Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Polling Shows Voters in NM-02 See Global Warming as Threat, Support Dem Carbon Reduction Plans
Surprise! August polling on issues related to global warming, carbon reduction measures and green jobs was conducted by The Mellman Group with 400 likely voters in each of four swing districts, including New Mexico's Second Congressional District. Results show that a healthy majority of respondents in each of the four states generally supports Democratic positions on energy issues. The results contradict the alarmist rhetoric being used by the GOP to claim a massive backlash in swing districts against clean energy initiatives and those who vote for them:
- Voters In Each Of These Swing Districts See Global Warming As A Real And Serious Threat That Is Happening Now
- Voters In Each Swing District Believe Efforts To Reduce Global Warming Will Create Jobs, Not Eliminate Them
- Voters In Each District Strongly Favor Action To Reduce Carbon Emissions
- Large Majorities Support Key Elements Of The House Bill
- There Is No Evidence That The Energy/Global Warming Bill Is Causing A Backlash
- A Candidate Using Our [Democratic] Message Overwhelms An Opponent Using The Opposition’s Arguments
Click for a summary presentation (pdf) of the polling results for FL-02, NM-02, OH-16 and VA-05. It's well worth a look.
- 68% of respondents in NM-02 favored the U.S. taking action to reduce emissions of gases like carbon monoxide that cause global warming, while 23% were opposed and 9% were undecided.
- 69% of respondents in NM-02 support the key elements of the Democratic energy plan, while only 22% oppose them and 9% are undecided. Moreover, Independents support the Dem plan by a margin of 63% to 25%.
Congressman Harry Teague, who voted for H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy And Security Act, should rest a little easier now that factual data is emerging to negate the view that loud Tea Party protests and attacks by right-wingers indicate deep and widespread dissatisfaction with global warming mitigation and renewable energy legislation. If the polling in this survey is accurate, many more voters in NM-02 support the Dem legislation moving through Congress than oppose it. Don't be fooled by the spin from the right-wing noise machine.
Clean energy is always a noble goal. Helping the environment is always desirable. Being more energy efficient is great. But carbon has nothing to do with any of these worthy objectives.
The recent Pew poll found that voters with knowledge of cap and trade were opposed to it 2 to 1.
Cap and trade detracts from actual problems we face as a planet. It is a fictitious issue. A single act of flatulence by a cow is equivalent to driving 8,000 miles in a modern car in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. The number one greenhouse gas is water vapor. It makes up 85% of the atmosphere.
I implore my fellow New Mexicans to do some research on this issue instead of blindly trusting their leaders on both sides of the aisle. Both parties are deceiving voters on this critical issue.
Posted by: William Nie | Nov 4, 2009 7:32:51 AM
I guess the vast majority of climate scientists are fooling people too. Don't forget the global scientific community knowledgeable about climate and global systems. Cap and trade is no panacea but it's probably the best we can hope for from a Congress with so many members owned by big gas and oil interests and GOP members just saying no to every single Democratic proposal.
Posted by: Green | Nov 4, 2009 8:29:59 AM
When you say vast majority, I'm not sure where you are getting those numbers. When Al Gore is told there are numerous scientists who disagree with his assertion his response is, "There are people that think the moon landing was faked" But here is a letter from 100 of the top climatologists including the President of the world Federation of Scientists rejecting the AGW claim.
And here is an admission by Mr. Gore himself, that Carbon may not be the evil thing we made it out to be. I thought, “The science is settled”.
As I said in my post, I don't disagree that the average temperature has risen. But how can we ignore all the evidence weighing against the carbon factor? Just to name a few:
The effect of cosmic radiation on cloud formation which is critical to climate change is ignored by all IPCC reports.
Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas making up 85% of the atmosphere.
The Sun's activity directly correlates with the temperature of the Earth whereas CO2 correlates with an 800 year lag.
The arctic has not been covered with ice through the entire history of the Earth.
The CO2 levels of the Earth have been much higher than at present.
Temperatures have been much higher than at present.
A recent Princeton study showed that bio-fuels produce more carbon than they reduce.
Now the Examiner is notably conservative, but last time I checked Princeton was a respectable university.
The list goes on and on. Far too many considerations to say, "The science is settled", "There is a consensus". Science is always a subject for review. It is always evolving. There is no endpoint. Ad hominem attacks are not scientific and normally the domain of religion.
Another thing to consider, Ban Ki-moon said yesterday at least $400 billion per year is necessary to help the developing world combat carbon emissions. Where will that money go? To international corporations that will build green infrastructure. With a fraction of that same money we could iodize water for the world which experts have estimated could raise the world IQ by between 10 and 20 points. We could change the way food is grown to better use our limited water supplies. We could provide basic education to women in the 3rd world which has the desirable effect of reducing population growth.
There are no absolutes in science. Anyone that tells you otherwise is highly suspect.
Posted by: William Nie | Nov 4, 2009 10:18:05 AM
Of course there is always climate change. The question is whether how we live is making change occur in a rapid and unnatural way that threatens civilization. Of course it is.
Even if you discount climate change due to greenhouse gases, why would you want to encourage the use of fossil fuels when new technologies are rapidly become available to replace them as we go forward? Why are you so hung up on saving the asses of oil and gas?
Even if burning them doesn't cause dramatic climate change over time (and I don't agree with that), why would you want to keep poisoning people with the damaging, carcinogenic pollution they produce not to mention the awful mining practices? Why would you want to keep us bound to idiotic foreign dictators for our energy supply?
I hope people read your links because they sometimes don't say what you claim they do. Take the Al Gore piece - there was acknowledgement that perhaps "only" 40% of global warming is caused by carbon and that methane and black carbon or soot have a significant role. How does that refute the need to hold down carbon emissions? Gore is calling for a comprehensive approach, which of course is wise.
As for bio-fuels, I'm no fan of ethanol. There are many other better ways to produce energy. Unfortunately, multi-national corporations seized on bio-fuels but that's not the way to a solution.
I'm not sure there IS a solution based on overpopulation and the power of the status quo. Humans don't seem to like change and are very good at living in denial to preserve the status quo. But I think we have to try because there's always a chance that a tipping point can be reached.
I support the other goals you mention but I don't think they will do much good if we keep poisoning the earth, air and water with greenhouse gases, petroleum-based chemicals and other nasty substances.
Have you seen the recent articles about plastics poisoning the ocean and the huge gyre in the Pacific filled with plastics that will never break down into anything organic? Scary indeed.
Posted by: barb | Nov 4, 2009 10:51:20 AM