How Do Voters Really Feel About Climate Change Legislation?

VotedWhen the greenhouse gases extension bill seemed to be stalled in the legislature, Gov. Jerry Brown’s Executive Secretary, Nancy McFadden, said that the administration would get its way on the climate change: Either the bill would pass the legislature or the governor would take his agenda to the ballot. He filed papers for a ballot measure committee as a first step.

Now the bill has jumped a difficult hurdle by passing the Assembly. However, new polling by the California Business Roundtable indicates that the voters might not be so supportive of new regulations if they heard a complete explanation of the law’s effects.

Maybe the climate change debate should go to voters.

The greenhouse gases extension bill, SB 32, which would require greenhouse gas levels to be reduced 40% of 1990 levels by 2030, made it out of the Assembly to face fairly clear sailing in the Senate. Expect it to land on the governor’s desk.

There could be a complication because SB 32 is joined to AB 197, which would give more power to the legislature to oversee the California Air Resources Board. An argument is made that AB 197 could undermine the cap-and-trade law, something the governor wants, especially to help fund his financially struggling bullet train.

The Assembly vote came on a day when the latest cap-and-trade auction results were announced and they continue to show poor results. Hanging over the head of the cap-and-trade law is a question of legitimacy. A lawsuit filed by the California Chamber of Commerce and other business interests presently sits with appellate court judges to determine if the cap-and-trade revenue is a tax. If so, the law requires a two-thirds vote, a standard that was not achieved in the legislature.

Business is particularly concerned with the costs to the economy and to workers if the climate change legislation passes. Tom Scott, president of the small business organization, National Federation of Independent Business/California, said after SB 32 passed the Assembly, “SB 32 will make California even more hostile to small businesses, increasing costs and making them less competitive, discouraging growth and expansion across the state.”

The California Business Roundtable poll showed strong support for the first greenhouse gases (GHG) law. By 66% to 18% the 1200 voters surveyed agreed with the goal of reducing GHG by 2020. The extension to 2030 also received strong support, 63% to 21%.

But when asked if voters knew that state regulations to combat global warming would increase the price of gasoline, electricity and groceries, support collapsed to 47%; opposition rose to 46%.

Opposition skied when the question of lost manufacturing jobs was tested. The potential loss of thousands of middle class jobs garnered only 24% support for the climate change regulations, 66% opposed.

Such arguments would be part of a campaign if the issue comes before voters.

The Business Roundtable poll asked who should enact tougher environmental regulations, the legislators or un-elected state bureaucrats. The legislators prevailed 42% to 28%. But the question seems incomplete. Given the poll results, it probably should have included the voters.

This piece was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Comments

  1. And of course, mankind is responsible for only 6% of all “deadly” CO2 emitted. The OTHER 94% comes from nature, mainly sea water reacting with limestone. So we have this trace gas that makes up only .004% of the atmosphere but only 6% 0f this .004% is caused by mankind? So we have .0000234% of all of that atmosphere above us caused by man? And how much, Jerry will the State of California contribute? There aren’t enough zeros on my computer to figure this out. And we need MORE CO2 to increase crop yields not less. But Jerry the Splendid needs his legacy and his choo-choo.

  2. When government seeks to prosecute those opposing man-made global warming, I become skeptical and begin to distrust government.

  3. Alex Franklin says

    So we have the greedy morons in the CA legislature using claims of “climate change” or “global warming” to justify more control over the state residents to support unfounded, pseudoscientific claims. Goodbye California!

  4. Just Vote NO, NO, NO!!!

  5. Rottweiler says

    Watch out for your vote, the progressives sometimes switch it so that a no means “yes”. Be wary of the jackels and hopefully if it passes they will macrophage themselves. They are evil and ruin everything they touch.

  6. Here’s the real science for anyone who wants to read about it, instead of speaking in partial numbers in order to propagate whatever agenda you want. This is the complete science behind number. No bull. Just remember…more deforestation, more factories, and more people add up to the whole number that upsets the balance of absorbtion. Not just people. Please read if you want a real understanding…and leave the politics out of the debate. It is us, People, we with our manmade needs which is contributing to the whole mess in carbon absorbtion. Humans alone don’t do it, but add in what we are doing to live in an industrial society and that hurts the globe. The industry part of it is the key to the whole warming process.
    ****************
    Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. (Everyone can agree on that one) Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year. However, natural CO2 emissions (from the ocean and vegetation) are balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Land plants absorb about 450 gigatonnes of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 338 gigatonnes. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance. Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.
    Land releases 439 GT…Can Absorb 450 GT
    Sea releases 332 GT… Can absorb 338 GT
    Man releases 29 GT… Absorbs 0 GT.
    800 released … 788 absorbed. 12 Gigatonnes extra (numbers are not constant) This seems small but it is a significant number of tons.
    Numbers (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).
    ****************
    About 60% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. (That leaves 40% not being absorbed) The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (I added up the above numbers based off a chart that cannot be copied over) A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

    Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.

    So if you understand the info you will notice…human emissions alone are small, no argument here. But you combine it with everything else and WE have caused this. Now, how do we fix it? What jobs can we create to get us off fossil fuels? Can we create more wind, solar, nuclear, hydroelectric power? Can we re-tool industry in a cost effective manner to keep/create more jobs? Can smoke stacks have scrubbers installed which will help eliminate pollution?

    The over riding question is not about who is to blame…that question is done. The question is now: “can we make effective change to reverse what is happening to our planet with a way that helps businesses retool that will help take them into the 22nd century?” That’s the question now. can we move forward? I think we can.

  7. Here’s the real science for anyone who wants to read about it, instead of speaking in partial numbers in order to propagate whatever agenda you want. This is the complete science behind number. No bull. Just remember…more deforestation, more factories, and more people add up to the whole number that upsets the balance of absorbtion. Not just people. Please read if you want a real understanding…and leave the politics out of the debate. It is us, People, we with our manmade needs which is contributing to the whole mess in carbon absorbtion. Humans alone don’t do it, but add in what we are doing to live in an industrial society and that hurts the globe. The industry part of it is the key to the whole warming process.
    ****************
    Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. (Everyone can agree on that one) Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year. However, natural CO2 emissions (from the ocean and vegetation) are balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Land plants absorb about 450 gigatonnes of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 338 gigatonnes. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance. Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.
    Land releases 439 GT…Can Absorb 450 GT
    Sea releases 332 GT… Can absorb 338 GT
    Man releases 29 GT… Absorbs 0 GT.
    800 released … 788 absorbed. 12 Gigatonnes extra (numbers are not constant) This seems small but it is a significant number of tons.
    Numbers (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).
    ****************
    About 60% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. (That leaves 40% not being absorbed) The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (I added up the above numbers based off a chart that cannot be copied over) A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

    Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.

    So if you understand the info you will notice…human emissions alone are small, no argument here. But you combine it with everything else and WE have caused this. Just admit it and move forward. Now, how do we fix it? What jobs can we create to get us off fossil fuels? Can we create more wind, solar, nuclear, hydroelectric power? Can we re-tool industry in a cost effective manner to keep/create more jobs? Can smoke stacks have scrubbers installed which will help eliminate pollution?

    The over riding question is not about who is to blame…that question is done. The question is now: “can we make effective change to reverse what is happening to our planet with a way that helps businesses retool that will help take them into the 22nd century?” That’s the question now.

  8. They can count on me for a “no” vote for the biggest farce since P.T. Barnum.

  9. Ralph DeVane says

    KC
    what you’re showing is based on computer models, which in the case of climate, can be seriously flawed. Where is the real life evidence of manmade global warming. BTW the overal temperature of the earth hasn’t risen appreciably (some say not at all) in the last 18 years. Logic alone would suggest with all the development taking place around the world, we would have seen measurable increases. How do you explain the “cooking” of the numbers in the “research” of East Anglia University when they didn’t reflect the severity of the problem as presented by the manmade global warming types?

  10. Randy Townsend says

    Irrelevant. The voters gave all the power to the progressives – you get whatever they give you. Protest all you like, it won’t make any difference because the Dims know they will never lose the majority. One party rule – get used to it.

Speak Your Mind

*