Another poll shows widespread public support for carbon regulation - how should Democrats proceed?

Question

In a recent poll, a bill was described that would "Limit pollution, invest in domestic energy sources and encourage companies to use and develop clean energy. It would do this in part by charging energy companies for carbon pollution in electricity or fuels like gas."

Basically just what the proposed climate and energy bills being considered by Congress would do. The poll found that 63% of those likely to vote in 2010 supported it with only 29% opposing it. Democrats supported it 81-14%, Independents 63-27%, and even Republicans were pretty evenly split at 45% for vs. 47% against.

57% of respondents were more likely to re-elect a Senator who voted for the bill, 32% more likely if the Senator voted against it, and 61% were less likely to re-elect a Senator who voted to delay action.
http://lcv-ftp.org/LCV/2000cew.pdf

Basically, a significant majority of Americans want a climate and energy bill passed. However, at the moment Democrats aren't sure how to proceed due to a lack of Republican support. They're considering rather than putting forth a comprehensive climate and energy bill, instead doing an energy bill and appending a climate bill. In this case Senators could vote for the energy bill but against the climate bill, making it even less likely that the climate bill would be passed.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/101667-schumer-dems-likely-to-keep-energy-and-climate-measures-separate

Assuming Republicans continue to oppose a comprehensive climate and energy bill, how should Democrats proceed considering this public support? For example, should they put forth a comprehensive bill and force the Republicans to filibuster legislation that the majority of Americans want? Or should they proceed with seperate votes on energy and climate so that at least we get some energy reform, even at the expense of climate reform?

Answer 1

The people definitely support emissions reductions.



Here's the problem for Republicans. Their base, who's moderates left the party over the last few years, has become so extremist and fanatical that choosing to deviate from cult doctrine and support anything resembling carbon pricing will cause tremendous uproar that they are unlikely to make it past any Republican primaries to worry about facing scrutiny from a general electorate for not supporting climate legislation.



A problem for legislators in general (R or D) is that fossil fuel lobbies play a powerful role in shaping agenda, so fossil fuel state "conservodems" have a tendency to oppose carbon pricing.



Then the Senate is set up in such a way that any major legislation needs 60% support (although arguably a lot can be done through reconciliation), or face the filibuster. Cap and trade would get 50 votes today, but not 60.



Another issue is that while most Americans support emissions reductions, it's not the top priority for most. So while a Republican voting for it has to face the fanatical base, most voting against it are probably not going to lose their seat on that one issue.



Such is the nature of long-term problems. No matter how very serious a problem is, if it's not perceived as an imminent threat, the can is likely to be kicked down the road. It's similar to the frog / warm water analogy in the Gore film. The frog doesn't perceive a problem in a slowly warming pot until it's too late.



How Democrats should proceed depends on not only what can be done but whether what is done is an improvement over existing policies. Lieberman-Kerry and Waxman-Markey certainly is. Lugar-Graham? Don't know. Their target is terribly weak and it's not clear if there's any added value. If that's the case, then what's the point of settling for something that won't work? Best to take the lead and have Republicans line up against comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation. The bill will very likely not get 60 votes, but it's worth at least trying, rather than settling for something that will be as effective as a blank piece of paper.

Answer 2

"U.S. gun restrictions have widespread public support - Poll. " The fact that guns are selling at a higher rate then ever before proves that there is wide spread public support for the second amendment. Don't let the propaganda fool you. Think this through before you let your right to bare arms slip through your fingers. These mass killings are mental health problems.. Don't confuse the two and come to the wrong conclusion Remember 911 and the invasion of Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 911 but that didn't stop the propaganda that led to war

Answer 3

Your contention that "Limit pollution, invest in domestic energy sources and encourage companies to use and develop clean energy" is synonomous with belief in AGW is incorrect. If you asked most people if they liked puppies, you would probably get an even larger majority. The fact is that if you ask people honestly if they are willing to be taxed to help pay for unproven technology, increase foreign dependence on oil, and have fewer choices an lesser freedom, the actual truth, you wouldn't even get most democrats to agree. That is why the far left depends on deception.

Answer 4

The question was a follow up to the question about the spill in the Gulf. The answers frame of reference is based on the original question. The poor choice of words are akin to asking "Have you stopped beating your spouse."



This invalids the poll.

Answer 5

Spell out their support for the bill.



And be very strong in framing it as an environmental issue, because their opponents will frame it (are framing it) as a tax issue.



But I don't know enough about US politics to answer the detailed question about one bill or two.

Answer 6

Edit2: I guess I should actually answer this. Well my first reaction is to dissect that question. It is not clear and sounds really nice and fuzzy good. But what does "...in part" mean (i.e. what are the other "parts") and how is charging these companies going to affect me (i.e. how much will you be charging and how much will they charge me in return?).



Something about pouring chocolate sauce on a turd comes to mind.



********************************************

Edit - Dana said - "Your denial of the will of the American people could not be any more transparent."



Yours is quite well disguised since that is what is required to push a far left agenda. BTW, as a middle left, I group you with the far right.