It’s all about independents — and independence
The amazing table above comes from a new Allstate/National Journal/Heartland Monitor poll of 1200 Americans conducted January 3 to 7 . Even after a multimillion dollar disinformation campaign funded by big oil and corporate polluters, the public still understands that the climate bill would help the U.S. economy (unlike their view of the bailout bills or even healthcare).
What is particularly stunning about this poll is that, as you can see, this is how the bill was described:
A cap and trade system to address climate change by allowing government to set limits on the total amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted nationally.
That’s right, people were asked about what is widely considered to be a straight political loser — “cap and trade to address climate change” — with no mention of the many benefits of the bill that typically poll far better — increasing energy independence, generating clean energy jobs, and reducing pollution.
It may well be that stupefyingly bad analysis and decisionmaking in the wake of the MA special election weakens support for the bipartisan clean air, clean water, clean energy jobs bill — a bill that also puts us on the path to energy independence (see EIA: Clean air, clean water, clean energy jobs bill would make America more energy independent, cutting U.S. foreign oil bill $650 billion through 2030, saving $5,600 per household).
After all, bad analysis gave us the grost mismanagement of health care “reform.” But before rehashing that bad analysis, let’s note that politicians would normally fall over themselves to pursue legislation that simultaneously energizes their base and has strong support among independents.
Poll after poll makes clear this bill is a winning political issue:
- Swing state poll finds 60% “would be more likely to vote for their senator if he or she supported the bill” and Independents support the bill 2-to-1 (9/09)
- New CNN poll finds “nearly six in 10 independents” support cap-and-trade (10/09)
- Voters in Ohio, Michigan and Missouri overwhelmingly support action on clean energy and global warming (11/09)
- Overwhelming US Public Support for Global Warming Action (12/09)
- Public Opinion Stunner: WashPost-ABC Poll Finds Strong Support for Global Warming Reductions Despite Relentless Big Oil and Anti-Science Attacks (12/09)
Let’s reexamine each of these polls in more detail:
The first poll above interviewed likely voters in 16 states that have a large fraction of the swing Senators — AK, AR, IN, ME, MI, MO, MT, NC, NV, ND, NH, OH, PA, SD, VA, WV. On job creation, it found 50% say the number of jobs will increase under a climate and clean energy jobs bill, 26% say it will decrease and 26% say it won’t change.
CNN wrote of the second poll:
“The support of independents will be crucial to any cap and trade proposal,” Holland says. “Independents may not be red or blue, but they appear to be green. Earlier polls indicate that Independents believe in global warming and believe that the government can take steps to curtail the problem.”
In the third poll (actually a set of polls), likely 2010 voters were asked: “Congress is considering an energy plan that has two key parts. One part would require factories and power companies to reduce their emissions of the carbon pollution that causes global warming by 17% (20% in MO) by the year 2020 and by 80% by the year 2050. The other part would require power companies to generate 15% of their power from clean energy sources like wind and solar by the year 2025. Would you favor/oppose this entire plan?” The results:
- 75% of voters in Michigan favor.
- 68% of voters in Ohio favor.
- 67% of voters in Missouri favor.
In the fourth poll above, AP-Stanford focusing primarily on global warming again found the public gets that the climate bill would create jobs and help the economy (and/or at least not lose jobs or hurt it):
Do You Think That The U.S. Doing Things To Reduce Global Warming In The Future Would Cause There To Be More/Fewer Jobs For People Around The Country?
More jobs 40%
Fewer jobs 23
Would not affect jobs 33
Do You Think That The U.S. Doing Things To Reduce Global Warming In The Future Would Hurt/Help The U.S. Economy?
Help U.S. economy 46%
Hurt U.S. economy 27
Would not affect economy 24
In the fifth poll, WashPost-ABC found that three of five Americans would support reductions in greenhouse gas pollution even it “raised your monthly expenses by 10 dollars a month.” And 55 percent would still support reductions if it “raised your monthly energy expenses by 25 dollars a month.”
These are amazing results during the worst recession in 70 years:
Three federal government estimates predict that households would have an overall “purchasing power loss” of $7 – $13 per month, which includes all goods and services, not just energy costs. And none of these estimates include the economic benefits of action, or the huge costs of inaction. In other words, the poll shows that the projected costs of domestic global warming pollution reductions are well with in the range of the amount that two-thirds of the public are willing to pay.
Household Cost Estimates of American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454
|Study||Average Household Purchasing Power Impact per month|
|Congressional Budget Office||$13|
|Energy Information Administration||$12|
|Environmental Protection Agency||$7|
And a recent Pew Research poll also found strong support for climate action:
And yet conventional (non)wisdom is that somehow it would be unpopular to take strong action to reduce pollution’ preserve clean air, clean water, and a livable climate, creating clean energy jobs, and reduce our $1 billion a day outflow of money to buy on oil from other countries, many of which are unfriendly or unstable.
Here is Reuters columnist, John Kemp, in his column today, “Massachusetts election kills cap-and-trade“:
The administration can stick to its existing agenda and hope economic recovery comes in time to save the Democratic Party from heavy defeat at the mid-term elections in November. But with the loss of the crucial sixtieth vote in the Senate, much of that agenda now appears destined to sink into the upper chamber’s legislation swamp.
Or it can trim the agenda to de-emphasise the least popular measures, such as the climate legislation, and re-focus on the economy and popular themes, such as stiffening financial regulation. In practice this may now be the only course open to the president.
While I expect many moderate Senators to draw the wrong conclusion about Massachusetts election, at least one Massachussetts Senator still gets it. As E&E News (subs. req’d) reported this morning:
“The political atmosphere doesn’t reduce the urgency of dealing with climate and energy, and the surest way to increase the anger at Washington is to duck the issues that matter in peoples’ lives,” said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in an e-mailed statement to E&E.
“There’s overwhelming public support and this can be a bipartisan issue,” Kerry added. “It doesn’t have to be polarized. Just listen to a conservative like Sen. [Lindsey] Graham or business leaders from across the ideological spectrum. This is the single best opportunity we have for energizing the economy, creating jobs and getting cleaner air, and if you sell those arguments you’ve got a winning issue.”