70% of Americans support Obama's carbon plan

[sealybobo]

No doubt the 30% who disagree are corporations or religious people who think GW is fake and that the end days are coming because of sin, not because we are destroying the planet.

By the way, the corporations said this is going to cost them $8 billion. Well guess what? It's going to save us $100 billion in healthcare costs. Check mate! And this doesn't have to cost the consumers. It could cost the ceo and all his vp's half their bonus checks instead.

 

[jc456]

they don't care they'll use anything to push their agendas

Don't we all go to our 18 year old kids to ask their advice on our lives?

You and Skull Pilot are quite the statistics gurus, aren't you.

So, did any of you that tried to "throw the bullshit flag" on the OP's claim, ever come up with any EVIDENCE to support your charge? Do you have a survey on the topic showing different numbers?

figure it out for yourself
like I said, nearly 70% of the people DISAPPROVES of Obama but you think this same number is going to turn around and vote for the joys of having their electricity rates HIKED by him...You all want some 18year old kid running your lives, have at it

They'll tell you that your poll is bullshit, at the same time say their's is legit. hahahahahahahahahaha. These dems are all useless tools in a drawer. let them rot there.

 

[jc456]

Here it is, here's the question that was asked by the Washington Post/ABC News pollsters - in what way do you think it was "worded for the required results." -pewsh!-

“Do you think the federal government should or should not limit the release of greenhouse gases from existing power plants in an effort to reduce global warming?”

And the result...
"Overall, 70% support federal limits."
.

Everyone wants to reduce pollution. The problem I see is they didnt ask how much they'd be willing to pay to do it.

Are you a liberal plant?
If not, thanks for being ignorant of the poll you're commenting on, i.e. "The problem I see is they didn't ask how much they'd be willing to pay to do it."


Finally, the same poll asked,
“What if that significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly energy expenses by 20 dollars a month – in that case do you think the government should or should not limit the release of greenhouse gases?” The results were so surprising, here’s another chart:

Just so we’re clear, a majority of Americans – regardless of party affiliation – is prepared to raise their own energy bills a bit in order to combat climate change. That’s no small development.

hah! I don't believe any of them. Sorry Charlie!

 

[GHook93]

.
70% of Americans support Obama's carbon plan and-----and a majority of Americans support the Presidents plan even if they have to pay more for electricity.


Public endorses limits on carbon pollution

By Steve Benen
06/02/14

<snip>

The Washington Post/ABC News poll specifically asked respondents, “Do you think the federal government should or should not limit the release of greenhouse gases from existing power plants in an effort to reduce global warming?” Overall, 70% support federal limits.

But in the chart I put together – darker colors show support for federal limits, lighter colors show opposition – consider the partisan breakdown. Sure, Republican support is weaker than among self-identified Democrats and Independents, but it’s nevertheless clear that a majority of GOP voters support federal limits on carbon pollution.

The same poll asked respondents about a policy that sounds a lot like the new Obama administration plan: “Do you think the federal government should or should not require states to limit the amount of greenhouse gases produced within their borders, in an effort to reduce global warming? The states could make their own plans how to comply.” The results were practically identical – 70% overall support state requirements, and that includes a majority of self-identified Republicans.


<snip>
.

First, a poll of a few what hundred people reflect the entire nation of 310 mil. Those studies are as creditable as any of Obama's speeches.

Second, I guarantee 99% of the people asked never read the proposal, never read a summary of the proposal, don't know the economic impacts and have no idea other than what the person asking the question stated.

Third, I have no doubt the Washington Post manipulated the questions to obtain the desired results.

Lastly, liberals always support BS legislation until those same legislation leads to higher costs at the store, higher taxes and less money in their pocket. At that point they blame the Republicans, even though it was the plan their candidates supported that got passed!

 

[flacaltenn]

No doubt the 30% who disagree are corporations or religious people who think GW is fake and that the end days are coming because of sin, not because we are destroying the planet.

By the way, the corporations said this is going to cost them $8 billion. Well guess what? It's going to save us $100 billion in healthcare costs. Check mate! And this doesn't have to cost the consumers. It could cost the ceo and all his vp's half their bonus checks instead.

It's gonna cost MORE than the healthcare savings. And why LIE about Global Warming and CO2 as a pollutant if this was all about HEALTH in the first place?? Pretty much an admission that the hype and scare tactics associated with the GWarming campaign was always ever BullShit..

The EPA and Congress had the power all along to clean up REAL pollutants.. WHY did we need to scare people with shoddy science in order to get to this end result???

 

[SFC Ollie]

Here it is, here's the question that was asked by the Washington Post/ABC News pollsters - in what way do you think it was "worded for the required results." -pewsh!-

“Do you think the federal government should or should not limit the release of greenhouse gases from existing power plants in an effort to reduce global warming?”

And the result...
"Overall, 70% support federal limits."
.

Everyone wants to reduce pollution. The problem I see is they didnt ask how much they'd be willing to pay to do it.

Are you a liberal plant?
If not, thanks for being ignorant of the poll you're commenting on, i.e. "The problem I see is they didn't ask how much they'd be willing to pay to do it."


Finally, the same poll asked,
“What if that significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly energy expenses by 20 dollars a month – in that case do you think the government should or should not limit the release of greenhouse gases?” The results were so surprising, here’s another chart:

Just so we’re clear, a majority of Americans – regardless of party affiliation – is prepared to raise their own energy bills a bit in order to combat climate change. That’s no small development.

$20 a month is not the skyrocketing that Obama promised, we are talking doubling or better.......

 

[sealybobo]

No doubt the 30% who disagree are corporations or religious people who think GW is fake and that the end days are coming because of sin, not because we are destroying the planet.

By the way, the corporations said this is going to cost them $8 billion. Well guess what? It's going to save us $100 billion in healthcare costs. Check mate! And this doesn't have to cost the consumers. It could cost the ceo and all his vp's half their bonus checks instead.

It's gonna cost MORE than the healthcare savings. And why LIE about Global Warming and CO2 as a pollutant if this was all about HEALTH in the first place?? Pretty much an admission that the hype and scare tactics associated with the GWarming campaign was always ever BullShit..

The EPA and Congress had the power all along to clean up REAL pollutants.. WHY did we need to scare people with shoddy science in order to get to this end result???

Sorry but you are wrong. It's going to cost corporations $10 billion to clean up their act but it's going to save us all 100 billion in healthcare savings when we aren't dying of cancer.

I can't take anyone who doubts GW seriously. Eat a sloppy dick

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sorry but you are wrong. It's going to cost corporations $10 billion to clean up their act but it's going to save us all 100 billion in healthcare savings when we aren't dying of cancer.

I can't take anyone who doubts GW seriously. Eat a sloppy dick

Ah, so you and GISMYS are identical - two insane fuckwads spouting religious lunacy.

Figures.

Oh, and a nutjob cultists taking rational people seriously isn't real high on anyone's priority list, sploogy.

Now run along and sacrifice your dick to Giai, as penance for your carbon sins.

Only a burnt offering will do, you simpering baboon.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Obama needs to refocus on fusion r&d. Possibly, 40 billion over the next 5 years in order for us to have a energy source that can pull this off.

I don't have a problem with solar but it isn't going to do it.

 

[flacaltenn]

No doubt the 30% who disagree are corporations or religious people who think GW is fake and that the end days are coming because of sin, not because we are destroying the planet.

By the way, the corporations said this is going to cost them $8 billion. Well guess what? It's going to save us $100 billion in healthcare costs. Check mate! And this doesn't have to cost the consumers. It could cost the ceo and all his vp's half their bonus checks instead.

It's gonna cost MORE than the healthcare savings. And why LIE about Global Warming and CO2 as a pollutant if this was all about HEALTH in the first place?? Pretty much an admission that the hype and scare tactics associated with the GWarming campaign was always ever BullShit..

The EPA and Congress had the power all along to clean up REAL pollutants.. WHY did we need to scare people with shoddy science in order to get to this end result???

Sorry but you are wrong. It's going to cost corporations $10 billion to clean up their act but it's going to save us all 100 billion in healthcare savings when we aren't dying of cancer.

I can't take anyone who doubts GW seriously. Eat a sloppy dick

I can't anyone seriously who uses lies and fear about Global Warming to provoke a dangerous and almost certainly DEADLY dismantling of our electrical generation capacity to promote a political goal that has little to do with Global Warming..

What percentage of man's total contribution to atmospheric CO2 is due to the way we generate electricity? How much of THAT percentage REMAINS in the atmosphere and is not sunk into the land or the oceans? What part of the GLOBAL warming problem are we fixing with this ill-advised MANDATE? And how many more jobs will be lost? WHAT in the world is gonna replace the 30% of coal generation that now supports 40% of our electrical grid.

Take the dick out of your mouth and start answering ----- jerk-off... People are gonna die starting winter of 2016 with your braindead policies...

 

[Crick]

1) Roughly 40% of human CO2 emissions comes from power generation

2) The government is not going to force any power utilities to turn out the lights. That's a story with which to frighten 3rd graders.

 

[polarbear]

Here it is, here's the question that was asked by the Washington Post/ABC News pollsters - in what way do you think it was "worded for the required results." -pewsh!-

&#8220;Do you think the federal government should or should not limit the release of greenhouse gases from existing power plants in an effort to reduce global warming?&#8221;

And the result...
"Overall, 70% support federal limits."
.

Everyone wants to reduce pollution. The problem I see is they didnt ask how much they'd be willing to pay to do it.

Are you a liberal plant?
If not, thanks for being ignorant of the poll you're commenting on, i.e. "The problem I see is they didn't ask how much they'd be willing to pay to do it."


Finally, the same poll asked,
&#8220;What if that significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly energy expenses by 20 dollars a month &#8211; in that case do you think the government should or should not limit the release of greenhouse gases?&#8221; The results were so surprising, here&#8217;s another chart:

Just so we&#8217;re clear, a majority of Americans &#8211; regardless of party affiliation &#8211; is prepared to raise their own energy bills a bit in order to combat climate change. That&#8217;s no small development.

So how did the pollsters determine that all it will cost is just $ 20 per month?...and that the power bill is the only bill that will go up as a result when energy prices go up.
It will go up way more than just $ 20 a month for example in the food industry and they`ll mark up their prices and so will every business which uses electrical power. Every mom & pop shop will do so, from the smallest retail business right up to the manufacturers, warehouses, schools hospitals etc etc.
These pollsters have deliberately been misleading these 1000 people who were18 to 39 years old and are misleading you as well with the results.
A large slice of that population sample still lives with their parents and doesn`t care what bills they have to pay....and the pollsters knew that also.
They also are aware that telephone surveys have a huge bias especially if cellphone numbers were called.
Researchers Warn of 'Bias' in Landline-Only Phone Polls - NationalJournal.com

But most importantly, younger and non-white Americans continue to outpace other groups in replacing landline phones with cell phones. Among adults aged 18-24, 53.2 percent lived in cell-only households
Just over half of Hispanic adults live in cell-only households, the report shows, an increase from the 46.5 percent who were cell-only in the first half of 2012, and nearly twice as many as were cell-only four years ago. In comparison, just 32.9 percent of whites, 39 percent of blacks and 34.4 percent of Asians were cell-only from July-December of 2012. Americans who say they are of mixed race are more likely to be cell-only, the report shows.
The implications for pollsters are clear: Polls that rely too much on landline participation -- or call only landlines -- are going to reach far too many older and whiter voters, and not nearly enough younger or Hispanic voters. "The potential for bias due to undercoverage remains a real threat to surveys conducted only on landline telephones," the CDC report states.
While this problem was just beginning to wreak havoc with survey research and its practices in the latter half of the last decade, the trends from the CDC's reports accentuate the seriousness of the problem.

A cellphone survey is just as skewed as a landline survey and reaches more young ethnic minority groups, the kind that did vote for Mr. "yes we can"...and the pollsters knew that too !
That survey was nothing more than a propaganda exercise for the liberal media who paid for it.
Let`s just wait and see how popular it will be after Americans find out how much it will really cost, as Germans did where they now re-open more coal mines and coal fired power plants after the energy bills went through the roof.

 

[flacaltenn]

Thats why the question was cited as a "half sample" result. I was wondering how they split that question. This is a dishonest tactic to parse the sample population into a favorable result.. This is one reason why I am not moved at all by public opinion polls.

 

[polarbear]

Thats why the question was cited as a "half sample" result. I was wondering how they split that question. This is a dishonest tactic to parse the sample population into a favorable result.. This is one reason why I am not moved at all by public opinion polls.

Polling methods like this one are nothing more than a cute political tool the spin doctors deploy to create the herd effect.
That herd effect works best with ill informed people, precisely like the population sample that wound up in the sluice box which specifically selected them as a sample.
They selected people who were between 18 and 39 years old as a "representative sample" for this survey.
These represent only 29 % of the population, while 42.3 % of US citizens are older than 40!

We shall see if it worked when all the other people who have not been asked and who are paying their bills are voting.

 

[Star]

It's gonna cost MORE than the healthcare savings. And why LIE about Global Warming and CO2 as a pollutant if this was all about HEALTH in the first place?? Pretty much an admission that the hype and scare tactics associated with the GWarming campaign was always ever BullShit..

The EPA and Congress had the power all along to clean up REAL pollutants.. WHY did we need to scare people with shoddy science in order to get to this end result???

Sorry but you are wrong. It's going to cost corporations $10 billion to clean up their act but it's going to save us all 100 billion in healthcare savings when we aren't dying of cancer.

I can't take anyone who doubts GW seriously. Eat a sloppy dick

I can't anyone seriously who uses lies and fear about Global Warming to provoke a dangerous and almost certainly DEADLY dismantling of our electrical generation capacity to promote a political goal that has little to do with Global Warming..

What percentage of man's total contribution to atmospheric CO2 is due to the way we generate electricity? How much of THAT percentage REMAINS in the atmosphere and is not sunk into the land or the oceans? What part of the GLOBAL warming problem are we fixing with this ill-advised MANDATE? And how many more jobs will be lost? WHAT in the world is gonna replace the 30% of coal generation that now supports 40% of our electrical grid.

Take the dick out of your mouth and start answering ----- jerk-off... People are gonna die starting winter of 2016 with your braindead policies...

Katayusha! - went right over your head didn't it?

"WHAT in the world is gonna replace the 30% of coal generation that now supports 40% of our electrical grid."[?]


The world?

30%? LMAO @U

Obama's playing high stakes-real world monopoly while flacaltenn is still playing tiddlywinks. The EPA's goal is a 30% reduction and-----and we have sixteen (16) years to comply and-----and we've already achieved half of that 30% and-----and we achieved that first 15% reduction in 9 years-----9 years without government pressure to comply with an EPA "MANDATE" and-----and One Day After U.S. Announces Emissions Target, China Says Carbon Cap Is On The Way
.

 

[Uncensored2008]

1) Roughly 40% of human CO2 emissions comes from power generation

2) The government is not going to force any power utilities to turn out the lights. That's a story with which to frighten 3rd graders.

No, instead they will impose taxes, fees, and fines to force the cost of energy out of the reach of the peasants.

The left does not seek to deprive the elite, only the mainstream.

 

[GISMYS]

Wonderful IDEA IF YOU LIKE $5.00+ PER GAL GAS.

 

[flacaltenn]

Sorry but you are wrong. It's going to cost corporations $10 billion to clean up their act but it's going to save us all 100 billion in healthcare savings when we aren't dying of cancer.

I can't take anyone who doubts GW seriously. Eat a sloppy dick

I can't anyone seriously who uses lies and fear about Global Warming to provoke a dangerous and almost certainly DEADLY dismantling of our electrical generation capacity to promote a political goal that has little to do with Global Warming..

What percentage of man's total contribution to atmospheric CO2 is due to the way we generate electricity? How much of THAT percentage REMAINS in the atmosphere and is not sunk into the land or the oceans? What part of the GLOBAL warming problem are we fixing with this ill-advised MANDATE? And how many more jobs will be lost? WHAT in the world is gonna replace the 30% of coal generation that now supports 40% of our electrical grid.

Take the dick out of your mouth and start answering ----- jerk-off... People are gonna die starting winter of 2016 with your braindead policies...

Katayusha! - went right over your head didn't it?

"WHAT in the world is gonna replace the 30% of coal generation that now supports 40% of our electrical grid."[?]


The world?

30%? LMAO @U

Obama's playing high stakes-real world monopoly while flacaltenn is still playing tiddlywinks. The EPA's goal is a 30% reduction and-----and we have sixteen (16) years to comply and-----and we've already achieved half of that 30% and-----and we achieved that first 15% reduction in 9 years-----9 years without government pressure to comply with an EPA "MANDATE" and-----and One Day After U.S. Announces Emissions Target, China Says Carbon Cap Is On The Way
.

Didn't go over my head. You're the one laughing about potentially DEADLY misguided public policy... And believing that Unicorns farts and pinwheels are gonna replace the 30% of coal plants being targeting for destruction.. OVER 150 PLANTS CLOSED since just 2010..

AND YOU -- the big the gigantic hypocritical prick you are -- are claiming victory for having NATURAL GAS largely responsible for those EXISTING reductions. A fuel source that YOU PERSONALLY have done everything in your power to restrict and regulate.

As your Dear Leader said in 2008 -- he wants to BANKRUPT THE COAL INDUSTRY. There is no doubt that's part of his legacy along with the higher inventory of body bags that are gonna be neccessary when the frozen bodies are found in Philiadelphia and Bangor and Duluth...

The Dear Leader speaks...

Let me sort of describe my overall policy.
What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.
I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.
That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.
The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.
It's just that it will bankrupt them.

 

[ScienceRocks]

10 year plan, 300 billion dollars = new manhatten project to get fusion up and running. We could reduce co2 emissions 80% for 1/100 the cost!

 

[Rotagilla]

Polls are mostly worthless, they can be worded for the required results.

Here it is, here's the question that was asked by the Washington Post/ABC News pollsters - in what way do you think it was "worded for the required results." -pewsh!-

“Do you think the federal government should or should not limit the release of greenhouse gases from existing power plants in an effort to reduce global warming?”

And the result...
"Overall, 70% support federal limits."
.

obama can forbid internal combustion engines, and shut down every coal plant in america and it wouldn't change anything worldwide.....It WOULD further diminish the lifestyle and well being of americans....and that, of course, IS the object of the game.

As usual taxpayers will be expected to foot the bill of this grandiose wealth redistribution plan.

Which demographic pays the most taxes in this country? Right. See?

..and as someone else mentioned, those who can't afford higher energy costs will assuredly get some sort of govt subsidized "grants" or "programs" ...which will have to be administered by some new bureaucracy staffed by unionized government employees ....more taxpayer money seized by govt. and redistributed.

China, Russia and about 30 other developing countries are going to keep chugging right along and laugh as they pass us by.

Until other sources of energy are cheap and realistically available, the world will continue to run on oil and coal.

Remove the federal and state taxes on gasoline tonight and watch what would happen to the economy. It would skyrocket tomorrow.