The public supports addressing climate change, even if financial costs
are involved, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) said, noting two
recent national polls as evidence.
A survey sponsored by NBC News/Wall Street Journal interviewed 1,005 adults between April 23 and 26. The margin of error for the two relevant questions is 4.4%.
Pollsters asked half the respondents: "Let me read you a series of
proposals that President Obama has suggested since he was inaugurated.
For each one, please tell me whether you approve or disapprove of this
proposal." One of the proposals: "Charging a fee to companies that emit
greenhouse gases, which might results in higher utility bills, and
using the money to provide tax cuts for middle-income Americans."
More than half--58%--approved, 35% disapproved, and 7% were not sure.
The pollsters asked the other half of the respondents the
question in a different way. In this case, they did not mention
President Obama, but they reminded respondents that greenhouse gases
cause global warming. They did mention that new climate and energy
policies might increase utility bills.
The second question: "Would you approve or disapprove of a
proposal that would require companies to reduce greenhouse gases that
cause global warming, even if it would mean higher utility bills for
consumers to pay the charges?"
Slightly more than half--53%--said they approved, 40% disapproved, and 7% were not sure.
The ABC News/Washington Post poll interviewed 1,072
adults between April 21 and 24. The results for the two relevant
questions have a 3 point margin of error.
The poll found that even though Americans are concerned that
federal legislation could "raise the price of things," they still want
the government to pass policies that address global warming. Overall,
75% of the poll respondents said they want the federal government to
initiate policies addressing climate change, while 77% said they are
concerned that climate legislation would increase prices.
The first question asked: "On another subject, do you think the
federal government should or should not regulate the release of
greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in
an effort to reduce global warming? Do you feel that way strongly or
somewhat?"
A slim majority--54%--said "Should strongly." Another 21% said
"Should somewhat." 12% said "Should not strongly," and 9% said "Should
not somewhat." 4% percent had no opinion.
The second question asked: "How concerned are you that federal
regulation of greenhouse gases could substantially raise the price of
things you have to pay for--very concerned, somewhat concerned, not so
concerned or not concerned at all?"
A little more that a third--36%--said "Very concerned." A higher
percentage--41%, said "Somewhat concerned." 14% said "Not so
concerned," and 8% said "Not at all concerned." Only 1% had no
opinion."
According to UCS, the good news is that comprehensive climate and energy
legislation likely would reduce energy bills, not raise them.
The UCS recently published an analysis based on
a Department of Energy modeling system, finding that combining a
cap-and-trade program with energy and transportation policies (the
approach used by the Waxman-Markey bill) would result in dramatic
emissions reductions and net savings for the typical U.S. household of
$300 per year in 2020 and $900 per year in 2030.
