ABG: Americans demand 'aggressive' climate action — as long as it doesn't cost much

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

GRA

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
14,018
Location
East side of San Francisco Bay
Americans demand 'aggressive' climate action — as long as it doesn't cost much
Two-thirds in survey see urgent problem, but just one-third would spend even $100
https://www.autoblog.com/2019/06/26/americans-climate-change-attitudes-survey/

Nearly 70 percent of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, want the United States to take "aggressive" action to combat climate change — but only a third would support an extra tax of $100 a year to help, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Wednesday.

The results underscore a crucial challenge for Democrats seeking to unseat President Donald Trump in next year's election. Many will have to balance their calls for strict environmental regulation with a convincing argument for why the changes are good for taxpayers and the economy.

"There isn't any doubt climate change has emerged as an important issue in this election," said G. Terry Madonna, Director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin and Marshall College. "But when it comes to how you will pay for it, that's what can make a big difference. . . ."

Americans generally support Democratic calls for urgent action on climate change, according to the poll of more than 3,000 people conducted between June 11 and 14. A majority believe the United States should transition to 100% clean energy within a decade, and that clean energy would on balance "create new jobs and growth" instead of "hurt jobs and the economy."

But the plans quickly lose support when voters sense they come with a personal price tag, such paying extra taxes, higher power bills, or trading in their current vehicle for an electrical one, the poll showed. . . .

According to the poll, 69% of Americans — including 56% of Republicans and 71% of independents — believe the United States needs to take "aggressive" action to fight climate change.

Some 78% believe the government should invest more money to develop clean energy sources such as solar, wind and geothermal, including 69% of Republicans and 79% of independents.

About 65% of Americans identify themselves as Republican or Democrat, while 23% consider themselves independent, according to the poll.

More than half of Americans either strongly or somewhat support the idea of weaning the United States off fossil fuels entirely within 10 years — the central tenet of the Green New Deal — including a third of Republicans and 57% of independents.

Most Americans believe such a transition to clean energy could be good for the economy, according to the poll. Some 58% think it would generate jobs and growth, while just 14% who believe that fighting climate change would kill jobs and hurt the economy.

Among those who believe that clean energy can be good for jobs and the economy are 43% of Republicans and 62% of independents, the poll showed.

Support for such changes dropped off dramatically, however, when poll respondents where asked whether they would be willing to assume certain costs to achieve them.

Only 34% said they would be very likely or somewhat likely to pay an extra $100 a year in taxes to help, including 25% of Republicans and 33% of independents, according to the poll. The results were similar for higher power bills.

Only 38% said they would be likely to help by carpooling or using public transport, and 33% said they'd be willing to trade their car in for an electric vehicle, while 42% said they would be likely to install solar panels, according to the poll.

Currently, about 1 percent of cars sold in the United States in 2017 were electric, according to EVAdoption.com, which tracks the industry. Meanwhile, about 2 percent of U.S. homes had solar installations at the start of 2019, according to the Solar Energy Industry Association. . . .
 
This is where primate brains and Republican reprogramming over the last several decades combine in the worst possible ways. The public has both lost faith in government because they've been hearing nonstop that government (and government spending on projects that liberals support) is Evil, and have become more selfish and consumerist and less communitarian.
 
WetEV said:
33% said they'd be willing to trade their car in for an electric vehicle
Sounds like good news.

Maybe we shouldn't be bashing other's car choices and get some butts in EVs.
If "willing" meant "able and likely", I'd agree, but it doesn't. I'm willing to trade my ICE for a Model S100D, but that doesn't mean I can afford to or am going to.
 
GRA said:
If "willing" meant "able and likely", I'd agree, but it doesn't. I'm willing to trade my ICE for a Model S100D, but that doesn't mean I can afford to or am going to.

Yes, GRA, but your use case is about the last use case to be reasonable.
 
WetEV said:
33% said they'd be willing to trade their car in for an electric vehicle

Sounds like good news.

Maybe we shouldn't be bashing other's car choices and get some butts in EVs.
LOL! I've heard such poll results for ages. Example: https://priuschat.com/threads/consumer-reports-poll-americans-want-higher-fuel-standards-hybrid-cars.100116/ this from 2011.
Moreover, a 56 percent majority is considering purchasing hybrid or electric cars as their next vehicle, and 72 percent of the respondents would consider ownership once availability increases.
Well, fast forward and it seems in the US, non-plugin hybrid adoption never got much beyond 3% (or 5%) of light vehicle sales. BEVs at last check were still at under 2% of sales. PHEVs also have figures like that.

The guys at https://www.hybridcars.com/june-2018-hybrid-cars-sales-dashboard/ seems to have stopped creating new dashboards but back in June 2018, PHEV take rate was under 1%, ditto for BEV and non-plugin hybrids were at 2%. Non-plugin hybrids require 0 new infrastructure at home, work, public, etc. nor require any habit change on the part of the driver.

People in polls say they will "consider" but what they do is entirely different. :(
 
cwerdna said:
Well, fast forward and it seems in the US, non-plugin hybrid adoption never got much beyond 3% (or 5%) of light vehicle sales. BEVs at last check were still at under 2% of sales. PHEVs also have figures like that.

Hybrids range from the simple and cheap start-stop to full hybrids like the Prius, and then on to PHEVs.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/efficiency/microhybrids-hold-the-key-to-future-auto-fuel-efficiency

GM is planning on almost all start stop hybrids by next year. Sure, is a 6% boost to MPG rather than the 20%-30% of a full hybrid. At a small fraction of the cost. A Prius competes with BEVs, in many cases, and loses.

https://www.autoblog.com/2016/05/25/all-gm-models-stop-start-option-2020/

PHEVs are mixed grill. All of the costs and disadvantages of both electric cars and gasoline cars. And advantages of both as well.

Plug in (BEVs + PHEVs) cars are at about 1.8% of vehicle market last month. Has been several months over 2% already. Three months over 3%. All months over 2% is likely next year.

4% is probably 2022 or so. 8% is probably 2025 or so. In 2012, plug in car sales were 1/4 of 1 percent.
 
cwerdna said:
People in polls say they will "consider" but what they do is entirely different. :(
Yup.
GM fell into that trap with the Volt. Based on internet surveys they forecasted up to 200k sales a year ... and got 1000 a month.

However, it does mean that the person is listening. When they eventually grasp (and hopefully not too late) the cost of business as usual they will act.
 
Ah finally, the American version of a survey and discussion thread from a couple months back that spelled trouble in Europe for ambitious green plans. Surveys will often indicate much more politically correct behavior than the respondents will actual do; especially once they realize it isn't free.

What surprises me is the number of multi-car households that don't have a plug-in. After current tax credits and rebates, they can cost same or less than a comparable ICEV and are far more efficient on total life time ownership cost. But change is hard and scary. Even those with an ICEV in the family for the infrequent trips that require longer range, aren't willing to make the switch.
 
These are among the examples of why climate action is not primarily a deficit in education but a deficit in caring/action.

Most people, as noted on both sides of the aisle, see the gravity of the situation. Then one is asked if (s)he will pay a tiny amount to help the cause. A minority but significant amount say yes. Yet then in practice, only a small amount of these actually pay the few extra bucks. :(

Talk is cheap and hence polls like these grossly overstate what people actually would do. How one stirs more folks to caring about a cause greater than themselves by actions, not words, is the arduous and elusive goal.
 
iPlug said:
These are among the examples of why climate action is not primarily a deficit in education but a deficit in caring/action.
I disagree. These people are clueless how much their current behavior costs and they want to keep it that way. What they do know is that they do not have to pay it today, and they vaguely hope the costs can be dumped on someone else in the future. Their kids, for example.
 
iPlug said:
These are among the examples of why climate action is not primarily a deficit in education but a deficit in caring/action.

Most people, as noted on both sides of the aisle, see the gravity of the situation. Then one is asked if (s)he will pay a tiny amount to help the cause. A minority but significant amount say yes. Yet then in practice, only a small amount of these actually pay the few extra bucks. :(

Talk is cheap and hence polls like these grossly overstate what people actually would do. How one stirs more folks to caring about a cause greater than themselves by actions, not words, is the arduous and elusive goal.

Adding to reluctance is the realization that even if a large number of Americans sacrificed to meet a target, it would have little significance compared to the world-wide production of CO2. Essentially it means cheaper fuel for poorer countries, and they will quite naturally be compelled to utilize it. The world will use as much fossil fuels as the world can use. The only sure way to curb that is to make other forms of energy CLEARLY ECONOMICALLY SUPERIOR. The solution doesn't lie in enforcing austerity but in creating abundance.
 
Nubo said:
Adding to reluctance is the realization that even if a large number of Americans sacrificed to meet a target, it would have little significance compared to the world-wide production of CO2. Essentially it means cheaper fuel for poorer countries, and they will quite naturally be compelled to utilize it. The world will use as much fossil fuels as the world can use. The only sure way to curb that is to make other forms of energy CLEARLY ECONOMICALLY SUPERIOR. The solution doesn't lie in enforcing austerity but in creating abundance.
That is much more an excuse than a reasoned conclusion.
First, the poorer countries use only a small fraction of energy per capita. The USA uses about 25% of the worlds fossils. We cannot ignore our contribution to AGW.
Second, coal is not fungible, and NG only marginally so if export is subsidized.
Third, it is already cheaper for poor countries to adopt clean energy for new generation. See: India
Fourth, the trumpers are your proof that the entire argument is specious: when it became clear that China was going to aggressively counter climate change the message changed from 'What about China !?' to 'China is trying to dominate USA economically by embracing clean energy', AKA the AGW "hoax."
Fifth, so long as we do not have a central Earth government or an enforced treaty, each country has to act responsibly or we end up in a self-defeating circular logic trap -- exactly what the trumpers want.
 
GRA said:
More than half of Americans either strongly or somewhat support the idea of weaning the United States off fossil fuels entirely within 10 years — the central tenet of the Green New Deal — including a third of Republicans and 57% of independents.
...
Currently, about 1 percent of cars sold in the United States in 2017 were electric, according to EVAdoption.com, which tracks the industry. Meanwhile, about 2 percent of U.S. homes had solar installations at the start of 2019, according to the Solar Energy Industry Association. . . .
The first part is pretty comical given the low adoption of EVs. They support it yet aren't willing to do their part. As I complained about at https://priuschat.com/threads/consumer-reports-poll-americans-want-higher-fuel-standards-hybrid-cars.100116/#post-1418435 re: Americans wanting higher fuel economy standards, well, even before any EVs/PHEVs were available, Americans could always buy a fuel efficient vehicle. No need to wait for the govt to raise standards.
DarthPuppy said:
What surprises me is the number of multi-car households that don't have a plug-in. After current tax credits and rebates, they can cost same or less than a comparable ICEV and are far more efficient on total life time ownership cost. But change is hard and scary. Even those with an ICEV in the family for the infrequent trips that require longer range, aren't willing to make the switch.
Outside of CARB emission states, I suspect the problem is lack of marketing and awareness and in some cases, even availability. For the US market, many EVs and some PHEVs are CA or CARB emission states only.

As I posted at https://www.chevybolt.org/forum/9-2017-chevy-bolt-ev-general-discussion-forum/32495-gm-dealership-charging-network-5.html#post507973, there's a guy in Frackville, PA who was somewhat interested in a Bolt yet his Chevy dealer who he's been going to for 32 years isn't interested in carrying them.

I hope he doesn't mind me quoting his post in its entirety:
Speaking of the Chevy Bolt I was just at my local Chevy dealer that I have been going to for 32 years and I asked the owner if he was getting any Bolts. The answer is no as I was the first customer who inquired about one. He did tell me that it will cost him a little over $100,000 investment in the service department. He has to have one service bay, one service tech trained for the Bolt, and various tools and equipment to work on the Bolt. It is the tools and equipment that his holding him back as it would make no sense to buy all that if no one is interested in the vehicle.
He was not surprised that I was the first one to ask about the Bolt. He mentioned it to his wife a few months ago that he bet that when I come in for inspection that I would inquire about one. I told him I would prefer to buy a Bolt for all the local trips I take and just keep my gas guzzling heavy duty pickup for work. I told him it makes no sense to invest $48,000 buying a new pickup and use it for a daily driver anymore. It is cheaper for me to repair and maintain the pickup and invest in the Bolt. He did agree with my thought process on this.
Those that work in the sales department all talked the Bolt down but I suspect that tone will change if the demand started to go up for these vehicles. Heard the various excuses like they like the power and roar on the internal combustion engine when you step on the throttle.
The above was from Sept 2017. I asked him again in Sept 2018 and there was no change.

Also, many states provide little or no cash incentive/rebates or any other incentive (e.g. HOV stickers) to get a BEV or PHEV. Heck, I'm not eligible for the $2500 CVRP because I make too much. I so far have never been eligible for CVRP for one reason or another, but knew that going into it.
 
SageBrush said:
Nubo said:
Adding to reluctance is the realization that even if a large number of Americans sacrificed to meet a target, it would have little significance compared to the world-wide production of CO2. Essentially it means cheaper fuel for poorer countries, and they will quite naturally be compelled to utilize it. The world will use as much fossil fuels as the world can use. The only sure way to curb that is to make other forms of energy CLEARLY ECONOMICALLY SUPERIOR. The solution doesn't lie in enforcing austerity but in creating abundance.
That is much more an excuse than a reasoned conclusion.
First, the poorer countries use only a small fraction of energy per capita. The USA uses about 25% of the worlds fossils. We cannot ignore our contribution to AGW.
Second, coal is not fungible, and NG only marginally so if export is subsidized.
Third, it is already cheaper for poor countries to adopt clean energy for new generation. See: India
Fourth, the trumpers are your proof that the entire argument is specious: when it became clear that China was going to aggressively counter climate change the message changed from 'What about China !?' to 'China is trying to dominate USA economically by embracing clean energy', AKA the AGW "hoax."
Fifth, so long as we do not have a central Earth government or an enforced treaty, each country has to act responsibly or we end up in a self-defeating circular logic trap -- exactly what the trumpers want.

If I'm not mistaken we are shipping millions of tons of coal to China, and looking for ways to deliver more coal to the West coast terminals to meet that demand. Our export of liquified petroleum gas is booming.


I'm not trying to "ignore" our contribution to AGW, but rather look at the nature of fossil fuel use with open eyes. The best way to end it is to make something better. I'm not sure what "Trumpers" want other than to "make Liberal heads explode" and return to the 1950's. Someone should tell them the marginal tax rate was 90% :lol: . The huge investment in research I propose is probably is not on their list.
 
Nubo said:
If I'm not mistaken we are shipping millions of tons of coal to China.
https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/dry-bulk-market-the-case-for-the-us-coal-exports-to-china-trade/

For context, USA mines have a production capacity as of 2017 of about 1000 million short tons and at that time were producing ~ 750 million short tons. The series of coal mine bankruptcies should tell you something about the export business.

LNG is "booming" since it started at ~ zero.
 
SageBrush said:
I disagree. These people are clueless how much their current behavior costs and they want to keep it that way. What they do know is that they do not have to pay it today, and they vaguely hope the costs can be dumped on someone else in the future. Their kids, for example.

I see more agreement here, semantics, perhaps...would argue these aren't mutually exclusive.

As you note, a great many don't know the granular details, not for lack of education, but because that sort of willing or forced digging deeper brings personal responsibility closer to their fore. That's why I don't see much benefit to beating the teaching stick at them after a point. Would like to find how to make them want to care to know the individual behavior costs and care to actually do something tangible about that.

Nubo said:
The world will use as much fossil fuels as the world can use. The only sure way to curb that is to make other forms of energy CLEARLY ECONOMICALLY SUPERIOR. The solution doesn't lie in enforcing austerity but in creating abundance.
I'm a little more optimistic with an all in approach on my side, including taking personal responsibility and having local, regional, and federal governments with the will to "do the right thing" as a large part of the solution.

Statistically some countries are virtually guaranteed to forgo clean energy and continue to pass their external costs on to others. Indeed this is a large and real challenge. For these entities, it is unfortunately true that creating lower cost clean solutions may be the only substantial way to retire fossils from their armaments, speaking only to their internal costs. Unfortunately, a few countries in higher latitudes would actually benefit from many of the AGW climate changes (fossil extraction and exports also happen to be a large percent of their GDP).
 
SageBrush said:
Nubo said:
If I'm not mistaken we are shipping millions of tons of coal to China.
https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/dry-bulk-market-the-case-for-the-us-coal-exports-to-china-trade/

For context, USA mines have a production capacity as of 2017 of about 1000 million short tons and at that time were producing ~ 750 million short tons. The series of coal mine bankruptcies should tell you something about the export business.

My point is that coal IS fungible. The amount exported isn't intrinsically limited, it's a function of port capacity. Coal can also be gasified or converted to liquid fuels. We need to make sure there are more economically sound alternatives.
 
In regard to Nubo's point, one particular place will rise from being one of a few leaders to the main leader in preempting AGW mitigation.

https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/export/rus/all/show/2017/

Among a few reasons:
-remains a primitive economy (except for WMD/military industrial complex tech) with heavy reliance on raw and low tech output as a percent of GDP and exports
-massive fossil fuel reserves
-current and long history of kleptocracy/oligarchy governance
-kleptocracy/oligarchy survival is greatly enhanced by geopolitical instability elsewhere
-climate warming will benefit farming and make for more comfortable winters; as faming output of other countries falls from AGW, they will be able to increase farming productivity to sell to these markets
-a Northeast Passage open more of the year has substantial economic benefits
 
Nubo said:
My point is that coal IS fungible.
I'm skeptical. The cost of transport limits its export potential. I thinkk that is why the lion's share of coal exports are not thermal coal
 
Back
Top