Whenever the question is asked of how much Americans are willing to pay to stop climate doom, most aren’t thrilled with using their own money
What Is The Right Price To Pay To Combat Climate Change?
Last weekend I read the report “Politics Without Winners CAN EITHER PARTY BUILD A MAJORITY COALITION?” by Ruy Teixeira and Yuval Levin of the center-right think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI). The Executive Summary begins by noting that “In the American political system, the parties’ purpose is to form enduring national coalitions. Look at almost any point in American history, and you will find a majority party working to sustain a complex coalition and a minority party hoping to recapture the majority. Today, however, American politics features two minority parties, and neither seems interested in building a national coalition.” It then goes on to analyze how a majority party might arise.
In doing so, in the short section “Energy Realism” (pp. 39-41), it addresses how Americans view the challenge of climate change and what must be done to address it. In this section it discusses survey findings where respondents were asked how much they would pay on top of their monthly utility bill to combat climate change. The increments were $1, $10, $20, and $75 dollars. At a mere $1 only seven percent of respondents were more willing to pay this than not. Twice as many political independents opposed this charge than supported it. Support from the working class was less than for those with a college education where there was a 20 point difference.
Margins widened at $10. Working class respondents opposed this by 30 points and moderates and independents by 20 points. “Raising the proposed levy to combat climate change to $20 a month appeared to reach a breaking point.” The spread for the working class and moderates widened to 40 points and to 50 points for independents. Even the college educated opposed this by 20 points. At $75 dollars support almost completely disappeared. “In fact, even liberal white college graduates couldn’t bring themselves to vote in favor of a $75 levy.”
Too bad they didn’t put it in chart form and/or show the specific answers, but, you get the idea. People are fine with Someone Else bear the monetary burden, just not themselves.
I’d still like to see a survey that only includes true Warmists to see what they say.
So what do these numbers mean? I draw two broad conclusions. The first is that for a large percentage of Americans (nearly half) paying fees to combat climate change is a luxury good they can’t afford to pay. The second is that even those who can afford it at the $75 level are unwilling to do so.
Hence, government must force citizens to pay it.
Even our socialist from St Louis understands at least something about business, and knows that, in the end, all efforts to Do Something about
global warmingclimate change will end up costing Americans individually. And, thanks to Bidenflation, which seems to have hit worst at the grocery store, people are more concerned about putting food on their dining room tables tonight than they are about what the weather will be like 76 years from now.Everyone pretty much at this point recognizes it is like giving money to a guy on the street corner. He says he needs it for food, but you know he is just going to get high. People in the government and their connected friends already spend 4 trillion dollars per year of your money, and somehow that still isn’t enough. They want even more. And they promise it’s for a good cause (saving the whole planet from a minuscule change in average temperatures what no one will even notice). But really, you know they are going to blow it on hookers and cocaine.
I would like to remind our leftist contributors and Harris voters here that last year my real estate group netted over $20 million from government programs created by the Biden administration. These programs were created and administered exclusively to immigrants (legal or illegal) and without regard to our own citizens in need and specifically ignoring the plight of or veterans and other first responders who are living on the streets of mostly blue cities. Almost exclusively blue cities I should say.
This year we are on track to clear $35+ millions just partnering with out corrupt democrat government. We thank you for making us rich. We are amused at how so many taxpayers are suckered every year by your greed and avarice and absolute desire for power.
Harris is the worst candidate of my lifetime and the democrats just love her. If Trump does not win this election the US will never recover and will continue its slide to communist oblivion. But at least we’ll have plenty of abortions, chicks with dicks and I’ll make millions with her open border.
Mr White/Kye,
While you were stealing from the taxpayers, we were busy bilking wealthy investors like you out of $70 MILLION (according to The Pissant) LOL! Our stories almost too good to be true don’t they?
I was impressed by how quickly Democrats started “loving her” once they were told to do so. Remember, back when she was running against Biden, she was the first candidate to drop out of the race due to only gaining 1% support from her party members. But now they “love” her. If she loses this race, she will be quickly discarded. There is an Obama wing to the Party. There is a Clinton wing to the Party. There is no Harris wing of the Party. For that matter, there is no Biden wing either. When Biden eventually dies, no one will miss him outside his family.
Democrats are just fine supporting people who have long careers with zero accomplishments. The only thing that matters to them is Party loyalty.
Kye, do you feel any divided loyalties knowing that a Trump victory will likely result in a personal financial douwnturn for you? I imagine all those companies that are currently doing those contracts will need to compete for a much smaller pie in a Trump administration.