> Can you mention a recent time they were polled and make this incredibly clear?
2018 in America, "57 percent of Americans are willing to pay a $1 monthly fee; 23 percent are willing to pay a monthly fee of $40" [1]. 2018 in France, "carbon taxes on petrol and diesel" prompt les gilets jaunes [2]. 2024 in America, "more than half of Americans are unwilling to pay any amount of money to combat climate change" [3].
And then there is the global success of climate-skeptic or outright denialist citing the cost of Paris Agreement compliance.
Not that I like or agree with the data, but thanks for providing some.
I do recall one of the catchphrases that surfaced around les gilets jaunes: "these people are going on about the end of the world while we're just trying to make it to the end of the month".
It's too bad that doesn't prompt deeper reflection about and anger at just who benefits from such a bifurcation of interest.
Right now in Canada the libs are just one no confidence vote away from irrelevance, at least partly because of the carbon tax. It's not a direct poll though, as the liberal politicians are basically the junkest junk that party has ever gotten elected and all the corrupt and/or stupid things they have been up to are all coming to light at once. The carbon tax isn't helping them but it is unclear if it's the major problem for the voters or just one of the very large basket of problems that are becoming obvious.
“We will frack, frack, frack and drill, baby, drill,” Trump said in Detroit on Oct. 18. “I will cut your energy prices in half within 12 months. … Cut them in half within 12 months of taking office. That’s going to bring everything down.”
Ah, so "polling" means "their attitude towards a political candidate who voices a wide range of policy positions, which it may not be reasonable to assume uniform agreement with" ?
This approach to "polling" also appears to ignore the fact that statistically speaking, almost half "the population" made the opposite choice. This makes sweeping statements about "what people want" based on this sort of thing pretty suspect.
Of course, the claim could be true, nevertheless. This sort of "evidence" isn't really very salient, however.
Which is why I mentioned consumers. Voters have made this incredibly clear every time polled: we are not wiling to pay more to reduce emissions.