Voters Unenthused By Obama’s Climate Change Energy Plan

Not quite the outcome Obama expected

(Rasmussen) President Obama earlier this week announcedan even more ambitious plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, but voters see more costs than rewards. The president’s plan will require a 32% drop in carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 2030 and a 28% increase in the amount of power generated by renewable sources by 2025.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the plan will increase energy costs in the United States. Just 17% think it will decrease costs, while 12% say the plan will have no impact on energy costs. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording,click here.)

Unfortunately, I do not have access to the rest of the article, being behind the paywall, for questions two and three, which are

  • Will the plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions do a lot or a little to fight global warming? Or will it have no impact?
  • Should the federal Environmental Protection Agency be able to implement major regulations like this without congressional approval?

No one else has picked up the poll to find the answers, but, it seems pretty clear that the majority of Americans aren’t buying Obama’s talking point that his plan will reduce their power bill by $85 a year. Not that Obama will care. He seems to care more about what the hardcore Iranian regime thinks than average Americans.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

10 Responses to “Voters Unenthused By Obama’s Climate Change Energy Plan”

  1. Dana says:

    Our esteemed host wrote:

    No one else has picked up the poll to find the answers, but, it seems pretty clear that the majority of Americans aren’t buying Obama’s talking point that his plan will reduce their power bill by $85 a year. Not that Obama will care.

    Maybe it’s because they’ve learned, the hard way, what conservatives told them would happen concerning the costs of “free” health care.

    When has anything that the government promised would cost less actually cost less?

  2. johnj says:

    Americans today pay 25% less of their disposable income for energy than they did under Reagan
    Please tell me about the skyrocketing costs with actual facts about how much the cost has increased under obama? Have energy costs adjusted for inflation gone up or down and by how much? Teach when ever you do not provide full info but only scaremongering, what should we think? Under Obama the average cost of residential electricity has gone up about 12% in 6 years. About 2% per year or just about EXACTLY the rate of inflation.
    Yet how often has Teach tried to scare us ?
    Under Bush that increase was more than 100% higher

  3. Liam Thomas says:


    You are once again disseminating misinformation.

    The cost of Electricity has not gone up that drastically under Obama for one reason. Its called a recession, a glut of oil and lower energy prices.

    It has nothing to do with fundamentally changing the market which is what Obama wants to do.

    1. He wants to cut co2 by 32 percent and raise power generated by alternatives by 28 percent.

    2. Alternatives are expensive. Cutting co2 is expensive.

    3. There is no free lunch and comparing the cost of electricity when there is a GLUT OF OIL and NATURAL Gas on the market that is being forced to be replaced by ALTERNATIVES which are expensive is being dishonest and intellectually deceptive.

    Your apples and oranges spin and disinformation adds nothing to the conversation.

  4. drowningpuppies says:

    Maybe ‘tarded johnny can tell us how Obamacare has reduced insurance premiums by an average of $2500 a year.

  5. john says:

    GOP majority led Congress approval holding steady at 16%
    Sort of makes Obama look super popular

  6. Dana says:

    Yet somehow, some way, they keep getting re-elected. Seems like at least some of the voters like them.

  7. jl says:

    John again gets taken to the mat- John again changes the subject.

  8. alanstorm says:

    If the Idiot-in-Chief was proposing to jump-start nuke plants all over the country, I’d back the plan.

    He’s not, so, as usual, he’s full of used food.

    How come those who always want us to be more like Europe never mention how the French get their electricity?

  9. Hoss says:

    What part of “under my plan energy costs will necessarily skyrocket” don’t you understand, John. Boy, you lefties will blow Obama and make excuses for him in even the most humiliating of circumstances.

    And on the 16% approval rating: democrats don’t like congress because it’s republican, and not offering them free shit paid for by the American taxpayer; and, republicans don’t like them because they’re acting like a bunch of pussies. But, it’s still better than the alternative.

  10. Liam Thomas says:

    But, it’s still better than the alternative.

    I hope all Conservatives/libertarians/GOP’ers remember this when the election rolls around for President and they turn out for no matter WHO takes the nomination.

    It is after all better then the alternative of staying home or watching Hillary a communist, Bernie a Socialist/Communist take the reins…

Pirate's Cove