An investigation, conducted in September and October, ie before the discussions in Congress on the text of Representatives Markey and Waxmann , reveals that a majority of Americans favor the regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) but only a slim majority supports the idea of a market for emission permits.

Six major categories of U.S. climate change

The analysis, based on the investigation carried out among 2164 people, aims to go beyond the usual opinion polls by a detailed examination of perceptions. Its findings are delivered in the report recently released by the sponsors of the survey: the Yale Project on Climate Change and the George Mason Center for Climate Change Communication.

We learn that perceptions on the subject are not Manichean. The researchers classified the participants in the survey in 6 broad categories, ranging from the most hostile to the acceptance of climate change more sensitive to warming. They represent about 18% of respondents and as a “worried” (alarmed). They are certain that climate change is underway and will consider themselves well informed about the subjects. They support a policy and concrete action in their everyday lives to tackle the problem. At the other end of the spectrum, 7% of participants, grouped in the “indifferent” (dismissive) are certain that climate change is under way but say they are well informed on the subject.

The rest of the respondents are classified into 4 categories between these 2 extremes: the concerned (concerned), the “cautious” (cautious), the “no opinion marked” (disengaged) and “skeptical” (doubtful). The largest fall in the group labeled “the concern” (concerned) and represent nearly a third of the public. They share the ideas of the “worry” (alarmed), except that they sometimes consider themselves less informed and / or perceive the threat as less immediate. Note that if, globally, climate change does not a top priority for Americans in recent polls, it is nevertheless perceived as a real threat in the half.

Note also that all categories, no one is certain that humans will be able to limit climate change. Even among the “worried”, most doubt that the human race take the necessary steps to address the problem or simply believe that mankind does not want to. The issue of decision making is posed in terms of options for public policy and the results are mixed.

Support renewable energy, resistance to the emission permits

The belief that the development of renewable energy is a good thing is widely shared, including among the most skeptical (dismissive). Of all respondents, 92% are in favor of support for renewable energy by the federal government into the ranks of “indifferent” to which this support is 70% anyway. Conversely, support for projects market in emission permits ( “Cap and trade”) is low, including among the “worried” that are most sensitive to any policy addressing climate change. In this category, only 23% to support “strong” system of emission permits such as that introduced in Europe in 2005. On the whole, only 11% are supporters of “cap and trade” against 47% who are either moderately or strongly opposed. The only “climate solution” that obtinne less favorable than the “cap and trade” is the implementation of a tax on gasoline (67% of respondents are opposed).

Overall, we observe that support for a market in emission permits is much smaller than that given to other policies dealing with climate change. Respondents are more conducive to increased investment in renewable energies, improving the efficiency of motor vehicles, the requirement to produce a minimum percentage of renewable électrité, even with increased gas drilling tankers or offshore, which are all very controversial subjects.

Abstraction which is based on these markets (which reminds that already exist at the regional level in the United States with the RGGI ) and difficulties experienced by the European system in the early stages are obstacles to the adoption of a mechanism for emission permits. So far, this mechanism is a cornerstone of the technique in the comprehensive legislation on climate proposed by Representatives Markey and Waxmann and a major source of revenue anticipated in the 2010 draft budget submitted by Obama Administration .

The study, released this week, illustrates the difficulty faced by elected representatives, whether in Congress or the executive, when he is convinced of the merits of a trading license emission. Especially since, in the political arena, opponents of the system proposed in the bill-Waxmann Markey (text in preparation for climate legislation at the federal level) fourbissent their weapons. And some are sometimes unexpected: James Hansen of NASA Goddard Space Institute, withdrew its support for the Bill of Representatives Markey and Waxmann arguing too important concessions made to the energy lobby, while his long-time ally, Senator Al Gore spoke to. And hyphenation may take place within environmental associations, the main supporting text are vilified by their counterparts for their excessive proximity to the major oil and gas sector. The consensus around a national market for emission permits GHG remains, for now, to become …