Climate change and policies in US

Do Americans support policies to address climate change and energy?

Despite the economic crisis, over 90 percent of Americans said that the United States should act to reduce global warming, even if it has economic costs. This included 34 percent that said the U.S. should make a large-scale effort to reduce its emissions, even if it has large economic costs, while another 40 percent said that the U.S. should make a medium-scale effort, even if it has moderate economic costs. Only 9 percent said that the U.S. should make no effort at all to reduce its emissions.

The study also assessed whether the American public agreed with the tenets of the 1997 Byrd-Hagel non-binding Senate Resolution. Just prior to the 1997 Kyoto climate summit, the U.S. Senate passed a non-binding resolutions (95-0) co-sponsored by Senators Robert Byrd (D) of West Virginia and Chuck Hagel (R) of Nebraska, which urged the Clinton administration to not accept any treaty that did not include the "meaningful" participation of all developing as well as industrialized countries, arguing that to do so would unfairly put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage.

Only 7 percent of Americans agreed with the statement "the U.S. should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions only if other industrialized and developing countries (such as China, India, and Brazil) reduce their emissions". By contrast, 67 percent of Americans said "the U.S. should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions regardless of what other countries do." While it is doubtful that most Americans understand the potential economic implications of unilateral action, one interpretation for these results is that many Americans consider this as an issue of individual (country) responsibility. In other words, if the United States is contributing to the problem, it has a responsibility to clean up after itself.

The survey also asked Americans how much they supported or opposed a wide variety of climate change policies, including possible regulations, subsidies, tax incentives, research and development funding, and international treaties. Overall, there was broad-bases, bipartisan support for most policy options, with the notable exception of a higher gas tax. A cap and trade market-based system also received relatively weak support as described further below.

Very large majorities of Americans supported a variety of climate change policies:

• 92 percent said the government should increase funding for research into renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power;
• 85 percent supported tax rebates for people buying energy efficient vehicles or solar panels;
• 80 percent said the government should regulate carbon dioxide (the primary greenhouse gas) as a pollutant;
• 69 percent of Americans said the United States should sign an international treaty that requires the U.S. to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide 90% by the year 2050.

Importantly, large majorities of Americans also said they would support policies that would personally cost them more. For example:

• 79 percent supported a 45 mpg fuel efficiency standard for cars, trucks, and SUVs; even if that meant a new vehicle cost up to $1,000 more to buy;
• 72 percent supported a Renewable Portfolio Standard that required electric utilities to produce at least 20 percent of their electricity from wind, solar, or other renewable energy sources, even if it cost the average household an extra $100 a year;
• 72 percent supported a government subsidy to replace old water heaters, air conditioners, light bulbs, and insulation, even if it cost the average household $5 a month in higher taxes;
• 63 percent supported establishment of a special fund to make buildings more energy efficient and teach Americans how to reduce their energy use, even if this cost the average household $2.50 a month in higher electric bills.

At the time of the survey, nationwide retail gas prices were approximately $ 3.25/gallon and energy had become a major issue in the presidential campaign. Within this context, respondents also supported a variety of other energy policies:

• 75 percent supported the expansion of offshore drilling for oil and natural gas off the U.S. coast;
• 61 percent supported the building of more nuclear power plants;
• 57 percent supported drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge;
• Only 33 percent, however, supported increasing taxes on gasoline by 25 cents per gallon and returning the revenues to taxpayers by reducing the federal income tax.

Finally, there was relatively weak public support for a national cap and trade system, which is one of the major policies currently being considered by the U.S. Congress and supported by President Obama. Only 53 percent of Americans supported the creation of "a new national market that allows companies to buy and sell the right to emit the greenhouse gases said to cause global warming. The federal government would set a national cap on emissions. Each company would then purchase the right to emit a portion of this total amount. If a company then emitted more than its portion, it would have to buy more emission rights from other companies or pay large fines." This proporsal was strongly supported by only 11 percent of Americans, while it was strongly opposed by 23 percent. These results suggest that the public remains uncertain about a cap and trade system to reduce national emissions of carbon dioxide.

VOCABULARY

Assess (verb): To make a judgement about the nature or quality of someone or something.

Tenet (noun): One of the principles or beliefs that a theory or larger set of beliefs is based on (formal).

Binding (adjective): That must be obeyed because it is accepted in law.

Prior to (adjective): Before something (formal).

Summit (noun): An official meeting or series of meetings between the leaders of two or more governments at which the discuss important matters.

Sponsor (verb): To introduce a proposal for a new law, etc. (technical).

Urge (verb): To recommend something strongly.

Treaty (noun): A formal arregement between two or more countries.

Regardless of (preposition): Paying no attention to something or someone; treating something or someone as not being important.

Clean up (idiom): To start behaving in a moral or resposible way.

Survey (noun): An investigation of the opinions, behaviour, etc. of a particular group of people, which is usually done by asking them questions.

Funding (noun): Money for a particular purpose; the act of providing money for such a purpose.

Overall (adverb): Generally; when you consider everything.

Broad-based (adjective): Based on a wide variety of people, things or ideas; not limited.

Bipartisan (adjective): Involving two political parties (written).

Rebate (noun): An amount of money that is paid back to you because you have paid too much.

Pollutant (noun): A substance that pollutes something, especially air and water (formal).

Household (noun): All the people living together in a house.

Light bulb (noun): The glass part that fits into an electric lamp, etc. to give light when it is switched on.

Insulation (noun): The act of protecting something with a material that prevents heat, sound, electricity, etc. from passing through; the materials used for this.

Retail (noun): The selling of goods to the public, usually through shops/stores.

Offshore (adjective): Happening or existing in the sea, not far from the land.

Drill (verb): To make a hole in something, using a tool or machine with a pointed end.

Revenues (noun): The money that a government receives from taxes or that an organization, etc. receives from its business.

SUMMARY

This article is about a survey which shows the preferences of American people towards climate change policies.

Also, it includes the fact of how much they support possible changes in this matter, for instance, possible regulations, subsidies, tax incentives, research and development funding, and international treaties.

Moreover, the survey shows that too many Americans supported a variety of climate change policies including those which would cost more and so on.

Finally, it includes a brief historical description about attempts made by the American government since Bill Clinton's term.

OPINION

I think American people are getting into a real awareness of the dangerous consequences of the Climate Change. Moreover, they don't know enough about federal income taxes that are very important to know because this concern is related to Obama's proposal to create "a new national cap and trade system". I am totally against all those imposed taxes which make people angry because they aren't "legally constitutional".

To sum up, it seems to me that Obama's intention to create new policies in order to face up climate change and all sort of environmental issues is merely a pretext to create new imposed taxes that would give more money to the "Secret Government".