Americans Happy To Pay More For Clean Energy, But Only a Little More 325
Fluffeh writes "A recent study of over 1,000 folks for a paper published in Nature Climate Change has found that the average U.S. citizen is inclined to pay a premium to ensure that by 2035, 80% of U.S. power comes from clean energy. At random, respondents received one of three "technological treatments" or definitions of clean energy that included renewable energy sources alone, renewable sources plus natural gas, and renewable sources plus nuclear power. Delving into the socioeconomics, researchers found that Republicans, Independents, and respondents with no party allegiance were less likely by 25, 13 and 25 percentage points respectively to support a NCES than respondents that identified themselves as Democrats."
true of almost anything altruistic, really (Score:4, Insightful)
You could also say: Americans willing to donate money to the poor, but only a little bit of money.
the irony is (Score:1, Insightful)
The oil industry is heavily subsidized by the US taxpayer via our massive military presence and operations in the Middle East. Exxon-Mobil and Chevron's shareholders don't pay that... taxpayers do.
Do conservatives ever even mention that? No, they don't.
Re:And, of course (Score:5, Insightful)
If you ask McDonalds customers if they'd like to see more salads and healthy choices they'll say, "Yes, of course!"
But ... when McDonalds put them on the menu they keep right on buying burgers and fries.
Moral: People answering surveys tend to idealize.
Re:Excellent! (Score:0, Insightful)
ahhh the new religion of green, what fools and junk science. What a scam and ignorance of the so called nerds on this site. All you have to do is read the data to know its fake. But when its a religion they can say anything and people believe it and put money in the sermon basket. If your greens believe just stop driving and using any electricity and hell stop farting since now the phonies say farts are a factor.
Re:Why isn't renewable cheaper? (Score:4, Insightful)
Photovoltaics have a 30 year 75-80% of new power production lifetime. They last a lot longer than that if you are ok with only getting 50% of rated power.
We use coal for lots of reasons, on of them is that it is artificially cheap since they don't have to pay for waste disposal like everyone else. Nuclear would also be super cheap if you let them dump their waste straight into the air.
Re:the irony is (Score:3, Insightful)
The oil industry is heavily subsidized by the US taxpayer via our massive military presence and operations in the Middle East. Exxon-Mobil and Chevron's shareholders don't pay that... taxpayers do.
Do conservatives ever even mention that? No, they don't.
I think the $0.31 per gallon that I pay should cover it. If not, consider that every single product I buy is transported to the store I bought is also using fuel, which is taxed, which I pay indirectly. Of course, all those products are made from parts, pieces and ingredients that had to be shipped to whoever made that product, which I also paid the tax for. Then, of course, there is my federal income taxes that are also used to fund our military presence in the Middle East and elsewhere, that ensure that I can put gas in my tank which is required to get me to work, my kids to school, and allows my family to have the occasional family outing. You know, actually live free and enjoy that freedom.
Although, it would be better if we could produce our own energy. Then we could tell those in the Middle East to pound sand and let the fund their own militaries. But then you have to find a way around the people protesting that producing our own energy might cause moose to stop fucking. Not that any of these people have ever seen a moose or have bothered to travel to places they have convinced themselves will be completely destroyed. Nor have they bothered to simply do the math and realize that some of these refuges are larger than most states and producing energy from these places would have the environmental impact of building a library in Wisconsin. Of course, they also refuse to consider that environmental impact from our heavily monitored and regulated drilling practices at home are much less than the impact from places that ruled by a prince or king or self appointed leader for life.
No. What these people want is for us to live like farmers from the 1700's, only without wood burning or producing livestock. They want us to grow our own food to share with the bugs and rodents that will decimate our crops and lead us to the brink of starvation. Of course, I need to stress that THEY want US to live that way. They will continue to live in their climate controlled apartments and drive their cars to and fro because they recycle the vitamin water bottles they drink, so they are OK. Is us that is the problem. Not them. /rant
Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really (Score:5, Insightful)
Except if you are a democrat (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html)...
Liberals are only generous with other peoples' money...
Re:true of almost anything altruistic, really (Score:4, Insightful)
I pay extra for "dirty" energy (Score:5, Insightful)
I pay extra income tax to send my country's military forces halfway around the world, to provide security for privately-owned oil tankers full of privately-owned oil to pass through the Persian Gulf. I pay extra income tax in order to provide non-humanitarian "foreign aid" to several other governments in the oil-rich area, just to keep them (somewhat) friendly.
Even if I opt out of using subsidized oil, I don't get to opt out of paying for the subsidy. Why would I pay even more to subsidize Yet Another competing energy source? (Well, ok, let's not get fanatical about that .. I understand that we've all come to an agreement to subsidize coal by allowing the plants that burn it to dump their CO2 into the public atmosphere as an externality (there's the subsidy) instead of making them plant forests to soak it up, but coal isn't really a direct competitor to oil; it's used differently so by subsidizing both, I'm not really paying to back two sides against each other, which would be silly.)
Can we just get the Central Committee's existing government-planned subsidy payments transferred? Why does the politburo always go with oil and coal in their five year plans? I'd be willing to do a subsidy re-assignment, at least short-term. (Long-term.. well, actually I'm unsure about the wisdom of even having a Central Committee and all this economic planning, but that's another topic.)
Re:the irony is (Score:5, Insightful)
For starters, not all of our interests in the Middle East are oil based. For example, Bahrain has no oil. Bahrain exports things like aluminum. The US Navy's 5th Fleet is also based there. That fleet costs the US taxpayer 10s of billions of dollars. The US Navy 5th Fleet is that massive naval force you allude to that protects our interests in the Middle East. Note the cost; 10's of billions of dollars.
The US uses roughly 386,000,000 gallons of gasoline a day. At a tax of $0.31/gallon, that is $119,660,000 in tax revenue. Multiply that by 365 days a year and the US receives $43,675,900,000 per year from gasoline taxes. The US also uses about 60 billion gallons of diesel each year which calculate to roughly $18 billion in tax revenue per year ($0.30/gallon). So the US receives about $62 billion per year from gasoline taxes alone, which is plenty to fund the 5th Fleet, especially when you consider the taxes paid when cars are sold, various taxes paid by the companies that make cars and components. And, of course, all those "leases" you hear about where "big oil" wants to drill on government land are not free. The government gets a percentage per barrel. Now, granted, the domestic oil production is not in the Middle East, but like you said, "The middle east has to be controlled to keep world market prices stable".
So, yeah! The cost of patrolling the waters of the Mid East is more than covered by our gasoline and diesel taxes alone. Also note that oil is not the only interest we have in the region. It's a big one, sure, but not the only one.
Don't like my numbers? THIS [iags.org] site says the following:
The cost of securing our access to Middle East oil - deploying U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, patrolling its water and supplying military assistance to Middle East countries - is estimated at $50 billion per year, which adds additional dimes to each gallon of gasoline we purchase.
But you say:
That $0.31 does not cover it. It is cute that you think it should, but it does not. Your taxes do not cover it either, note the deficit.
Um... Given the numbers above, it appears that it really DOES cover it and then some. It's cute that you are so quick to call me ignorant.
Moose are not found in those areas as pipe lines are not normally built over the swamps and in the forests they prefer.
It appears they "prefer" the pipelines.
Again we see your ignorance. Those refuges only hold enough oil for months of US use. They should be kept until we actually need them.
Well, for starters, we won't extract and refine it all at once. And to be fair, I'm fully aware of the impact drilling will have on prices. If I had it my way, we'd tax it as a condition of permission to drill there and use the money to invest in renewables. For example, a $10/barrel tax times the billions of barrels in ANWR alone would be more than enough to not just fund, but INCREASE the amount of money funding our fusion research.
Re:And, of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't act as if purchasing decisions by the average consumer are based on calm deliberation and rational thought, because most often they are not. Most purchasing decisions are based in large part on subconscious impulses and emotions. Basing public policy on how consumers make purchasing decisions will result in irrational policy.
donating blood, etc. (Score:4, Insightful)
Look up the book "Who Really Cares?"
Conservatives are more generous than liberals in all sorts of categories. Donating time to charities to donating blood.
The cause seems to be that when you think it is the government's responsibility to help people, you are less willing to help people. Personally, I think focusing on the government being the main source of help turns people into greedy narcissists only concerned about how much they are getting. You don't have to worry about helping others because it isn't your responsibility.
Re:Why isn't renewable cheaper? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And, of course (Score:4, Insightful)
The exact same argument could be made for electricity, could it not?
--Jeremy
Re:I think most people want to be "green" but... (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been using CFLs fof fiteen years, and the newer ones light up quickly. But even fifteen years ago, it was no more than two seconds, maybe five in sub-zero f weather.
I swear, you kids are even more impatient than we were when we were young and impatient. I can see the next generation: "This computer is too slow, it took three seconds to boot and a full five minutes to figure pi to a million decimal places! I don't have all damned year!