To update Ev Dirksen a trillion here and a trillion there and pretty soon you’re talking about real money. I would hope that this observation by Brad Polumbo at the Foundation for Economic Education would have some resonance:
Americans largely agree that climate change and pollution are real problems. But a new poll reveals that they aren’t interested in shelling out massive amounts from their wallets in pursuit of progressive, big-government “solutions†like the so-called “Green New Deal.â€
After all, the Green New Deal would cost taxpayers up to $93 trillion, a truly astounding sum that comes out to nearly $600,000 per US household. Yet most Americans aren’t even willing to sacrifice $50 a month to mitigate climate change. At least, that’s the finding of newly-released polling from the fiscally-conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).
CEI surveyed a representative sample of 1,200 registered voters on environmental issues, and their findings have a margin of error of 2.83 percent.
A strong majority of respondents said they were somewhat or very concerned about the issue of climate change. However, one of the most interesting follow-up questions was this: “How much of your own money would you be willing to personally spend each month to reduce the impact of climate change?â€
The vast majority of voters were only willing to make very minimal financial sacrifices.
About 35 percent said they wouldn’t be willing to spend anything, with another 15 percent saying they’d only sacrifice $1-$10. Another 6 percent were willing to give up $11-$20, while 5 percent said they’d sacrifice $21-$30. In all, a whopping 75 percent of respondents were not willing to pay more than $50 a month.
What worries me about that isn’t just the enormous size of the bill or the cognitive dissonance involved or even that I don’t believe you can reduce carbon emissions by producing more carbon emissions and building those increasing emissions into the system. It’s my concern that the Democratic leadership are embracing Modern Monetary Theory. It certainly aligns with their predispositions.
All I can say is that positive feedback loops can’t go on forever.
BTW that disconnect between cost and willingness to pay is the reason I think that obtaining more energy from small modular nukes and carbon capture are better strategies than the ones that are being proposed by most proponents of the GND.
Tiresome to hear them once again conflate climate changes with pollution.
We’re all going to pay through price increases and energy taxes for the green new dream and since it looks like the worst is going to happen against our will I only wish I knew how to get in on the con.
Wet my beak, so to speak,
$50
How about walking or riding to school or work? How about turning off electronic devices and reading a book? I remember when all spaces were not air conditioned.
Just a bunch of virtue signaling hypocrites………and not even interested in real solutions like modular nukes. Almost makes you think it has nothing to do with environmentalism…….
Patterns of residence matter. A little more than a century ago the poor lived cheek-by-jowl with the rich for a simple reason: servants needed to live close to their masters. Travelling long distances to go to work was impossible. Rich and poor attended the same public schools, mansions were next door to much more modest accommodations.
I get the feeling utilities and transportation are a bigger share of our budget than for the well heeled heels.
And house servants at least, lived in the unfinished third floor. (No, they were not all black).
Quarters above the garage served for the greens keepers or chauffeur.
” I think that obtaining more energy from small modular nukes and carbon capture are better strategies”
We don’t really have either of those in any real numbers to determine what they cost so we are better off continuing a broader approach. We do know that the costs of wind and solar have been steadily decreasing. That said, it is probably good that we have programs like the one that funded Solyndra since it is also funding R&D on those small nukes.
Steve
and welfare for the rich:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/us-senate-panel-advances-ev-tax-credit-of-up-to-12500