NewEnergyNews More: WILL PAY FOR JOBS, MAYBE FOR CLIMATE

Every day is Earthday.

Some details about NewEnergyNews and the man behind the curtain: Herman K. Trabish, Agua Dulce, CA., Doctor with my hands, Writer with my head, Student of New Energy and Human Experience with my heart

email: herman@NewEnergyNews.net

-------------------

Your intrepid reporter

-------------------

    A tip of the NewEnergyNews cap to Phillip Garcia for crucial assistance in the design implementation of this site. Thanks, Phillip.

-------------------

Pay a visit to the HARRY BOYKOFF page at Basketball Reference, sponsored by NewEnergyNews and Oil In Their Blood.

  • ---------------
  • Wednesday, December 9, 2009

    WILL PAY FOR JOBS, MAYBE FOR CLIMATE

    Poll: We'll pay to avert climate change if it creates jobs
    Steven Thomma, December 9, 2009 (McClatchy Newspapers)

    "…A majority of Americans are willing to pay more for a [climate change] solution only if it would create "green" jobs in the United States, according to a McClatchy-Ipsos poll…Take away the benefit of new jobs, and the willingness to pay a little more on their monthly electric or other bills drops.

    "Just half the country is willing to pay higher prices to cut the emissions of greenhouse gases if it doesn't also create jobs, and that slender support turns into outright opposition if the price rises from $10 a month to $25 a month…"

    click to enlarge

    "A solid majority of Americans, 70 percent, thinks that global warming is real, though a sizable minority, 28 percent, says it isn't…61 percent think that it's happening because of the burning of fossil fuels, while 34 percent say it's mostly a natural phenomenon.

    "Americans are closely divided on the proposed solution pending in Congress, a "cap and trade" system aimed at cutting U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases from smokestacks and tailpipes… 52 percent of Americans support the legislation, which has passed the House of Representatives but is stalled in the Senate. Forty-one percent oppose the measure."


    click to enlarge

    "A solid majority, 69 percent, said they'd support it even if it cost them $10 a month if it created a "significant" number of American jobs. Twenty-nine percent said they'd still oppose the legislation…That majority support dropped to 60 percent if the costs rose to $25 a month, and opposition rose to 36 percent.

    "How much the legislation would cost is a subject of debate among partisans. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said it would cost the average U.S. household $90 a year in lost purchasing power in 2012, rising to $925 a year by 2050…Whether it would create or kill jobs also is heavily debated. The CBO said it would [likely have only a small impact over time]…"

    0 Comments:

    Post a Comment

    Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

    << Home