Until recently, the United States and other regions in developed countries have adopted a global policy of expensive “net zero” carbon emissions to combat the so-called adverse effects of climate change. [emphasis, links added]
But President Donald Trump changed everything by ending U.S. commitment to global net zero efforts.
Will today's highly partisan voters support Trump? The latest I&I/TIPP poll data suggests that many voters have high suspicion about the threat of global warming.
Three-quarters of those polled by I&I/Tipp agree on the reasons for “open suspicion of climate change policy”, but only for reasons More than a third of Americans voting age say they “don't trust” information used to sell previous climate change policies.
For a national online poll starting from January 29-31, 1,478 adults were first asked:
“How much do you trust climate change activists and policy makers’ claims?” The margin of error in the poll is +/- 2.6 percentage points.
50% say they are either “complete” (20%) or “some” (30%), but Another 36% say they are “completely” (20%) or “some” (16%) distrust claims filed by climate activists and politicians.
Political affiliation once again plays a role in how voters view this issue.
Democrats say “trust” (67%) about climate change claimsbut Republicans are more skeptical, with 37% answering “trust” while 51% of the majority answering “does not trust”.
Among independents, the answers were in the middle, 47% “trust” and 35% “distrust”.
Trust in climate claims increases with income. Of those earning $30,000 or less per year, “trust” is 46%; for those who earn $30,000 to $50,000 per year, 47%; for those who earn $50,000 to $75,000 per year, 51%; and over $75,000, 63 % of people.
Follow-up questions ask the following:
“What do you think is the main reason for the public’s suspicion about climate change policies?”
These reactions suggest that it really involves people’s public response to the hypothetical threat of climate change.
Among those who responded, 25% cite “lack of clear, transparent scientific data”, 22% responded to “hypocrisy towards leaders and activists”, and 17% agreed” Economic consequences of the proposed policy”, while 8% answered “climate-exaggerated media risk.”
Meanwhile, only 8% say they don’t think there is widespread skepticism about scientific claims about climate change, while 16% say uncertainty.
It's not just about the sentiment about climate change policies, especially the “net zero” policy.
On the one hand, talking about making the world “carbon neutral” possible happening on abstract aircraft by the middle of this century, However, it will have no huge financial and economic consequences in human history.
A recent study by McKinsey Global Institute found:
“Capital expenditure on physical assets of energy and land use systems in the net zero transition between 2021 and 2050 is approximately $27.5 trillion in capital expenditure on physical assets of energy and land use systems in the net zero transition between 2021 and 2050Or the average annual rate is $9.2 trillion, up to $3.5 trillion from today's annual rate. ”
Those who oppose this expenditure think it is a huge expenditure, A person who could make the earth unable to do anything to gain practical proven benefits. If you need to compare, the total global GDP last year was about $1,100 trillion, according to Statista.
With that in mind, supporters say that continuing to rise in temperatures could bring “severe storms, floods, droughts and wildfires” as well as permanent flooding in the current coastal areas.
Americans don't seem to buy this prognosis of doom and melancholy.
Although every natural disaster has guerrillas claiming that this is caused by carbon dioxide produced by airmen, American voters seem to believe that the message they convey through the media, politicians, government bureaucrats and NGOs is distorted by guerrillas, locked in beliefs about the theory of heating where the atmosphere is out of control.
Meanwhile, over the past half a century, repeated predictions of the doom and melancholy of the “experts” of global warming caused by carbon dioxide are astonishing.
Reading questions and insights
