Not how it works
I missed this when it first came out, but check out the Zogby poll on global warming:
The survey also indicated there is strong support for measures to require major industries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to improve the environment without harming the economy — 72% of likely voters agreed such measures should be taken. That sentiment was consistent across a wide age spectrum of respondents, but there was some split along party lines. Among Democrats, 81% agreed major industries should be required to cut greenhouse gas emissions, while 61% of Republicans agreed. Among independents, 73% said major industries should be required to decrease certain emissions. [my emphasis]
I wish some clever politician would figure out how to convey the following message to the public: the question is not whether or not to “harm the economy.” The question is, which will harm the economy more, measures to stabilize and eventually reduce GHG emissions or the severe weather, rising oceans, and trade disruption brought on by global warming.
I happen to think that cutting GHG emissions will ultimately stimulate the economy, not hurt it. But at the very least, we need to shake this myth that the economy will roll merrily along if we ignore global warming.