Red States Are Way Ahead of Congress on Global Warming

[homersapien 11,362]

This is exactly why equating money with speech (Citizens United ruling) is harmful to our democracy.

Red States Are Way Ahead of Congress on Global Warming

Congress is more deeply divided today than it has been in the last two decades on a wide range of issues, including global warming. In the Senate, for example, Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe routinely fulminates that it's a hoax, while Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse understands the science and is leading the charge for a carbon tax.

Conventional wisdom says the schism between Inhofe and Whitehouse shouldn't come as a shocker. After all, Oklahoma is a red (i.e. conservative) state, and Rhode Island is blue (i.e. liberal), and elected officials represent the views of their constituents, right?

Wrong.

Despite the polarization on Capitol Hill, Americans in red and blue states agree on quite a lot -- including the need to address global warming -- according to a recently released study sponsored by Voice of the People, a new nonpartisan organization that wants public opinion to play a bigger role in the policy making process.

The study, conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) -- a joint project of the Center on Policy Attitudes and the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy -- analyzed answers to 388 questions from two dozen opinion surveys taken between 2008 and 2013 on a variety of hot-button policy issues. Besides climate change, they included health care, immigration, and U.S. forces in the Middle East. PPC found that a majority or plurality of residents in red congressional districts and states disagreed with their blue district and state counterparts on only 4 percent of the questions, and those mainly pertained to abortion, gun control and gay rights. In two-thirds of the questions, there were no statistically significant differences in their answers.

"Clearly the American people are not the source of polarization and gridlock in Congress," said Steven Kull, PPC's director and Voice of the People's founder and president. "What is the source of this polarization and gridlock? Well, there are a lot of forces that try to influence Congress. You could call it the 'influence industry.' There are lobbyists, there are corporations, there are special interest groups, all trying to influence Congress, pulling Congress in different directions."

Blues and Reds Agree Feds Need to Tackle Global Warming

The PPC study included responses from blue and red districts to 27 questions on climate change and the environment. Given the chasm in Congress on these two interrelated topics, some might find the responses from red districts surprising.

For example, approximately 80 percent of both blue and red district respondents agree that the United States has "a responsibility to take steps to deal with climate change." Majorities in both blue (60.2 percent) and red (55.1 percent) districts also agree that the "government is not doing enough to deal with the problem of climate change."

The poll results also indicate that Americans are prepared to make modest sacrifices to avoid the worst consequences of global warming, which ultimately would cost considerably more. For example, roughly 60 percent of blue and red district respondents are willing to pay as much as $19.50 a month more for energy and other products. And slim majorities -- 54.7 in blue districts and 51.5 percent in red districts -- say "climate change should be given priority even if it causes slower economic growth and loss of jobs."

Survey answers to questions on vehicle fuel economy and carbon emissions suggest that Americans of all political stripes approve of recent Obama administration initiatives, including the new proposed rule to reduce power plant carbon emissions. More than 80 percent of respondents in both blue and red districts "favor [the] federal government requiring automakers to build cars that use less gas." And more than 70 percent "favor [the] federal government lowering the amount of greenhouse gases power plants are allowed to emit."

Furthermore, majorities in both blue and red districts support international efforts. At least 75 percent agree that "limiting climate change is an important goal for U.S. foreign policy," and more than 60 percent say the United States "should participate in a climate change treaty." Finally, majorities in both districts -- 58 percent in blue districts and 54.2 percent in red -- agree that "if less developed countries agree to limit their greenhouse gases, the United States and other developed countries should provide them with substantial aid to help them do so."

Money Talks (and the Koch Brothers Have a Lot of It)

So if blue and red districts largely agree that the government should cut carbon pollution, why are federal lawmakers sitting on their hands?

As Kull pointed out, too often members of Congress seem more concerned about protecting special interests than the public interest. In this case, the special interests are the fossil fuel industries -- coal, oil and natural gas -- and electric utilities, which have collectively lavished more than $324 million on federal candidates, PACs, parties and outside groups over the last 10 years, according to data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, the source for all of the campaign and lobbying stats below.

If nothing else, those contributions buy access, and since 2004, utilities and fossil fuel industries have spent more than $2.6 billion to lobby Capitol Hill. Over that time, Congress has beaten back attempts to put an end to the nearly $5 billion in annual tax breaks and subsidies afforded the oil and gas industry -- and failed to take any substantive action on climate change.

Americans for Prosperity's "No Climate Tax Pledge" campaign illustrates how corporate influence can manifest itself. Four years ago, Charles and David Koch's flagship tea party group began lobbying members of Congress to sign a pledge to "oppose any legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue." Although the pledge technically leaves the door open for a revenue-neutral bill, it is highly unlikely that the 137 representatives and 25 senators who have signed it -- especially the ones who deny the reality of manmade global warming -- would support any climate-related measures.

So who has these legislators' ears?

To keep this analysis manageable, let's confine it to the Senate. Since 2009, utilities and fossil fuel companies have contributed more than $38 million to the 25 senators who have signed the pledge. The top two recipients, Texas' Ted Cruz and Oklahoma's Inhofe, pulled in more than $400,000 and $393,000 respectively.

The biggest donation came from the Koch brothers' coal, oil and gas conglomerate, Koch Industries, which contributed $725,900 to 23 of the 25 senators who signed the pledge. Other significant funding came from the Murray Energy coal company, which doled out $358,650 to 17 signatories; the Southern Co. electric utility, which gave $198,600; Chevron, which contributed $147,750; and ExxonMobil, which provided $139,550.

The Club for Growth, a conservative political action group that disputes mainstream climate science, kicked in another $2.3 million over the same time period to six of the signatories. Nearly 90 percent of the club's contributions went to three senators: Jeff Flake from Arizona, who raked in more than $1 million, and tea party newbies Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio of Florida, who received $705,000 and $363,000 respectively.

The Club for Growth, as it turns out, also has a Koch connection. Between 2008 and 2012, its largest donor was the Center to Protect Patient Rights, a secretive political action group linked to the billionaire brothers. Over that time period, CPPR gave the club $1.15 million -- 20 times more than the group's second-highest donor -- and funneled $15.8 million to Americans for Prosperity.

Rubio Does a 180

Sen. Rubio, who was elected in 2010 after eight years in the Florida Legislature, provides a shining example of how corporate influence can sway a politician.

In 2008, as speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Rubio was a lead sponsor of an omnibus energy bill directing state agencies to develop a cap and trade program for carbon emissions and a standard requiring electric utilities to increase their use of renewable energy. In March of that year, in an interview on the Florida Channel's weekly news show Face to Face, he even voiced support for a carbon tax.

"When Rubio was speaker of the house, he was very committed to clean energy solutions," said Susan Glickman, the Florida director for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. "He clearly understood the threat climate change poses to Florida, and he saw the economic development and technological potential in addressing it."

After Rubio announced a run for the U.S. Senate in May 2009, however, he began to attract funding from major carbon polluters on top of the hundreds of thousands he got from the Club for Growth. ExxonMobil, Chevron, Koch Industries, Murray Energy, Southern Co. and four other energy companies gave him more than $180,000.

He also did an about-face on climate change.

Just a few weeks ago, ABC's This Week aired a lengthy interview with Rubio, who was visiting New Hampshire to explore the possibility of a presidential run. Correspondent Jonathan Karl asked the senator for his take on global warming. Rubio's response was right out of a fossil fuel industry talking points memo.

"I don't know of any era in world history where the climate has been stable," Rubio said. "Climate is always evolving and natural disasters have always existed."

Karl pressed him further. "But let me get this straight," he said. "You do not think that human activity -- the production of CO2 -- has caused warming to our planet?"

"I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it," Rubio responded. "I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy."

Rubio got it backward. According to the federal National Climate Assessment report issued just days before his appearance on the Sunday morning gabfest, it's unchecked global warming that would devastate the economy, especially in his own home state. The report, the third in a series produced by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, provided an overview of the likely consequences of global warming nationwide.

In South Florida, one of the most vulnerable regions in the country to rising sea levels, the consequences are already an everyday reality.

"We've been dealing with the effects of climate change for quite some time," said Broward County Mayor Kristin Jacobs, who attended an East Coast sea level rise conference the Union of Concerned Scientists convened in April 2013. The biggest issue for Jacobs is routine flooding from high tides and heavy rainfalls.

Broward, which includes Fort Lauderdale, joined with Miami-Dade, Monroe and Palm Beach counties to form a compact in January 2010 to coordinate mitigation and adaptation efforts across the region. The compact -- which covers 5.5 million people -- estimates sea levels off the coast will jump another 3 to 7 inches by 2030. That's on top of the 5 to 8 inches Florida has recorded over the last 50 years.

Florida is hardly alone. Americans across the country have been grappling with a range of severe, climate change-related weather events, including prolonged droughts, extreme precipitation, heat waves and, like Florida, coastal flooding. And majorities in both blue and red districts want federal action.

Perhaps it's time for Rubio -- and the other members of Congress who signed the Americans for Prosperity pledge -- to stop genuflecting to the Koch brothers and start listening to their constituents. After all, that's who they're supposed to represent, right?

http://www.huffingto...hp_ref=politics

[Tigermike 3,025]

"according to a recently released study sponsored by Voice of the People, a new nonpartisan organization that wants public opinion to play a bigger role in the policy making process." I don't know for sure but have a feeling that that group isn't quite as nonpartisan as they portray themselves.

[Weegle777 78]

Is this about global warming? Because climate change is a natural thing.

[homersapien 11,362]

"according to a recently released study sponsored by Voice of the People, a new nonpartisan organization that wants public opinion to play a bigger role in the policy making process." I don't know for sure but have a feeling that that group isn't quite as nonpartisan as they portray themselves.

I suppose that's possible. But if the poll was somehow biased, I am sure their counterpart from the right will illuminate it.

[homersapien 11,362]

Is this about global warming? Because climate change is a natural thing.

How about reading the article before commenting on it? Just a suggestion.

[Weegle777 78]

Still can't answer a simple question.

[Kassc22 0]

I read the article. More importantly I read the documents posted to back up that article. It may be that some of the people in the "red states" were republican voters but nothing in the study backs it up. It simply says people within red districts. Just living in a red district doesn't make you a republican voter. My poli sci prof would take great issue with this study. One of the first things we learned in our Public Policy Polling class was how to break down these polls and this one doesn't pass the smell test. Again let me say it may be legit but the fact that its missing a breakdown of whether or not the voters were actually dem, rep, or independent as most of these polls will makes it less credible.

[homersapien 11,362]

Still can't answer a simple question.

The article makes it clear what they are referring to. If you need help reading or understanding that part, I will be more than happy to help you with it. (Haven't I always tried to help you understand things you had trouble with in the past?)

But since it's obvious, I suspect you are trying to participate in some sort of gamesmanship. I don't feel obligated to participate in that.

So do you really need help or not?

[Weegle777 78]

Maybe from someone with honor.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Kassc22.....nice response. Some here will be smart asses with you but I think you know that by now.

[homersapien 11,362]

I read the article. More importantly I read the documents posted to back up that article. It may be that some of the people in the "red states" were republican voters but nothing in the study backs it up. It simply says people within red districts. Just living in a red district doesn't make you a republican voter. My poli sci prof would take great issue with this study. One of the first things we learned in our Public Policy Polling class was how to break down these polls and this one doesn't pass the smell test. Again let me say it may be legit but the fact that its missing a breakdown of whether or not the voters were actually dem, rep, or independent as most of these polls will makes it less credible.

If it is a properly randomized sample then it is most certainly comparing red districts to blue districts which is the only claim they make. The point of the article is that our polarized political system is not necessarily representing the actual views of the citizenry.

So the only reason it is "less credible" for the question you raise is because they aren't asking that question.

But thanks for a serious response.

[homersapien 11,362]

Maybe from someone with honor.

Well if Kass qualifies as someone with "honor" in your mind, ask him. At least he read it.

How about it Kass? Help Weegle out and explain to him the poll was obviously referring to AGW.

[Kassc22 0]

lol..I'm female..They do not claim that rep voters believe in global warming but that is what is implied by the article. The problem is the data they have published doesn't back it up. I'm not even sure the data could be used to back it up if it exists. The total of surveys were from several different years on different subjects. They were done by different pollsters and the method of questioning was different on each of them. They published the questions used in supporting documents. Not much of it had to do with global warming. There might be a random question here and there. Overall it was an ambitious attempt and unfortunately I don't think it succeeded. If this group wants to become an important entity it would be better off doing its own survey from scratch.

On a personal note I am leaving in just a little while to head to Cancer Treatmen Centers.

They are supposed to give me a definitive diagnosis tomorrow. I was originally told I had stage 4 breast cancer in Feb. The doctors at CTCA disagreed and instead thought the scans taken were bad. I had to wait until last month to get new bone scans and pet scans (too much radiation otherwise). In the meantime I have been taking some very nasty chemotherapy. Those of you who pray I would appreciate you sending some up for me that its not stage 4 and was instead a misdiagnosis. My family has been torn apart by this and its put a lot of stress on my mother especially. Thanks so much.

[Weegle777 78]

Maybe from someone with honor.

Well if Kass qualifies as someone with "honor" in your mind, ask him. At least he read it.

How about it Kass? Help Weegle out and explain to him the poll was obviously referring to AGW.

First you make a racial slur, now you are being sexist assuming Kass is a man. You are off your game.

[homersapien 11,362]

lol..I'm female..They do not claim that rep voters believe in global warming but that is what is implied by the article.

Not exactly.

To be precise, they are claiming the the Republican representatives (who oppose efforts to address AGW) are not representing the people - as a whole - who reside in their districts.

That is what the article is about. What is influencing these politicians is apparently something than the beliefs of the folks in their districts.

Sorry about my assumption about your gender, but for the purposes of this forum, it's not important, at least to me. I appreciate your serious and honest responses. We could use more women like you on the forum.

[Tigermike 3,025]

Praying for you Kassc22

[homersapien 11,362]

Maybe from someone with honor.

Well if Kass qualifies as someone with "honor" in your mind, ask him. At least he read it.

How about it Kass? Help Weegle out and explain to him the poll was obviously referring to AGW.

First you make a racial slur, now you are being sexist assuming Kass is a man. You are off your game.

I am soooooo sorry Weegs!

First I make a joke based on the term "black messiah" (which works only because "black messiah" has appeared so often in this forum) and then I get caught assuming Kass is a man!

I really am off my game.

Who pissed in your cheerios this morning?

[AUtiger98 24]

Steven Kull, Founder and President, worked at the Brookings Institute. Between 2003-2010, 97% of political donations by Brookings Institute employees were made to Democrats. Link

So we have new organization, Voice of the People, start out of the blue. This data is questionable because we can't review it. And the founder worked for a Liberal Think Tank.

The Sheeple will believe every word of this article, but not me.

[Kassc22 0]

I see your point Homer. I didn't read it that way. I tend to overlook the big picture sometimes and become too focused on details. I could see what you are saying and they are saying, but again it depends in my opinion on who they are representing. If the majority of people in their districts are for the belief in global warming, AGW, climate change, whatever its called today, then no they are not representing the views of their constituents. If however, those people reject AGW then they are representing them. If the majority of those people are voting for these representatives you have to infer that either a. they are doing what the majority of voters wish, or b. the voters do not care about this issue enough to use it as an impetus to replace their representative. And thank you for the compliment as I told PT in another thread I try to think before I speak. It may not always work but I do try.

[AUDub 11,147]

Thoughts and prayers Kassc22.

[Tigermike 3,025]

",,,,,or b. the voters do not care about this issue enough to use it as an impetus to replace their representative." I have seen polling that concludes global warming/cooling does not rank high on lists of thing's that are near and dear to the voters heart.

[homersapien 11,362]

I see your point Homer. I didn't read it that way. I tend to overlook the big picture sometimes and become too focused on details. I could see what you are saying and they are saying, but again it depends in my opinion on who they are representing. If the majority of people in their districts are for the belief in global warming, AGW, climate change, whatever its called today, then no they are not representing the views of their constituents.

1) If however, those people reject AGW then they are representing them. If the majority of those people are voting for these representatives you have to infer that either a. they are doing what the majority of voters wish, or b. the voters do not care about this issue enough to use it as an impetus to replace their representative.

2) And thank you for the compliment as I told PT in another thread I try to think before I speak. It may not always work but I do try.

1) Well, the strongest conclusion the article made was that there is a majority agreement in both "red" and "blue" districts accepting AGW as real (at least). Frankly, I don't know if you found enough fault with the polls referenced in the article to say that's clearly false, but a search on the subject (polls on AGW) lead me to believe it's valid.

I have no problem with accepting your "b" premise at all.

2) How very feminine of you! That's exactly why we need you here.

I sure do hope your health issues work out in a positive way. You've already payed a severe price. I'm agnostic but I have been known to pray for people, so consider it done. Please let us know how it goes.

[Tigermike 3,025]

I read your article earlier after which I made the following observation: "according to a recently released study sponsored by Voice of the People, a new nonpartisan organization that wants public opinion to play a bigger role in the policy making process." I don't know for sure but have a feeling that that group isn't quite as nonpartisan as they portray themselves. After reading again and reading all replies, I'm pretty sure I was right in that observation and right to be skeptical of their conclusions.

[homersapien 11,362]

I read your article earlier after which I made the following observation: "according to a recently released study sponsored by Voice of the People, a new nonpartisan organization that wants public opinion to play a bigger role in the policy making process." I don't know for sure but have a feeling that that group isn't quite as nonpartisan as they portray themselves. After reading again and reading all replies, I'm pretty sure I was right in that observation and right to be skeptical of their conclusions.

As I said I don't think their conclusions are a stretch at all.

What in particular are you skeptical of - that a majority of voters in red districts accept AGW as real?

Do you reject the premise that the American people are generally much less polarized that our politics would indicate?

[Tigermike 3,025]

I question the integrity of and the bias of the group and the "unbiased" conclusions of their study / poll. You know as well as anyone there are a lot of new advocacy groups working now with a lot of $$$$ backing them. The only reason for their work is to push their agenda. They start with a conclusion and work toward proving that conclusion. Now if this group is in reality legitimate I will admit it. But I will do a little background research first.