That's what the charts in the link show.
An overwhelming majority of people *believe in climate change and think it's a serious threat to humanity* and *say their government should do more to tackle climate change*.
But only a much lower majority *support policies to tackle climate change* or *would be willing to contribute at least 1% of their income to tackle climate change*. Meaning there's a lot of people who agree it's a huge problem, but think the government should magically deal with it without implementing any policies or impacting income.
There's still a majority that's willing to do something about it.
Why support policies that chip away at our income when we can support policies that [make most of us better off right now](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/household-impact-study/)?
Isn't this exactly what canada has? Despite the fact that most average households get more money back from it, the opposition party is blaming it for every economic woe we're experiencing and most people are blindly eating it up since they need something simplistic to blame all their problems on. It'll most likely be repealed when the next government comes into power.
I was going to say the same thing. We did it. Everyone hates it. Even the liberals politicized it by exempting heating oil to buy votes in Atlantic Canada. People suck.
To be fair I’ve had three interactions where people just haven’t read all the exemptions and actual policy of the the carbon tax (namely the farmer exemption) I’m half convinced that is Russian bot farms misleading Canadians 😅 (it’s just crazy that it has been since 2019 and people still don’t know how the carbon tax works 🙃)
People still don’t know how income tax works. It’s not because the information isn’t extremely easy to lookup or because it requires more than a 4th grade understanding of math. It’s because people suck.
The Canadian Parliamentary Budget Officer has looked at the ”carbon tax” and found that 80% of households come out ahead in terms of direct impacts, but only 40% come out ahead once you factor in indirect costs.
Of course the report does not look at the indirect costs of not doing anything, or of the alternatives like cap and trade or direct legislation.
I trust you, but can you link the source? Because I have a [source](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/carbon-tax-inflation-tiff-macklem-calgary-1.6960189) that claims that the indirect costs add at most 0.05% to it's inflationary impact, going from 0.15% to 0.2% overall, and that's in Ontario where it's the worst.
Judging by those numbers, I don't see how such a miniscule and negligible increase would halve the amount of households breaking even on the tax.
This is the report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer: https://distribution-a617274656661637473.pbo-dpb.ca/7590f619bb5d3b769ce09bdbc7c1ccce75ccd8b1bcfb506fc601a2409640bfdd
If you look at appendix A, you can see the expected direct fiscal impact and expected fiscal and economic impacts for different household income quintiles for each affected province.
From the document:
> Our estimate of the economic impact captures the loss in employment and investment income that would result from the federal fuel charge. (footnote 10)
>Differential impacts on the returns to capital and wages, combined with differences in the distribution of employment and investment income drive the variation in household net costs across provinces. When the economic impact is combined with the fiscal impact, the net cost increases for all households, reflecting the overall negative economic impact
Footnote 10 then says:
> The national and sectoral estimates of the economic impact of the federal fuel charge rising to $170 per tonne, relative to a scenario without the fuel charge, are
unchanged from our March 2022 report (see Table 3-1).
> Following our March 2022 report, we used Statistics Canada’s microsimulation model SPSD/M to allocate the impact on employment and investment incomes to households in the seven provinces where federal fuel charge applies. The assumptions and calculations underlying the SPSD/M simulation results were prepared by PBO analysts; the responsibility for the use and interpretation of these data is entirely that of PBO analysts.
The document does say that it explicitly " does not attempt to account for the economic and environmental costs of climate change", so there is no attempt to price what happens if we do nothing.
Interesting, the effects on investments and whatnot were not something I considered, but that makes sense. However where does it corroborate your claim that these indirect costs halve the amount of households breaking even? And where in that report does it list this impact in actual numbers? All I can see is that it says "the net cost increases for all households" without specifying how much. Part of me again thinks that this is actually a miniscule increase and doesn't affect much.
There’s just no trust in people doing the right thing. We were on board when climate change first came out but no matter how much money we give, these corporations give way more to combat it. The average person is busy with other things on their mind, but corporations are dead focused on that one topic. Greed seems to always win
This kind of thinking is exactly what I'm talking about. "The average person like me shouldn't have to do anything, it's all the corporations' fault." You are responsible for your own actions and how you spend your money.
Corporations don't exist in a vacuum. If people stop buying their products and investing money in them, they die. Things like driving less or switching to low-emissions heating sources are a hassle and can cost more, so a lot of people don't do it. But the more people do it, the less oil and gas companies produce and the more corporate emissions decrease.
If you're going to prioritize convenience and cost over emissions, it's hypocritical to think others, including corporations, shouldn't do the same.
I bet your $1 to my $1000 that any congress that added a deduction to American paystubs that read *climate change mitigation* would find themselves out of office.
1. [**GOT(C)V**](https://www.environmentalvoter.org/get-involved), in *[every](https://www.vote.org/election-reminders/)* election. People who prioritize climate change and the environment [have historically not been very reliable voters, which explains much of the lackadaisical response of lawmakers](https://www.environmentalvoter.org/news/millions-environmentalists-are-registered-vote-us-dont-what-if-they-did), and many Americans don't realize we should be voting (on average) [in 3-4 elections per year](https://www.environmentalvoter.org/news/millions-environmentalists-are-registered-vote-us-dont-what-if-they-did). [According to researchers](https://web.archive.org/web/20210813112459/https://academictimes.com/single-issue-voters-may-drive-senators-away-from-majority-opinion/), voters focused on environmental policy are particularly influential because they represent a group that senators can win over, often without alienating an equally well-organized, hyper-focused opposition. Even if you don't like any of the candidates or live in a 'safe' district, [**whether or not you vote is a matter of public record**](https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/april-may-june-2018/planet-earth-gets-a-ground-game/), and **[it's fairly easy to figure out if you care about the environment or climate change](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCL1luiOM7U&t=2m53s)**. Politicians [use this information](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00357.x) to prioritize agendas. Voting in every election, even the minor ones, [will raise the profile and power of your values](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCL1luiOM7U&t=2m53s). If you don't [vote](https://voteclimatepac.org/voters-guide/), you and your values can safely be ignored.
2. [**Lobby**](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=Online-002&utm_source=Online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002), at *every* [lever of political will](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/about-ccl/levers-of-political-will/). Lobbying [works](https://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-abstract/21/2/213/83011/Friends-or-Foes-How-Social-Movement-Allies-Affect), and you [don't need a lot of money to be effective](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=59ae20453868315c342de525cdf597cb96f02cb5) (though it does help to [educate yourself on effective tactics](http://www.congressfoundation.org/storage/documents/CMF_Pubs/cmf-citizen-centric-advocacy.pdf)). According to NASA climatologist [James Hansen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen), becoming an active volunteer with [this group](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=Online-002&utm_source=Online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002) is the [most important thing an individual can do on climate change](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4DAW1A6Ca8). If you're too busy to go through the [free training](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/new-member/#climateadvocatetraining), sign up for [text alerts](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/text-alerts/) to call regularly ([it works](http://www.congressfoundation.org/storage/documents/CMF_Pubs/cmf-citizen-centric-advocacy.pdf), and [the movement is growing](https://np.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/s2zvpl/a_growing_number_of_americans_are_so_concerned/)) or set yourself a monthly reminder to [write a letter](https://www.ted.com/talks/omar_ahmad_political_change_with_pen_and_paper?language=en) to your elected officials. Numbers [matter](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/ticd9x/the_eicda_carbon_tax_dividend_bill_got_its_96th/) so your support can really make a difference.
Yeah I'd say people "care" because caring is free. Ask how many people are willing to make the slightest lifestyle change - which would have to be through government policy.
Almost everyone knows the federal deficit is a problem but no one wants to be the one to pay more taxes or give up a public service that affects them.
Individual actions aren’t the solution anyways. This poll just shows how removed the thoughts/opinions of the public are from our political institutions
Edit: I just want to clarify that the individual actions Im talking about are like taking the bus once a week or using a reusable bag. I still try to do stuff like that sometimes but the real solutions are political solutions. For sure individuals can support these changes. As some have mentioned supporting a carbon tax, writing congresss etc are positive things. I’d also add refusing to support any politician who takes fossil fuel money and pushing to repeal citizens United as important measures.
[Over 90% of members of Congress are swayed by contact from constituents](https://web.archive.org/web/20230607100615/https://www.congressfoundation.org/projects/communicating-with-congress/citizen-centric-advocacy-2017).
[Americans tend to overestimate how many people in the U.S. have urged an elected official to take action to reduce global warming.](https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/global-warming-activism-november-2019.pdf)
Contact from constituents [works](https://escholarship.org/content/qt7sk23908/qt7sk23908.pdf).
[Write your lawmakers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/price-carbon/)
Individuals aren't voting for politicians who care about climate change. Individuals are "concerned" about climate change but climate change is pretty far down the list of priorities for most individuals.
THis is the most recent thing I could find from 2022: [https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/02/16/publics-top-priority-for-2022-strengthening-the-nations-economy/](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/02/16/publics-top-priority-for-2022-strengthening-the-nations-economy/) look how far down climate change is.
[Americans who prioritize climate or the environment have historically been less likely to vote than the average American.](https://www.environmentalvoter.org/sites/default/files/2017-impact-report.pdf)
[That is slowly changing](https://www.environmentalvoter.org/results).
except individual actions are extremely important. if your not prepared to make sacrifices then they won't be made. it's not like it isn't each individuals fault. and sure yes there are many things individuals can't change, those are certainly political issues. but if everyone ate less meat and drove cars less and got solar panels it would make a huge difference. many people just don't believe their actions are actually causing a problem
Supporting measure like Carbon Tax, that would have an impact would be a bare minimal on a collective scale; yet such measure is never gaining any relevant support
A [growing proportion of global emissions are covered by a carbon price, including at rates that actually matter](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/12fvo4p/a_growing_proportion_of_global_emissions_are/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). We need [more volunteers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=Online-002&utm_source=Online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002) around the world acting to increase the [magnitude](https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/S201000781840002X), [breadth](ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/cbo/CBO_C13netz.pdf), and [likelihood of passage](https://escholarship.org/content/qt7sk23908/qt7sk23908.pdf) of carbon pricing. The [evidence clearly shows](https://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-abstract/21/2/213/83011/Friends-or-Foes-How-Social-Movement-Allies-Affect) that [lobbying works](https://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-abstract/21/2/213/83011/Friends-or-Foes-How-Social-Movement-Allies-Affect), and [climate policy is ridiculously popular](https://www.carbonbrief.org/interview-why-global-support-for-climate-action-is-systematically-underestimated/).
It's corporate back lobbying that owns the whole thing and the corporations only paint a fake veneer to act as if they care. Most sustainability projects have been to sustain their profits in the hardship they even recognize us coming. But it seems to be that they all operate on the old Chinese proverb of "a crisis is an opportunity riding a dangerous wind."
People tend to think that lobbying is about money, but [there's more to it than that](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?amp;rep=rep1&type=pdf&doi=10.1.1.1016.1967) ([anyone can lobby](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=Online-002&utm_source=Online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002)).
Money buys *access* if you don't already have it, but so does [strength in numbers](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/150nvn9/citizens_climate_lobbys_growth/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), which is why it's so [important](https://escholarship.org/content/qt7sk23908/qt7sk23908.pdf) for constituents to [call](https://cclusa.org/w) and [write](https://cclusa.org/write) their members of Congress. Because even for the pro-environment side, [lobbying works](https://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-abstract/21/2/213/83011/Friends-or-Foes-How-Social-Movement-Allies-Affect).
So I have to work 9-5, commute, help wife, participate in community and make time for people around me including kids, take care of myself and on top of that tell my politicians what to do?
Edit: while they fill their pockets from the same corporations they are supposed to fight
Also, see what happened to net neutrality, remember everyone on the Internet screaming their guts out about calling members of congress? Where did that land us hah?
The price of democracy is eternal vigilance.
Fortunately, it can be [really easy](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/price-carbon/) to take action.
Yes, I’m sorry but the only way this gets fixed is via some civic engagement. As we continue to push for better conditions, your life will become more manageable.
Honestly, you should relish the fact that you can impact your politician. For thousands of years, that wasn’t possible for a regular person. Don’t whine bc politics aren’t like DoorDash or Hulu, available on demand and thoughtless.
your telling me i have to contribute to the solution of a problem i want solved? at a time in human history where we have it better than ever before? i couldn't do something like that
Also willing to pay for…. Is the biggest question. Also anyone would say they care about the dogs at an animal shelter … but how many people actually donate money to them?
There is a big gap there…
I was told in 2000 that if we didn’t do something drastic in 10 years in would be too late. We didn’t do anything drastic, so now I don’t really care cause I believed the person who said it would be too late.
Told by whom? Too late for what? This is a defeatist attitude and is silly in the modern context where we have scientific facts you can go and look up in minutes.
so increases in fires, cold snaps, and hurricanes arent enough? whats you're bar of 'drastic'?
also, technology increased a lot since the 2000s. remember all those jokes about the weatherman not being able to predict the weather? been a while since i heard that
well... just by ecology theory, when you reach a new trophic level, it is incredibly difficult to revert things back. not that we cant, but if history is any indication, we have a low success rate. it would be impossible if a keystone species or apex predator were extinct, which is a possibility depending on the adaptability of said species. but of course this depends too, ecologically speaking if pandas or polar bears went extinct, it wouldnt be that bad. if sea otters or salmon (forgot which species is in north america, not an ichthyologist) went extinct...... thats really really bad since it has the potential of collapsing the biodiversity of a whole area within a few years, or even months in some cases
[Where the models have overshot is mostly due to the fact that we have reduced our emissions over what was predicted](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming).
So, we didn't do the drastic things we needed to do, but the other actions we did take bought us a little time (which is now also just about out).
It’s currently too late to avoid 1.5C avg global warming where the climate will start moving to more and more extremes. At the current rate of warming of approx 0.3C a decade that threshold will be hit in about a decade.
It is still possible to limit warming to below 2C at which point the weather shifts will become even more extreme to the point that we will be unable to adapt due to reductions in the capacity to produce food.
So we are too late to avoid some of the effects such as increased deaths from heatweaves, more extensive flooding, longer droughts etc, it is still possible to avoid the worst conditions and that is what we need to aim for at this point.
people have always believed the end time are coming and have always tried to stoke fear for personal benefit. climate change isn't the end times. but it is a extremely big problem that if left unaddressed will negatively effect all of us.
This seems like the reasonable take. But the way people speaks makes me distrust them. If you say the world is going to end and it doesn’t, I feel that you have ulterior motives.
scientists aren't saying the world is ending. media companies are, because saying the world is ending is great for engagement. what scientists are saying is that there will be severe consequences if it is not continued to be addressed
Yes, it's... I care enough to say I care to a polling firm. It's not.... I'm going to work towards reducing my energy consumption by 40% because everyone knows it's someone else's responsbility.
Voluntary action won't cut it and is the wrong thing to focus on. We need [sensible policy changes](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
So you're saying I can't reduce how much I drive because there isn't a policy dictating it?
Don't be absurd OP. Every single person can do something, along with broad policies dictating changes and major changes in industrial regulations.
You are part of the problem.
Having one less child [dwarfs the impact of not having a car](https://scx2.b-cdn.net/gfx/news/hires/2017/themosteffec.jpg). And [policy changes dwarf the impact of having one less child](https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19710653/Screen_Shot_2020_02_10_at_3.47.40_PM.png).
People can do multiple things at once. If I had eight kids and decided not to have a ninth I'm not suddenly some climate superstar. Nor am I a climate superstar for having 12 kids and just waiting on someone to implement policy.
[Population is projected to decline.](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century/)
yes, that's exactly the problem. we need to be encouraging people to have children, not the opposite. declining population is a much bigger issue than climate change for the average person
We live on a planet with finite resources.
Population growth is something [both the public and scientists are worried about](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/08/scientists-more-worried-than-public-about-worlds-growing-population/).
we live on a planet with infinite human resources, which is why growth is unrelated to the use of natural resources. the problem is not if growth slows down as africa and asia develop, it's if it begins to decline. if that happens all around the globe we are completely cooked. it's impossible to have a functional economy and therefore society with more old than young
More people care than you think, but they care much less than you think. 70% of Americans are unwilling to pay $10 a month to fix: [https://www.newsweek.com/majority-americans-unwilling-pay-climate-change-1304048](https://www.newsweek.com/majority-americans-unwilling-pay-climate-change-1304048)
Which explains perfectly why there hasn't been any real political action.
With [the most sensible climate policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) in place, [most Americans would actually pay negative money](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/household-impact-study/).
That first link is pretty cool, but I'm not convinced that we have a policy -> outcome calculation remotely accurate enough to make those claims.
The policy suggestion you call "most sensible" is a $15 per ton tax on CO2 which comes out to about $0.15 per gallon of gas. I am not convinced that action that minimal will have any meaningful impact on the problem.
A [growing proportion of global emissions are covered by a carbon price, including at rates that actually matter](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/12fvo4p/a_growing_proportion_of_global_emissions_are/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). We need [more volunteers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=Online-002&utm_source=Online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002) around the world acting to increase the [magnitude](https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/S201000781840002X), [breadth](ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/cbo/CBO_C13netz.pdf), and [likelihood of passage](https://escholarship.org/content/qt7sk23908/qt7sk23908.pdf) of carbon pricing. The [evidence clearly shows](https://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-abstract/21/2/213/83011/Friends-or-Foes-How-Social-Movement-Allies-Affect) that [lobbying works](https://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-abstract/21/2/213/83011/Friends-or-Foes-How-Social-Movement-Allies-Affect), and [climate policy is ridiculously popular](https://www.carbonbrief.org/interview-why-global-support-for-climate-action-is-systematically-underestimated/).
It's the "rates that actually matter" part that I am skeptical of. The highest carbon price for a major economic zone in that link is 50 ($/ton I assume b/c no units on chart).
That is equivalent to a $20 per bbl increase in the oil price. We already know what a $20 oil price increase does to demand from the open market, and it just isn't very much.
Nuclear only works if it's made national policy, not subject to markets. That's how France has done it. Americans view that as "socialist". Nuclear has never really lived up to its "too cheap to meter" hype, and of course Big Carbon didn't want the competition. Environmentalists have never been the only problem nuclear has.
America social security is socialist. Obamacare is socialist.
Food stamps are socialist.
Police are socialist.
Firefighters are socialist.
America is a mix a socialism, capitalism, and authoritarianism.
Americans only get socialist stuff that benefits the rich.
\#2 most effective on that list is
>Highly reduced methane & other land and industry emissions
I don't have time to deep dive on this right now but I'm going to make a little guess that about half of those methane emissions (leaks) are oil and gas production/transport and the industries tha use natural gas, i.e. power generation, manufacturing, heating. I'm pretty skeptical that almost fully decarbonizing the energy grid (and therefore large parts of industry and transport) will have only a negligible effect on the climate.
You can look at nuclear in particular if you want.
[According to Professor of Nuclear Engineering Dr. Dan Kammen, subsidies for nuclear exceed subsidies for renewables, and even ignoring the risks, the economics are not really there](https://youtu.be/amRS1LxIUyQ?t=34m17s).
Nuclear power's problem isn't the "environmentalists," it's that natural gas is so goddam cheap.
There has been growing public awareness that coal is bad and we need "clean" energy but this only seemed to happen when a different fossil fuel lobby stood to make money off of a cheaper alternative.
[A majority of Republicans support taxing carbon and other climate policies now](https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/ps_2020-06-23_government-and-climate_00-02/), and [moderate Republicans back climate policies by a fairly wide margin](https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/ps_2020-06-23_government-and-climate_00-06/).
Your first link doesn't work anymore, so I have an [archive link](https://web.archive.org/web/20230201005801/https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/ps_2020-06-23_government-and-climate_00-02/). It's described as a carbon tax for corporations in this poll. In the end, when corporations have to pay more, you have to pay more. The moment the prices at gas station rise, political support will sadly drop.
That's not the most reliable policy.
But, [1/5^th of Americans are responsible for 46% of America's dietary emissions](https://www.fcrn.org.uk/research-library/ghg-emissions-and-energy-use-individual-us-diets), so even there, we can do better.
I appreciate the point, but I think part of the reason Americans feel that way is that individual contributions aren’t that impactful. We don’t fund public schools, fire stations, interstates, etc. by optional personal donations - we create large scale policies and then fund them with taxes. Crowdsourcing is not a logical way to address climate change, and that is not lost on people who are asked to participate.
Our government is funded by taxes. The tax money gets spent by elected politicians. The people who vote for those politicians mostly don’t want to spend more on global warming than we’re already spending.
It’s the same phenomenon as teacher salaries. If you poll the question “should teachers get paid more,” most people say yes. But when the question is “are you, personally, willing to pay any additional property taxes so that teachers get paid more?” most people say no. Teacher salaries and benefits are usually paid for by property taxes. So they don’t rise.
It is true that at the end of the day someone is paying for it, but I think when you frame it in terms of this is some extra fee that we are going to add on to you, it's never appealing to anyone. There are very few things people will actually be happy about being put into their taxes.
There's also the fact that taxes don't just come from individuals. They come from corporations, and they can also come from wealthy people who have assets and things that most people don't have. If we want to fund something it doesn't necessarily need to come straight out of Joe Bob's pocket who is working hourly and trying to afford low level rent.
When you reduce these big issues into "oh yeah would you be willing to foot the bill yourself?", it discredits peoples' concerns about these issues while at the same time shielding people in higher levels of power from responsibility for the bigger issues society faces. I don't think it's fair to paint people concerned about climate change as hypocritical and uncommitted to their cause when someone tries to turn this global issue into some fee that this one person should be paying.
Okay, but when you ask voters "do you think more taxpayer money should be used to pay for efforts to combat global warming?" most people say "no."
Usually, the money that governments spend to combat global warming is taxpayer money. That, for example, is where the $369 billion that the Inflation Reduction Act spends on climate change is coming from. And the people who vote for the people who spend that money don't want to spend more of it than we're already spending. So you shouldn't be surprised that more isn't getting spent.
Is you ask me if *I'm* willing to pay $10 to address *my* share of climate change, the answer is no.
If *everyone* has to pay $10/mo to actually fix climate change, sign me up.
Huge difference based on exactly how the question is asked.
[Anyone can lobby](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=Online-002&utm_source=Online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002), and you [don't need a lot of money to be effective](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?amp;rep=rep1&type=pdf&doi=10.1.1.1016.1967)
I'm not surprised by the results of the survey. People don't want to donate because they don't know where, when, or how their money will be used.
This applies to climate change and many other causes as well. The actions needed to reduce climate change are also way more complicated than "throw more money at it". Throwing more money into education(the public school system as an example) hasn't "fixed' it either. Money alone is not enough.
I used [MIT's climate policy simulator](https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=23.2.1) to order its climate policies from least impactful to most impactful. You can see the results [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
I've seen your post before it's very informative. I was commenting more on the newsweek article. It's focused on how much of the public is willing to donate. Addressing climate change is vague reason to donate for those unfamiliar with the solutions.
By throw more money at it I mean asking for donations for any cause leads to people asking why and what for. You see the same worries about money going to administrative salaries instead of directly to the cause. People have also donated to politicians for them to focus on non-climate issues.
A person may not donate $10 if you say it'll go to addressing climate change. That same person would be more willing to donate $10 if you mention how it's going to be used to install heatpumps or electric car chargers in their neighborhood.
Right, I was more pointing out that focusing on effective policies is more insightful than focusing on how much money people are willing to donate. I think we agree.
>Which explains perfectly why there hasn't been any real political action
And precisely why that is the only solution. We aren't going to make the choices necessary to do this on our own. The governments of the world are the only ones capable of acting. Another reason to not be too optimistic about it. It's the Tragedy of the Commons unfortunately.
A [growing proportion of global emissions are covered by a carbon price, including at rates that actually matter](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/12fvo4p/a_growing_proportion_of_global_emissions_are/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). We need [more volunteers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=Online-002&utm_source=Online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002) around the world acting to increase the [magnitude](https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/S201000781840002X), [breadth](ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/cbo/CBO_C13netz.pdf), and [likelihood of passage](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/tonz9h/districts_with_more_ccl_volunteers_have_more/) of carbon pricing. The [evidence clearly shows](https://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-abstract/21/2/213/83011/Friends-or-Foes-How-Social-Movement-Allies-Affect) that [lobbying works](https://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-abstract/21/2/213/83011/Friends-or-Foes-How-Social-Movement-Allies-Affect), and [climate policy is ridiculously popular](https://www.carbonbrief.org/interview-why-global-support-for-climate-action-is-systematically-underestimated/).
Your inept, laughable deflection lets everybody know that you didn't read the original article. Then, when you went back you saw that there were links to external papers, but the papers are too difficult for you to read and so now you're trying to hand-wave with a weak deflection.
Everyone has seen this a million times before.
Then by allll means enlighten me you midwitted cretin. Where does this money go? I read the fucking article there was nothing in there about where it goes. You accuse me of not reading the article yet I have. Then when YOU find out it didnt you mention a bunch of external links to 'other material' where the answer must clearly be right?
Nice try at deflection, but your deflection is *weak*.
A majority of Americans in [each political party](http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Global-Warming-Policy-Politics-March-2018.pdf) and [every Congressional district](https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us/) supports a carbon tax.
[Write your lawmakers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/price-carbon/)!
April is Earth Month, and people care about climate change. Seems like a good time to [write your lawmakers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/price-carbon/) for [actually effective](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) climate policy.
If you want to take it to the next level, ask any friends/family in [northern Utah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah%27s_1st_congressional_district), [central Washington](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington%27s_4th_congressional_district), [southeastern Wisconsin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin%27s_1st_congressional_district), [north Indianapolis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana's_5th_congressional_district), [western Michigan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan's_2nd_congressional_district), [eastern Idaho](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho%27s_2nd_congressional_district), [northern Nevada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada%27s_2nd_congressional_district), [San Bernardino County](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California's_40th_congressional_district), [Omaha-Council Bluffs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska's_2nd_congressional_district), [eastern Oregon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon%27s_2nd_congressional_district), [northeastern Minnesota](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota%27s_8th_congressional_district), [Miami-Dade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida's_27th_congressional_district), [Orange County](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California's_45th_congressional_district), [Cedar Rapids](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa's_2nd_congressional_district), [Harris/Montgomery County](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s_2nd_congressional_district) to also [write their lawmakers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/price-carbon/) and get [sensible climate policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) passed.
Here lies the striking difference between Caring For and Caring About as outlined in the [beautifully worded research paper by Geneva Gay back during the old y2k of 2000.](http://faculty.washington.edu/sunolen/562/GGay%20-%20Power%20of%20caring.pdf)
Used this old paper as a reference back in college and it really is such a direct way of defining so many of today’s problems and the deluge of surface-level activism.
I’m short: “while 'caring about' conveys feelings of concern for one's state of being, 'caring for' is active engagement in doing something to positively affect it.” The paper goes on to outline how participants fulfill that warm feeling of ‘doing the right thing’ through merely ‘caring about’ a cause without actually enacting any change.
In the modern era, this manifests itself as ‘Make a quick social media post and bam, you can clock out’ - next cause!
‘Caring for’ takes dedication, narrow focus and is often a thankless act with little praise and considerable opposition.
I am optimistic that technology will allow us to continue to reduce pollution and improve living standards. Doomer rhetoric and draconian demands by extremist hypocrites only fuel the conspiracies and opposition to any action on the environment no matter how benign
The solution is not tax and ban but innovation and education. Why are we not encouraging telecommutimg? ViRtuAl BaD extremism is a fight we can win today. Many poor folks would love to have a 40mpg car. Why not subsidize that while waiting for evs to become better and cheaper
Instead of trying to make driving too expensive, let's make mass transit better, more expansive, and free to use.
I work for a net zero research company.
Most people care. Many of them have strong feelings about climate change.
... And about what *other people* should do about it. Governments, usually, or large businesses.
And sure, governments and large businesses *should* do something about it. There's absolutely lots of work to be done there, and I'm not saying for a second they aren't important areas.
But it always hits strangely for me when people essentially say: "Yes, climate change is extremely important and we have to do something to stop it. What? Change *my* energy usage habits? Oh god no. It won't make a difference, you need to focus on big businesses, how often I run my dishwasher isn't meaningful at all."
Meanwhile I'm looking at data about how we have 28 million households, using about 2,500kWh a year each, all telling me how meaningless it is to try and reduce their personal usage by ~10%, just washing their hands of the entire idea.
I used [MIT's climate policy simulator](https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=23.2.1) to order its climate policies from least impactful to most impactful. You can see the results [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
People care about it, but it’s not the thing they care about most, prob not even in their top 5 when choosing who to vote for / how to spending their money.
There's a huge chasm between caring about a problem and supporting the policies that are allegedly intended to, let alone plausibly capable of, addressing the problem in a way that doesn't cause more/worse problems.
[A majority of Republicans support taxing carbon and other climate policies now](https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/ps_2020-06-23_government-and-climate_00-02/), and [moderate Republicans back climate policies by a fairly wide margin](https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/ps_2020-06-23_government-and-climate_00-06/).
[Write your lawmakers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/price-carbon/).
People care, nobody wants to take accountability or action though. We’ve pushed saving the world onto a handful of corporations whose main goal it to extract every dollar they can out of this earth until it ceases to exist. We’re heading for ruin, but at least people care about ruin!
I care a great deal about conservationism and disrupted carbon cycles. I also think nearly every proposed solution thus far has been complete BS political power and money grabs.
Thats whats good about cap and trade and carbon pricing, if they want to avoid the tax they can reduce their emissions, and if they dont want to they will have to pay for their emissions.
Ah yes, another bullshit argument. I had the good fortune to be alive back then and no one took it seriously except a small number of fringe dwellers.
Now it is being hauled out as if it was a mainstream scientific theory in order to discredit climate science. Science that was shown to be true by scientists working for Exxon and shell back in the 70's.
There is only one group of people who stand to gain from the continued burning of fossil fuels, and that is people who earn their living from fossil fuels. And they are spending billions every year to protect their profits.
Of all the nonsensical arguments pumped out by the PR firms spending the fossil fuel industry's billions of dollars, this one seems to be the sillyest.
The fossil fuel industry earned several trillion dollars last year. What those seeking to create the solutions to climate change want to do is transfer their profits to someone else, who isn't reducing the ability of the planet to support human life.
But that is a "money grift" because we want to to take away their God given right to tremendous profits.
If this poll is correct then 83% of people will vote for parties with green policies at the next UK election, the current polls suggest the actual number is only 11%.
A perfect illustration of why surveys are worthless. Any scientist worthy of the title knows this. Even economists.
You only ever look at people's actions, ignore what they say.
Well.. yeah, did people think all this green energy being built and EU emissions only lowering was done in spite of the people and not with support of..?
A majority of Americans do not support Biden’s “net zero” by 2050 when the energy secretary told Congress it would cost $225 TRILLION. Where is the money that will fund this coming from, especially now when we have the largest deficit in US history? Taxing the rich more will not even come close to the amount needed. This is unrealistic. Do you really think families that are struggling to make ends meet due in large part to Biden’s economic polices really care about getting to “net zero”? I think not. Biden administration is completely of touch with US taxpayers. Our current grid cannot sustain our energy needs, so adding electric cars is ridiculous, not to mention the carbon footprint that results from building them and the significant wear and tear on our roads due to their weight. Is it any surprise President Trump is beating him in the polls?
Most people care but don’t take action. Most people want big oil companies to be held accountable, but lose their minds if gas goes up 20 cents. Most people know we don’t need to eat animals and that animal agriculture contributes with more emissions than all transportation combined, but won’t even give a chance to plant based burgers.
[There's a lot of untapped potential](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/n25g9v/thats_a_lot_of_untapped_potential/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
[It is for a lot of nonvoters](https://www.environmentalvoter.org/sites/default/files/2017-impact-report.pdf).
https://www.environmentalvoter.org/results
I’m sorry, but I don’t believe those numbers to be accurate. I get those are supposed to be scientific polls, but I can help but think there was a lot of bias involved.
I used [MIT's climate policy simulator](https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=23.2.1) to order its climate policies from least impactful to most impactful. You can see the results [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
personally I’m thawing out from the last ice age the “scientist” told us about in the 70’s
thankfully I’m able to warm up paling all the acid rain that killed everything in the 80’s
[The global cooling consensus was a myth](https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bams2370_1.xml).
[Acid rain we dealt with by enacting smart policies](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7028813/#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20many%20features%20of,the%20city%20of%20Manchester%2C%20England.).
"Care" and "undertaking actions sufficient to mitigate the problem" are two \*VERY\* different things.
That's what the charts in the link show. An overwhelming majority of people *believe in climate change and think it's a serious threat to humanity* and *say their government should do more to tackle climate change*. But only a much lower majority *support policies to tackle climate change* or *would be willing to contribute at least 1% of their income to tackle climate change*. Meaning there's a lot of people who agree it's a huge problem, but think the government should magically deal with it without implementing any policies or impacting income. There's still a majority that's willing to do something about it.
Why support policies that chip away at our income when we can support policies that [make most of us better off right now](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/household-impact-study/)?
A policy proposal that adversely affects the rich people responsible for a disproportionate amount of consumption and emissions?
Yes! It's actually very popular.
Isn't this exactly what canada has? Despite the fact that most average households get more money back from it, the opposition party is blaming it for every economic woe we're experiencing and most people are blindly eating it up since they need something simplistic to blame all their problems on. It'll most likely be repealed when the next government comes into power.
I was going to say the same thing. We did it. Everyone hates it. Even the liberals politicized it by exempting heating oil to buy votes in Atlantic Canada. People suck.
To be fair I’ve had three interactions where people just haven’t read all the exemptions and actual policy of the the carbon tax (namely the farmer exemption) I’m half convinced that is Russian bot farms misleading Canadians 😅 (it’s just crazy that it has been since 2019 and people still don’t know how the carbon tax works 🙃)
People still don’t know how income tax works. It’s not because the information isn’t extremely easy to lookup or because it requires more than a 4th grade understanding of math. It’s because people suck.
Assuming a grade 4 math literacy level in some provinces is a um, aggressive, assumption.
The Canadian Parliamentary Budget Officer has looked at the ”carbon tax” and found that 80% of households come out ahead in terms of direct impacts, but only 40% come out ahead once you factor in indirect costs. Of course the report does not look at the indirect costs of not doing anything, or of the alternatives like cap and trade or direct legislation.
I trust you, but can you link the source? Because I have a [source](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/carbon-tax-inflation-tiff-macklem-calgary-1.6960189) that claims that the indirect costs add at most 0.05% to it's inflationary impact, going from 0.15% to 0.2% overall, and that's in Ontario where it's the worst. Judging by those numbers, I don't see how such a miniscule and negligible increase would halve the amount of households breaking even on the tax.
This is the report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer: https://distribution-a617274656661637473.pbo-dpb.ca/7590f619bb5d3b769ce09bdbc7c1ccce75ccd8b1bcfb506fc601a2409640bfdd If you look at appendix A, you can see the expected direct fiscal impact and expected fiscal and economic impacts for different household income quintiles for each affected province. From the document: > Our estimate of the economic impact captures the loss in employment and investment income that would result from the federal fuel charge. (footnote 10) >Differential impacts on the returns to capital and wages, combined with differences in the distribution of employment and investment income drive the variation in household net costs across provinces. When the economic impact is combined with the fiscal impact, the net cost increases for all households, reflecting the overall negative economic impact Footnote 10 then says: > The national and sectoral estimates of the economic impact of the federal fuel charge rising to $170 per tonne, relative to a scenario without the fuel charge, are unchanged from our March 2022 report (see Table 3-1). > Following our March 2022 report, we used Statistics Canada’s microsimulation model SPSD/M to allocate the impact on employment and investment incomes to households in the seven provinces where federal fuel charge applies. The assumptions and calculations underlying the SPSD/M simulation results were prepared by PBO analysts; the responsibility for the use and interpretation of these data is entirely that of PBO analysts. The document does say that it explicitly " does not attempt to account for the economic and environmental costs of climate change", so there is no attempt to price what happens if we do nothing.
Interesting, the effects on investments and whatnot were not something I considered, but that makes sense. However where does it corroborate your claim that these indirect costs halve the amount of households breaking even? And where in that report does it list this impact in actual numbers? All I can see is that it says "the net cost increases for all households" without specifying how much. Part of me again thinks that this is actually a miniscule increase and doesn't affect much.
Look at the quintiles in the appendix of the document.
"government should magically solve problem but shouldn't take any of MY money, tax the rich or smth" where have i seen this before
There’s just no trust in people doing the right thing. We were on board when climate change first came out but no matter how much money we give, these corporations give way more to combat it. The average person is busy with other things on their mind, but corporations are dead focused on that one topic. Greed seems to always win
As long as corporations are people and money is free speech, corporations will run politics in America.
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one. That gal in Vietnam sentenced to death for fraud is utterly stunning. Imagine that.
This kind of thinking is exactly what I'm talking about. "The average person like me shouldn't have to do anything, it's all the corporations' fault." You are responsible for your own actions and how you spend your money. Corporations don't exist in a vacuum. If people stop buying their products and investing money in them, they die. Things like driving less or switching to low-emissions heating sources are a hassle and can cost more, so a lot of people don't do it. But the more people do it, the less oil and gas companies produce and the more corporate emissions decrease. If you're going to prioritize convenience and cost over emissions, it's hypocritical to think others, including corporations, shouldn't do the same.
I wish it could be that way
I bet your $1 to my $1000 that any congress that added a deduction to American paystubs that read *climate change mitigation* would find themselves out of office.
Yes, because that would be a very unintelligent way to pay for mitigation. Tax emissions, and make polluters pay.
My point being that I don't have much faith that these internet surveys accurately reflect peoples true feelings about this topic.
1. [**GOT(C)V**](https://www.environmentalvoter.org/get-involved), in *[every](https://www.vote.org/election-reminders/)* election. People who prioritize climate change and the environment [have historically not been very reliable voters, which explains much of the lackadaisical response of lawmakers](https://www.environmentalvoter.org/news/millions-environmentalists-are-registered-vote-us-dont-what-if-they-did), and many Americans don't realize we should be voting (on average) [in 3-4 elections per year](https://www.environmentalvoter.org/news/millions-environmentalists-are-registered-vote-us-dont-what-if-they-did). [According to researchers](https://web.archive.org/web/20210813112459/https://academictimes.com/single-issue-voters-may-drive-senators-away-from-majority-opinion/), voters focused on environmental policy are particularly influential because they represent a group that senators can win over, often without alienating an equally well-organized, hyper-focused opposition. Even if you don't like any of the candidates or live in a 'safe' district, [**whether or not you vote is a matter of public record**](https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/april-may-june-2018/planet-earth-gets-a-ground-game/), and **[it's fairly easy to figure out if you care about the environment or climate change](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCL1luiOM7U&t=2m53s)**. Politicians [use this information](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00357.x) to prioritize agendas. Voting in every election, even the minor ones, [will raise the profile and power of your values](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCL1luiOM7U&t=2m53s). If you don't [vote](https://voteclimatepac.org/voters-guide/), you and your values can safely be ignored. 2. [**Lobby**](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=Online-002&utm_source=Online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002), at *every* [lever of political will](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/about-ccl/levers-of-political-will/). Lobbying [works](https://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-abstract/21/2/213/83011/Friends-or-Foes-How-Social-Movement-Allies-Affect), and you [don't need a lot of money to be effective](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=59ae20453868315c342de525cdf597cb96f02cb5) (though it does help to [educate yourself on effective tactics](http://www.congressfoundation.org/storage/documents/CMF_Pubs/cmf-citizen-centric-advocacy.pdf)). According to NASA climatologist [James Hansen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen), becoming an active volunteer with [this group](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=Online-002&utm_source=Online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002) is the [most important thing an individual can do on climate change](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4DAW1A6Ca8). If you're too busy to go through the [free training](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/new-member/#climateadvocatetraining), sign up for [text alerts](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/text-alerts/) to call regularly ([it works](http://www.congressfoundation.org/storage/documents/CMF_Pubs/cmf-citizen-centric-advocacy.pdf), and [the movement is growing](https://np.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/s2zvpl/a_growing_number_of_americans_are_so_concerned/)) or set yourself a monthly reminder to [write a letter](https://www.ted.com/talks/omar_ahmad_political_change_with_pen_and_paper?language=en) to your elected officials. Numbers [matter](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/ticd9x/the_eicda_carbon_tax_dividend_bill_got_its_96th/) so your support can really make a difference.
"I don't give a shit about anything. But I have an opinion on everything." - Girls, HBO
Was that Ray?
Yeah I'd say people "care" because caring is free. Ask how many people are willing to make the slightest lifestyle change - which would have to be through government policy. Almost everyone knows the federal deficit is a problem but no one wants to be the one to pay more taxes or give up a public service that affects them.
Individual actions aren’t the solution anyways. This poll just shows how removed the thoughts/opinions of the public are from our political institutions Edit: I just want to clarify that the individual actions Im talking about are like taking the bus once a week or using a reusable bag. I still try to do stuff like that sometimes but the real solutions are political solutions. For sure individuals can support these changes. As some have mentioned supporting a carbon tax, writing congresss etc are positive things. I’d also add refusing to support any politician who takes fossil fuel money and pushing to repeal citizens United as important measures.
[Over 90% of members of Congress are swayed by contact from constituents](https://web.archive.org/web/20230607100615/https://www.congressfoundation.org/projects/communicating-with-congress/citizen-centric-advocacy-2017). [Americans tend to overestimate how many people in the U.S. have urged an elected official to take action to reduce global warming.](https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/global-warming-activism-november-2019.pdf) Contact from constituents [works](https://escholarship.org/content/qt7sk23908/qt7sk23908.pdf). [Write your lawmakers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/price-carbon/)
The top link is 404’d for me and you only posted this 42 minutes ago. Do you have another link for that or did something happen there?
[Fixed link](https://web.archive.org/web/20230607100615/https://www.congressfoundation.org/projects/communicating-with-congress/citizen-centric-advocacy-2017), thanks.
Individuals aren't voting for politicians who care about climate change. Individuals are "concerned" about climate change but climate change is pretty far down the list of priorities for most individuals. THis is the most recent thing I could find from 2022: [https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/02/16/publics-top-priority-for-2022-strengthening-the-nations-economy/](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/02/16/publics-top-priority-for-2022-strengthening-the-nations-economy/) look how far down climate change is.
[Americans who prioritize climate or the environment have historically been less likely to vote than the average American.](https://www.environmentalvoter.org/sites/default/files/2017-impact-report.pdf) [That is slowly changing](https://www.environmentalvoter.org/results).
except individual actions are extremely important. if your not prepared to make sacrifices then they won't be made. it's not like it isn't each individuals fault. and sure yes there are many things individuals can't change, those are certainly political issues. but if everyone ate less meat and drove cars less and got solar panels it would make a huge difference. many people just don't believe their actions are actually causing a problem
Supporting measure like Carbon Tax, that would have an impact would be a bare minimal on a collective scale; yet such measure is never gaining any relevant support
A [growing proportion of global emissions are covered by a carbon price, including at rates that actually matter](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/12fvo4p/a_growing_proportion_of_global_emissions_are/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). We need [more volunteers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=Online-002&utm_source=Online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002) around the world acting to increase the [magnitude](https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/S201000781840002X), [breadth](ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/cbo/CBO_C13netz.pdf), and [likelihood of passage](https://escholarship.org/content/qt7sk23908/qt7sk23908.pdf) of carbon pricing. The [evidence clearly shows](https://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-abstract/21/2/213/83011/Friends-or-Foes-How-Social-Movement-Allies-Affect) that [lobbying works](https://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-abstract/21/2/213/83011/Friends-or-Foes-How-Social-Movement-Allies-Affect), and [climate policy is ridiculously popular](https://www.carbonbrief.org/interview-why-global-support-for-climate-action-is-systematically-underestimated/).
If only pollution policy would catch on
It's corporate back lobbying that owns the whole thing and the corporations only paint a fake veneer to act as if they care. Most sustainability projects have been to sustain their profits in the hardship they even recognize us coming. But it seems to be that they all operate on the old Chinese proverb of "a crisis is an opportunity riding a dangerous wind."
People tend to think that lobbying is about money, but [there's more to it than that](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?amp;rep=rep1&type=pdf&doi=10.1.1.1016.1967) ([anyone can lobby](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=Online-002&utm_source=Online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002)). Money buys *access* if you don't already have it, but so does [strength in numbers](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/150nvn9/citizens_climate_lobbys_growth/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), which is why it's so [important](https://escholarship.org/content/qt7sk23908/qt7sk23908.pdf) for constituents to [call](https://cclusa.org/w) and [write](https://cclusa.org/write) their members of Congress. Because even for the pro-environment side, [lobbying works](https://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-abstract/21/2/213/83011/Friends-or-Foes-How-Social-Movement-Allies-Affect).
So I have to work 9-5, commute, help wife, participate in community and make time for people around me including kids, take care of myself and on top of that tell my politicians what to do? Edit: while they fill their pockets from the same corporations they are supposed to fight Also, see what happened to net neutrality, remember everyone on the Internet screaming their guts out about calling members of congress? Where did that land us hah?
The price of democracy is eternal vigilance. Fortunately, it can be [really easy](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/price-carbon/) to take action.
Yes, I’m sorry but the only way this gets fixed is via some civic engagement. As we continue to push for better conditions, your life will become more manageable. Honestly, you should relish the fact that you can impact your politician. For thousands of years, that wasn’t possible for a regular person. Don’t whine bc politics aren’t like DoorDash or Hulu, available on demand and thoughtless.
I mean, how else do you expect them to know if they are doing what you want?
your telling me i have to contribute to the solution of a problem i want solved? at a time in human history where we have it better than ever before? i couldn't do something like that
Yup. I guess you find this unfair.
Also willing to pay for…. Is the biggest question. Also anyone would say they care about the dogs at an animal shelter … but how many people actually donate money to them? There is a big gap there…
I was told in 2000 that if we didn’t do something drastic in 10 years in would be too late. We didn’t do anything drastic, so now I don’t really care cause I believed the person who said it would be too late.
Told by whom? Too late for what? This is a defeatist attitude and is silly in the modern context where we have scientific facts you can go and look up in minutes.
[It's real](http://howglobalwarmingworks.org/), [it's us](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/05/natural_anthropogenic_models_narrow.png), [it's bad](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf), [there's hope](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/10-reasons-hopeful-climate-progress/), and [the science is reliable](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming).
so increases in fires, cold snaps, and hurricanes arent enough? whats you're bar of 'drastic'? also, technology increased a lot since the 2000s. remember all those jokes about the weatherman not being able to predict the weather? been a while since i heard that
Not what I said. They said it would be too late to fix things. So I guess we’re fucked or they lied. I believe them so I think we’re fucked.
well... just by ecology theory, when you reach a new trophic level, it is incredibly difficult to revert things back. not that we cant, but if history is any indication, we have a low success rate. it would be impossible if a keystone species or apex predator were extinct, which is a possibility depending on the adaptability of said species. but of course this depends too, ecologically speaking if pandas or polar bears went extinct, it wouldnt be that bad. if sea otters or salmon (forgot which species is in north america, not an ichthyologist) went extinct...... thats really really bad since it has the potential of collapsing the biodiversity of a whole area within a few years, or even months in some cases
[Where the models have overshot is mostly due to the fact that we have reduced our emissions over what was predicted](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming). So, we didn't do the drastic things we needed to do, but the other actions we did take bought us a little time (which is now also just about out).
It’s currently too late to avoid 1.5C avg global warming where the climate will start moving to more and more extremes. At the current rate of warming of approx 0.3C a decade that threshold will be hit in about a decade. It is still possible to limit warming to below 2C at which point the weather shifts will become even more extreme to the point that we will be unable to adapt due to reductions in the capacity to produce food. So we are too late to avoid some of the effects such as increased deaths from heatweaves, more extensive flooding, longer droughts etc, it is still possible to avoid the worst conditions and that is what we need to aim for at this point.
people have always believed the end time are coming and have always tried to stoke fear for personal benefit. climate change isn't the end times. but it is a extremely big problem that if left unaddressed will negatively effect all of us.
This seems like the reasonable take. But the way people speaks makes me distrust them. If you say the world is going to end and it doesn’t, I feel that you have ulterior motives.
scientists aren't saying the world is ending. media companies are, because saying the world is ending is great for engagement. what scientists are saying is that there will be severe consequences if it is not continued to be addressed
Yes, it's... I care enough to say I care to a polling firm. It's not.... I'm going to work towards reducing my energy consumption by 40% because everyone knows it's someone else's responsbility.
Voluntary action won't cut it and is the wrong thing to focus on. We need [sensible policy changes](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
So you're saying I can't reduce how much I drive because there isn't a policy dictating it? Don't be absurd OP. Every single person can do something, along with broad policies dictating changes and major changes in industrial regulations. You are part of the problem.
Having one less child [dwarfs the impact of not having a car](https://scx2.b-cdn.net/gfx/news/hires/2017/themosteffec.jpg). And [policy changes dwarf the impact of having one less child](https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19710653/Screen_Shot_2020_02_10_at_3.47.40_PM.png).
People can do multiple things at once. If I had eight kids and decided not to have a ninth I'm not suddenly some climate superstar. Nor am I a climate superstar for having 12 kids and just waiting on someone to implement policy.
Don't just wait. [Do something](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/price-carbon/).
having one less child (population decline) is a problem far greater for the average person. if the population declines we are omega fucked
[Population is projected to decline.](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century/)
yes, that's exactly the problem. we need to be encouraging people to have children, not the opposite. declining population is a much bigger issue than climate change for the average person
We live on a planet with finite resources. Population growth is something [both the public and scientists are worried about](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/08/scientists-more-worried-than-public-about-worlds-growing-population/).
we live on a planet with infinite human resources, which is why growth is unrelated to the use of natural resources. the problem is not if growth slows down as africa and asia develop, it's if it begins to decline. if that happens all around the globe we are completely cooked. it's impossible to have a functional economy and therefore society with more old than young
Op can't even understand his own post, zpisode 058395
More people care than you think, but they care much less than you think. 70% of Americans are unwilling to pay $10 a month to fix: [https://www.newsweek.com/majority-americans-unwilling-pay-climate-change-1304048](https://www.newsweek.com/majority-americans-unwilling-pay-climate-change-1304048) Which explains perfectly why there hasn't been any real political action.
With [the most sensible climate policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) in place, [most Americans would actually pay negative money](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/household-impact-study/).
That first link is pretty cool, but I'm not convinced that we have a policy -> outcome calculation remotely accurate enough to make those claims. The policy suggestion you call "most sensible" is a $15 per ton tax on CO2 which comes out to about $0.15 per gallon of gas. I am not convinced that action that minimal will have any meaningful impact on the problem.
A [growing proportion of global emissions are covered by a carbon price, including at rates that actually matter](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/12fvo4p/a_growing_proportion_of_global_emissions_are/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). We need [more volunteers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=Online-002&utm_source=Online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002) around the world acting to increase the [magnitude](https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/S201000781840002X), [breadth](ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/cbo/CBO_C13netz.pdf), and [likelihood of passage](https://escholarship.org/content/qt7sk23908/qt7sk23908.pdf) of carbon pricing. The [evidence clearly shows](https://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-abstract/21/2/213/83011/Friends-or-Foes-How-Social-Movement-Allies-Affect) that [lobbying works](https://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-abstract/21/2/213/83011/Friends-or-Foes-How-Social-Movement-Allies-Affect), and [climate policy is ridiculously popular](https://www.carbonbrief.org/interview-why-global-support-for-climate-action-is-systematically-underestimated/).
It's the "rates that actually matter" part that I am skeptical of. The highest carbon price for a major economic zone in that link is 50 ($/ton I assume b/c no units on chart). That is equivalent to a $20 per bbl increase in the oil price. We already know what a $20 oil price increase does to demand from the open market, and it just isn't very much.
[Even small changes can make a big difference over time](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10640-020-00436-x).
[удалено]
It's called nuclear power, and environmentalists have been opposing it for decades.
Nuclear only works if it's made national policy, not subject to markets. That's how France has done it. Americans view that as "socialist". Nuclear has never really lived up to its "too cheap to meter" hype, and of course Big Carbon didn't want the competition. Environmentalists have never been the only problem nuclear has.
America social security is socialist. Obamacare is socialist. Food stamps are socialist. Police are socialist. Firefighters are socialist. America is a mix a socialism, capitalism, and authoritarianism. Americans only get socialist stuff that benefits the rich.
[Meh](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
\#2 most effective on that list is >Highly reduced methane & other land and industry emissions I don't have time to deep dive on this right now but I'm going to make a little guess that about half of those methane emissions (leaks) are oil and gas production/transport and the industries tha use natural gas, i.e. power generation, manufacturing, heating. I'm pretty skeptical that almost fully decarbonizing the energy grid (and therefore large parts of industry and transport) will have only a negligible effect on the climate.
You can look at nuclear in particular if you want. [According to Professor of Nuclear Engineering Dr. Dan Kammen, subsidies for nuclear exceed subsidies for renewables, and even ignoring the risks, the economics are not really there](https://youtu.be/amRS1LxIUyQ?t=34m17s).
Nuclear power's problem isn't the "environmentalists," it's that natural gas is so goddam cheap. There has been growing public awareness that coal is bad and we need "clean" energy but this only seemed to happen when a different fossil fuel lobby stood to make money off of a cheaper alternative.
Yep. Addressing climate change has become impossibly tribal.
[A majority of Republicans support taxing carbon and other climate policies now](https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/ps_2020-06-23_government-and-climate_00-02/), and [moderate Republicans back climate policies by a fairly wide margin](https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/ps_2020-06-23_government-and-climate_00-06/).
Gotta say OP, I love that you are responding to everyone and have sources lmao.
no, it couldn't be? the other side aren't comic book villain cavemen coming for me and my family?
Your first link doesn't work anymore, so I have an [archive link](https://web.archive.org/web/20230201005801/https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/ps_2020-06-23_government-and-climate_00-02/). It's described as a carbon tax for corporations in this poll. In the end, when corporations have to pay more, you have to pay more. The moment the prices at gas station rise, political support will sadly drop.
That's what the dividend check is for. https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/report/assessment-energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act
You’ll lose like 90% of the people when say “reduce meat consumption.”
That's not the most reliable policy. But, [1/5^th of Americans are responsible for 46% of America's dietary emissions](https://www.fcrn.org.uk/research-library/ghg-emissions-and-energy-use-individual-us-diets), so even there, we can do better.
Maybe you're describing corporate media not framing the issue properly in order to maintain profits derived from polluting for free.
I appreciate the point, but I think part of the reason Americans feel that way is that individual contributions aren’t that impactful. We don’t fund public schools, fire stations, interstates, etc. by optional personal donations - we create large scale policies and then fund them with taxes. Crowdsourcing is not a logical way to address climate change, and that is not lost on people who are asked to participate.
Our government is funded by taxes. The tax money gets spent by elected politicians. The people who vote for those politicians mostly don’t want to spend more on global warming than we’re already spending. It’s the same phenomenon as teacher salaries. If you poll the question “should teachers get paid more,” most people say yes. But when the question is “are you, personally, willing to pay any additional property taxes so that teachers get paid more?” most people say no. Teacher salaries and benefits are usually paid for by property taxes. So they don’t rise.
It is true that at the end of the day someone is paying for it, but I think when you frame it in terms of this is some extra fee that we are going to add on to you, it's never appealing to anyone. There are very few things people will actually be happy about being put into their taxes. There's also the fact that taxes don't just come from individuals. They come from corporations, and they can also come from wealthy people who have assets and things that most people don't have. If we want to fund something it doesn't necessarily need to come straight out of Joe Bob's pocket who is working hourly and trying to afford low level rent. When you reduce these big issues into "oh yeah would you be willing to foot the bill yourself?", it discredits peoples' concerns about these issues while at the same time shielding people in higher levels of power from responsibility for the bigger issues society faces. I don't think it's fair to paint people concerned about climate change as hypocritical and uncommitted to their cause when someone tries to turn this global issue into some fee that this one person should be paying.
Okay, but when you ask voters "do you think more taxpayer money should be used to pay for efforts to combat global warming?" most people say "no." Usually, the money that governments spend to combat global warming is taxpayer money. That, for example, is where the $369 billion that the Inflation Reduction Act spends on climate change is coming from. And the people who vote for the people who spend that money don't want to spend more of it than we're already spending. So you shouldn't be surprised that more isn't getting spent.
Is you ask me if *I'm* willing to pay $10 to address *my* share of climate change, the answer is no. If *everyone* has to pay $10/mo to actually fix climate change, sign me up. Huge difference based on exactly how the question is asked.
All of us paying $10 a month still doesn’t have shit on big oil
[Anyone can lobby](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=Online-002&utm_source=Online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002), and you [don't need a lot of money to be effective](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?amp;rep=rep1&type=pdf&doi=10.1.1.1016.1967)
I'm not surprised by the results of the survey. People don't want to donate because they don't know where, when, or how their money will be used. This applies to climate change and many other causes as well. The actions needed to reduce climate change are also way more complicated than "throw more money at it". Throwing more money into education(the public school system as an example) hasn't "fixed' it either. Money alone is not enough.
I used [MIT's climate policy simulator](https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=23.2.1) to order its climate policies from least impactful to most impactful. You can see the results [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
I've seen your post before it's very informative. I was commenting more on the newsweek article. It's focused on how much of the public is willing to donate. Addressing climate change is vague reason to donate for those unfamiliar with the solutions. By throw more money at it I mean asking for donations for any cause leads to people asking why and what for. You see the same worries about money going to administrative salaries instead of directly to the cause. People have also donated to politicians for them to focus on non-climate issues. A person may not donate $10 if you say it'll go to addressing climate change. That same person would be more willing to donate $10 if you mention how it's going to be used to install heatpumps or electric car chargers in their neighborhood.
Right, I was more pointing out that focusing on effective policies is more insightful than focusing on how much money people are willing to donate. I think we agree.
No, they just want their money and not to share
>Which explains perfectly why there hasn't been any real political action And precisely why that is the only solution. We aren't going to make the choices necessary to do this on our own. The governments of the world are the only ones capable of acting. Another reason to not be too optimistic about it. It's the Tragedy of the Commons unfortunately.
A [growing proportion of global emissions are covered by a carbon price, including at rates that actually matter](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/12fvo4p/a_growing_proportion_of_global_emissions_are/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). We need [more volunteers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=Online-002&utm_source=Online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002) around the world acting to increase the [magnitude](https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/S201000781840002X), [breadth](ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/cbo/CBO_C13netz.pdf), and [likelihood of passage](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/tonz9h/districts_with_more_ccl_volunteers_have_more/) of carbon pricing. The [evidence clearly shows](https://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-abstract/21/2/213/83011/Friends-or-Foes-How-Social-Movement-Allies-Affect) that [lobbying works](https://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-abstract/21/2/213/83011/Friends-or-Foes-How-Social-Movement-Allies-Affect), and [climate policy is ridiculously popular](https://www.carbonbrief.org/interview-why-global-support-for-climate-action-is-systematically-underestimated/).
So do they ever explain where that money would go and how it would effectively change anything.?
I think it's just a thought experiment.
Do people who ask questions like this ever read the article to look for the answer?
I did, i didnt see any mention of how that money is spent or where it really goes. Did you?
I don't believe you.
Too bad, I am guessing you didn't though, People who make statements like this never do.
Your inept, laughable deflection lets everybody know that you didn't read the original article. Then, when you went back you saw that there were links to external papers, but the papers are too difficult for you to read and so now you're trying to hand-wave with a weak deflection. Everyone has seen this a million times before.
Then by allll means enlighten me you midwitted cretin. Where does this money go? I read the fucking article there was nothing in there about where it goes. You accuse me of not reading the article yet I have. Then when YOU find out it didnt you mention a bunch of external links to 'other material' where the answer must clearly be right? Nice try at deflection, but your deflection is *weak*.
Your poor spelling is the cherry on top, thanks for your bumbling efforts.
How do you spell the word week/weak? You are the one with low effort spelling. Eat my shit.
Yes, but the people in power controlled by corporations do not.
It’s more so that people in power, particularly for one political party, don’t care about it enough or are paid off to not care about it
A majority of Americans in [each political party](http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Global-Warming-Policy-Politics-March-2018.pdf) and [every Congressional district](https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us/) supports a carbon tax. [Write your lawmakers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/price-carbon/)!
Bro I’m too worried about the aliens coming in 400 years to even think about climate change.
A fellow man of culture. Everyone knows environmentalism will just make the planet more hospitable for our conquerers.
[It's real](http://howglobalwarmingworks.org/), [it's us](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/05/natural_anthropogenic_models_narrow.png), [it's bad](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf), [there's hope](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/10-reasons-hopeful-climate-progress/), and [the science is reliable](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming).
People care to a degree but nobody is really willing to change their consumption.
Yet they keep buying pickup trucks and driving like it's a drag race. Caring isn't enough, you have to *do* as well.
April is Earth Month, and people care about climate change. Seems like a good time to [write your lawmakers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/price-carbon/) for [actually effective](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) climate policy. If you want to take it to the next level, ask any friends/family in [northern Utah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah%27s_1st_congressional_district), [central Washington](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington%27s_4th_congressional_district), [southeastern Wisconsin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin%27s_1st_congressional_district), [north Indianapolis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana's_5th_congressional_district), [western Michigan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan's_2nd_congressional_district), [eastern Idaho](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho%27s_2nd_congressional_district), [northern Nevada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada%27s_2nd_congressional_district), [San Bernardino County](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California's_40th_congressional_district), [Omaha-Council Bluffs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska's_2nd_congressional_district), [eastern Oregon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon%27s_2nd_congressional_district), [northeastern Minnesota](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota%27s_8th_congressional_district), [Miami-Dade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida's_27th_congressional_district), [Orange County](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California's_45th_congressional_district), [Cedar Rapids](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa's_2nd_congressional_district), [Harris/Montgomery County](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s_2nd_congressional_district) to also [write their lawmakers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/price-carbon/) and get [sensible climate policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) passed.
Care enough so they accept that their cost of living will increase to fight against it? Highly doubt it.
Here lies the striking difference between Caring For and Caring About as outlined in the [beautifully worded research paper by Geneva Gay back during the old y2k of 2000.](http://faculty.washington.edu/sunolen/562/GGay%20-%20Power%20of%20caring.pdf) Used this old paper as a reference back in college and it really is such a direct way of defining so many of today’s problems and the deluge of surface-level activism. I’m short: “while 'caring about' conveys feelings of concern for one's state of being, 'caring for' is active engagement in doing something to positively affect it.” The paper goes on to outline how participants fulfill that warm feeling of ‘doing the right thing’ through merely ‘caring about’ a cause without actually enacting any change. In the modern era, this manifests itself as ‘Make a quick social media post and bam, you can clock out’ - next cause! ‘Caring for’ takes dedication, narrow focus and is often a thankless act with little praise and considerable opposition.
I am optimistic that technology will allow us to continue to reduce pollution and improve living standards. Doomer rhetoric and draconian demands by extremist hypocrites only fuel the conspiracies and opposition to any action on the environment no matter how benign The solution is not tax and ban but innovation and education. Why are we not encouraging telecommutimg? ViRtuAl BaD extremism is a fight we can win today. Many poor folks would love to have a 40mpg car. Why not subsidize that while waiting for evs to become better and cheaper Instead of trying to make driving too expensive, let's make mass transit better, more expansive, and free to use.
I work for a net zero research company. Most people care. Many of them have strong feelings about climate change. ... And about what *other people* should do about it. Governments, usually, or large businesses. And sure, governments and large businesses *should* do something about it. There's absolutely lots of work to be done there, and I'm not saying for a second they aren't important areas. But it always hits strangely for me when people essentially say: "Yes, climate change is extremely important and we have to do something to stop it. What? Change *my* energy usage habits? Oh god no. It won't make a difference, you need to focus on big businesses, how often I run my dishwasher isn't meaningful at all." Meanwhile I'm looking at data about how we have 28 million households, using about 2,500kWh a year each, all telling me how meaningless it is to try and reduce their personal usage by ~10%, just washing their hands of the entire idea.
I used [MIT's climate policy simulator](https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=23.2.1) to order its climate policies from least impactful to most impactful. You can see the results [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
People care about it, but it’s not the thing they care about most, prob not even in their top 5 when choosing who to vote for / how to spending their money.
fat lot o' good that's doin us.
There's a huge chasm between caring about a problem and supporting the policies that are allegedly intended to, let alone plausibly capable of, addressing the problem in a way that doesn't cause more/worse problems.
[A majority of Republicans support taxing carbon and other climate policies now](https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/ps_2020-06-23_government-and-climate_00-02/), and [moderate Republicans back climate policies by a fairly wide margin](https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/ps_2020-06-23_government-and-climate_00-06/). [Write your lawmakers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/price-carbon/).
People care, nobody wants to take accountability or action though. We’ve pushed saving the world onto a handful of corporations whose main goal it to extract every dollar they can out of this earth until it ceases to exist. We’re heading for ruin, but at least people care about ruin!
If they care so much, why is it still a problem?
People might. If only they could've convinced companies and corporations.
Not enough to do anything about it.
Revealed preferences say that they don't care at all
I care a great deal about conservationism and disrupted carbon cycles. I also think nearly every proposed solution thus far has been complete BS political power and money grabs.
[*Every*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/faq_carbonpricing)?
[удалено]
Thats whats good about cap and trade and carbon pricing, if they want to avoid the tax they can reduce their emissions, and if they dont want to they will have to pay for their emissions.
we all know the big ones will get exceptions to this
I may care. I’m not rushing to turn my house solar or get an electric car. Get real
Could you [write your lawmakers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/get-loud-take-action/price-carbon/)?
Just like in the 70s they were telling you the ice age is coming it's all just to steal money and get an agenda across soon the ignorant will wake up
[That was a myth.](https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bams2370_1.xml)
Ah yes, another bullshit argument. I had the good fortune to be alive back then and no one took it seriously except a small number of fringe dwellers. Now it is being hauled out as if it was a mainstream scientific theory in order to discredit climate science. Science that was shown to be true by scientists working for Exxon and shell back in the 70's. There is only one group of people who stand to gain from the continued burning of fossil fuels, and that is people who earn their living from fossil fuels. And they are spending billions every year to protect their profits.
No one wants to pay for it because it is a money grift for the already rich. It's a greed machine and every one knows it.
Unchecked [climate change is causing wealth redistribution](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/544616/hot-and-violent/).
Of all the nonsensical arguments pumped out by the PR firms spending the fossil fuel industry's billions of dollars, this one seems to be the sillyest. The fossil fuel industry earned several trillion dollars last year. What those seeking to create the solutions to climate change want to do is transfer their profits to someone else, who isn't reducing the ability of the planet to support human life. But that is a "money grift" because we want to to take away their God given right to tremendous profits.
If this poll is correct then 83% of people will vote for parties with green policies at the next UK election, the current polls suggest the actual number is only 11%.
The misinformation operation is working.
Personally it's my number 1 issue, education is number 2 and criminal justice reform is 3
Yet no one is doing a fucking thing about it.
A perfect illustration of why surveys are worthless. Any scientist worthy of the title knows this. Even economists. You only ever look at people's actions, ignore what they say.
Why do so many people presume to know what I think?
Well.. yeah, did people think all this green energy being built and EU emissions only lowering was done in spite of the people and not with support of..?
Care without information is something like stupid. Greta is the big example
A majority of Americans do not support Biden’s “net zero” by 2050 when the energy secretary told Congress it would cost $225 TRILLION. Where is the money that will fund this coming from, especially now when we have the largest deficit in US history? Taxing the rich more will not even come close to the amount needed. This is unrealistic. Do you really think families that are struggling to make ends meet due in large part to Biden’s economic polices really care about getting to “net zero”? I think not. Biden administration is completely of touch with US taxpayers. Our current grid cannot sustain our energy needs, so adding electric cars is ridiculous, not to mention the carbon footprint that results from building them and the significant wear and tear on our roads due to their weight. Is it any surprise President Trump is beating him in the polls?
Most people care but don’t take action. Most people want big oil companies to be held accountable, but lose their minds if gas goes up 20 cents. Most people know we don’t need to eat animals and that animal agriculture contributes with more emissions than all transportation combined, but won’t even give a chance to plant based burgers.
[There's a lot of untapped potential](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/n25g9v/thats_a_lot_of_untapped_potential/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
Most people are single issue voters sadly. And that single issue usually isn’t climate change.
[It is for a lot of nonvoters](https://www.environmentalvoter.org/sites/default/files/2017-impact-report.pdf). https://www.environmentalvoter.org/results
I’m sorry, but I don’t believe those numbers to be accurate. I get those are supposed to be scientific polls, but I can help but think there was a lot of bias involved.
Polls have the innate issue that the people that will do the pole will have an interest in the topic.
Read the OP. There was lots of data.
Ok I’ll stop farting yeesh.
imagine being stupid enough to believe governments can fix an ever changing climate when they can’t fix homelessness or hunger
I used [MIT's climate policy simulator](https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=23.2.1) to order its climate policies from least impactful to most impactful. You can see the results [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/11kzxt9/i_used_mits_climate_policy_simulator_to_order_its/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
personally I’m thawing out from the last ice age the “scientist” told us about in the 70’s thankfully I’m able to warm up paling all the acid rain that killed everything in the 80’s
[The global cooling consensus was a myth](https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bams2370_1.xml). [Acid rain we dealt with by enacting smart policies](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7028813/#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20many%20features%20of,the%20city%20of%20Manchester%2C%20England.).
cool stories