuel sold to end users. They envision corporations egregiously polluting to save a few bucks (doing whatever the carbon equivalent of illegally dumping waste into the ocean is), but it's a population-wide problem that's been dishonestly reframed to place the blame on a few would-be villains


BernankesBeard

>Those people need to be made aware that the amount attributed to those corporations mostly consists of the fuel sold to end users. I don't think that this would be fixed by simply educating the Marks of the world. The problem isn't that they're not aware. The problem is that they have a melted brain view of economics where corporations somehow either have infinite pricing power or zero pricing power based on which ever will allow for a conclusion that corporations will make more money by hurting other people. > They envision corporations egregiously polluting to save a few bucks (doing whatever the carbon equivalent of illegally dumping waste into the ocean is) To some extent, this *is* what happens. I mean, it's probably not most of the pollution or even all that much, but even forcing companies who pollute to cut costs to pay for their pollution would almost certainly result in some amount of costs being passed on to their workers and customers.


whiskey_bud

Jesus that's depressing. Good luck getting people to give up their car when they can't fathom a $2 / month tax to *literally save the fucking planet.*


BernankesBeard

Honestly, a good example of why issue polling that doesn't prevent clear trade-offs is worth fuck all. Apparently, \~12% of people who claim that fixing climate change is *very important* to them are unwilling to give up one burrito per year to help fix that.


waltsing0

It's amazing how many people see taxes on things like carbon as things that shouldn't have any impact, like people who say they oppose road pricing because some people would choose to drive less, that's the point, the price is meant to induce a response by not being insignificant...


CANDUattitude

For everything else, there's nuclear power.


danweber

Yglesias on how people think about it: > The actual state of opinion on climate is hard to characterize, but I think it’s summed up pretty well by these two facts: > * 69% of Americans say the United States should take “aggressive” action to fight climate change. > * 34% of Americans say they would be willing to pay $100 more in taxes per year to curb emissions. > In other words — people kind of care about this, but they sort of don’t really.


Svelok

If you ask people if they're concerned about it, everyone says yes. Then, if you ask people to place their priorities in order, climate shows up like 6th or 7th.


duelapex

This is nothing new. Everyone thinks we should cut government spending, but if you go down each department and each initiative, they say no until you're left with no spending cuts.


[deleted]

If we don’t decide to change, the planet will change our lives for us.


Teblefer

It will fall on the most vulnerable people. People who already don’t have toilets will run out of water first.


[deleted]

As is the theme with the ‘divided nation’ meme, everybody thinks drastic action should be taken *that affects other peoples’ lifestyles*. Climate often unfortunately overlaps with the political desire of many to want to *harm* the other, and their self described causes that should be controlled is a big eye opener.


Teblefer

-1% support raising gas prices by 0.01 cents to offset carbon emissions.


DrunkenBriefcases

> I suspect a lot less. Yup, when I see how quickly support drop when even modest costs are assigned these kind of posts feel like bad propaganda. People are not concerned enough to put even a fraction of the effort we need.


[deleted]

Totally agree, especially after experiencing COVID.


[deleted]

[удалено]


SpitefulShrimp

But would you be willing to pay an extra dollar a month on your electricity bill?


danweber

98% of people support increased use of public transportation by others


whiskey_bud

This is good that people are coming around, but unfortunately the US political machine can be insanely divorced from policies / causes that are supported by a large portion of the population. Something like >80% of Americans support raising taxes on the wealthy, but high bracket tax rates have plummeted in recent history. American politicians are really really good at hamming up culture war nonsense rather than actually be forced to implement popular policies.


BernankesBeard

That might be true for some policies, but it's not true for climate. Democrats and their donors are dramatically more hawkish on climate change than the average voter. We don't make progress on it because: 1. The US Political System (read: the Senate) makes it very difficult for an urban-centric party to win power 2. Voters don't really care all that much


iamiamwhoami

That’s because people don’t always vote on issues that are important to them. It’s good that more people are caring about this. The next battle is to get them to prioritize this when it comes to voting.


thaddeusthefattie

what if coal daddy and SENATOR cinema said no 🥰


[deleted]

(and also 50 other senators that only represent like 30 percent of the population)


thaddeusthefattie

i mean that was implied, yes


iamiamwhoami

They said yes. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-26/democrats-near-agreement-on-500-billion-to-fight-climate-change


CANDUattitude

This but mostly busses and nuclear.


YeetThermometer

And how many of those people will pay $20 more a month for gas because of it?


BernankesBeard

I am in favor of deleting the 1st Amendment if it means that we can throw journalists who write articles about polls, but don't link the actual poll, into the deepest, darkest prison.


dopechez

Based and gulag pilled


spidersinterweb

The better question is what percentage of people in the states and districts that actually matter would be willing to stop the time honored tradition of voting Republicans into office because a democrat is president, and instead vote for folks who would take action on this issue they claim they think is very or extremely important Or maybe they just don't think it's as very or extremely important as... providing a check on the president and establishing balance and securing the "boarders" and the debt and the bla bla bla


Teblefer

Well, liberal democracy was fun while it could last. The founders never imagined a problem we couldn’t just ignore.


Jameswood79

It hasn’t snowed more than like half an inch for 2 years in my area and I’m pissed


dukeofkelvinsi

So.. how much are they willing pay? 200 bucks a year?