Americans Are Willing To Pay $117 A Year To Stop ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

The Cult of Climastrology members at Vox thing they’re on to something big! (the bold is Vox’s)

Designing a carbon tax requires answering two core policy questions. First, how much money should it raise? And second, how should the money be spent?

As to the first, the CLC proposal starts at $40 a ton and rises $5 a year. As to the second, the revenue goes to dividends, i.e., it is distributed back to citizens on a per-capita basis. (It’s a dividend of roughly $2,000 a year for a family of four, to begin with.) Policies like this are called “tax-and-dividend.”

Is that what the public wants?

It’s funny you should ask. The Yale Program on Climate Change Communication recently completed a large-scale survey of the public on this subject. The results were just published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

Researchers asked a representative sample of 1,226, American adults questions seeking to determine two things. First, how much are Americans willing to pay per year to fight climate change? And second, what would they prefer government do with the revenue?

It’s the answers to the second question I want to highlight, but let’s look at the first really quickly.

How much are Americans will to pay a year to fight climate change? $177.

That’s interesting, since most Warmists haven’t been willing to pay more than a token few dollars nor make more than token changes in their own lives to become more carbon neutral.

Of course, the problem here is that any sort Doing Something will not be $177 a year, or, as the Journal puts it, “We find an overall mean WTP (willingness to pay) of US$177 per year, with a confidence interval ranging from US$101 to US$587.” It will be considerably more. Some have estimates as low as $1200 a year. Some much more. But, none of those truly factor in the rising costs of everything.

Also, notice that the scheme that is growing is one in which the Government reimburses you money for the pain they have caused, attempting to make you more dependent on Government. Which means they control you.

But, hey, Warmists, show us the way. Pony up and show that your truly believe.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to “Americans Are Willing To Pay $117 A Year To Stop ‘Climate Change’ Or Something”

  1. Jeffery says:

    The tEACH is writing fiction:

    most Warmists haven’t been willing to pay more than a token few dollars nor make more than token changes in their own lives to become more carbon neutral.

    Then The tEACH types this:

    the problem here is that any sort Doing Something will not be $177 a year, or, as the Journal puts it, “We find an overall mean WTP (willingness to pay) of US$177 per year, with a confidence interval ranging from US$101 to US$587.” It will be considerably more. Some have estimates as low as $1200 a year. Some much more. But, none of those truly factor in the rising costs of everything.

    We can only assume The tEACH doesn’t understand the basics of market economics. An increase in price exerts economic pressure to purchase less of that commodity, especially if there are alternatives.

  2. If Al Gore, or whomever, sent each American a bill for $117 to fight global warming climate change, 96.87% of those bills would go straight into the garbage, mostly not recycled, just adding more mess to the landfill.

    What the Church of Climatastrophe want is not to send those bills, knowing how Americans would regard them, but to get regulations passed which would incrementally increase costs on everything. Our good, red green Jeffrey calls this ‘market economics,’ without having anything more than a superficial, Economics 101, understanding that the demand for some products is less elastic than for others. Since these infernal regulations would add costs to virtually everything — almost everything we buy has been transported by a diesel-powered truck — the necessary consumption items such as food and clothing would see little impact, but less essential consumer goods would see more.

    Make no mistake about it: if the left get their way, we will see some Americans lose their jobs. That, too, is part of the ‘market economics’ that our good red green Jeffrey wishes to use, to reduce savings for middle class Americans, to reduce real wealth for the working class, to impose more burdens on the poor.

    The left have always been about more government control over individuals, for the good of society in general, don’t you know? When the individual has too much money, and too many free choices, the left react by wishing to confiscate more of that, in higher taxes and fewer consumer options, all for our own good. Если бы они назвали это «Пятилетним планом», они были бы более честными.

  3. Jeffery says:

    dna,

    The Earth is warming unlike at any time in human’s brief history on this planet. We know the cause. We know how to slow the warming. The question is, as always, Do we have the political will to inconvenience ourselves in the short term to make a better life for our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren?

    Although animal altruism is real, it is also basic animal behavior to choose the least expensive (in terms of resources) path forward. Few animals wantonly expend their energy budget accumulating more than they need. Higher fuel costs will induce drivers to cut back on fuel consumption. Higher energy costs will induce individuals, governments and corporations to become more efficient. We recognize there is some inelasticity in the system, and that is why you see policy proposals including prebates or rebates (tax and dividend) for those most affected.

    Our governments, whom we elect, ban, regulate and tax activities and commodities, with the idea of making life better for all, not just the privileged few. We recognized that tobacco was deadly and costing society not just lives but billions of dollars. We regulate and tax tobacco and the use has plummeted. The tobacco companies fought this for decades but were finally forced to concede. Do you think the efforts against tobacco companies were merely political grandstanding or was some good accomplished by reducing youth smoking? (BTW, some 150,000+ Americans still die each year from lung cancer).

    Many of the same lobbyists and “scientists” who fought against tobacco regulations are now fighting against CO2 regulations.

    It is the global warming denier side that is making the claims of catastrophe, e.g., that a $40/ton carbon tax will decimate the world’s economy, causing people into caves, as we gradually transition from dangerous fossil fuels to less dangerous alternative energy sources.

    We get it. You object not to science (although you won’t yet admit it), you object to the solutions. You claim that the science of global warming is a hoax; you claim the objectives of those that understand the seriousness of the issue is world domination; we understand that you do not want to be bothered – if it’s a real problem let future generations handle it.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Zero proof that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

      Zero CO2 warming signature in any reliable temperature data set.

      Zero, nada, zilch.

    • Dana says:

      Jeffrey’s comment can be summed up by just one of his sentences:

      The question is, as always, Do we have the political will to inconvenience ourselves in the short term to make a better life for our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren?

      Who is “we,” Kimosabe?

      Of course, individuals have very frequently sacrificed and inconvenienced themselves to make better lives for their children, something the Democrats loathe and want to curtain by using an absurd inheritance tax. However, while some have made those sacrifices, others clearly have chosen otherwise, and decided to expend their resources on themselves alone. That’s freedom, something which the left find appalling.

      What our esteemed host’s pet socialist wants is not for individuals to sacrifice and inconvenience themselves for their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, but to force everyone to do so, to determine everyone else’s behavior by the standards he sets for them as good.

      I have absotively, posilutely no objection, no objection at all, if you wish to disconnect all of your electronic devices, give up your shoes and ride a thirty-year-old Schwinn to work every day. If that’s what you think is necessary, go for it, lead by example.

      After all, if you (plural) are right, why the light of your brilliance and nobility of your cause will shine through, and your wonderful example will persuade so many others to follow your lead, that the resistance of us few rednecks won’t matter.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10002 access attempts in the last 7 days.