“Americans by 2 to 1 Would Pay More to Curb Climate Change” – Bloomberg, 10 June 2014

One of the arguments against Obama’s Climate Action Plan and the EPA‘s Clean Power Plan proposal is that the added cost of clean energy will weigh heavily on the US’s middle class. However, it seems that Americans are prepared to pay more for energy. Obama and the EPA are currently working together to pass new rules that would reduce emissions by 30 percent by 2030, with a focus on coal-fired power plants.

As reported by the Bloomberg National Poll, 62 percent of Americans are willing to pay more for curbing carbon emissions. Forty-six percent of Republicans are also ready to pay more, as well as 82 percent of Democrats and 60 percent of independents.

There remains a margin of Democrats who aren’t in favor of new carbon emission rules, particularly Democratic Senate candidates who represent coal states like West Virginia and Kentucky. But support is mainly divided on party lines: according to the same Bloomberg poll, 70 percent of Democrats and 51 percent of independents would endorse candidates who are in favor of new climate policy—only 28 percent of Republicans would advocate for such policy.

Developed and Written by Dr. Subodh Das and Tara Mahadevan

June 16, 2014

Phinix LLC

Copyright 2013. All rights Reserved by Phinix, LLC.

www.phinix.net    skdas@phinix.net

Social Share Toolbar

2 thoughts on ““Americans by 2 to 1 Would Pay More to Curb Climate Change” – Bloomberg, 10 June 2014

  1. What is the level of increase that was proposed in the survey? If we use unleaded gasoline as an example, a change from $3.50 to $3.80 average may not cause a large swing in the economy. In Switzerland, the cost of unleaded is $7.63/gallon using current exchange rates. Would the percentage of people willing to pay more be as high if we were to match Switzerland? In 2008 we went from approximately $3.** per gallon to $4.00 per gallon of unleaded. That increase sent our economy into a tail spin. It hurt the middle class, but they were able to reduce retail purchases to continue buying fuel, but low income people became even more desperate. Alternative fuels are interesting and need to be developed, but they are not ready to replace fossil fuels completely. Creating policies that increase energy costs to allow alternative fuels to be price competitive before they are fully developed puts an undue burden on low income households.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>