EPA Carbon Rules Supported by Vast Majority of Voters in 2014 Swing States

[Frodo]

Voters in 2014 swing states favor EPA carbon rules

By Laura Barron-Lopez    - 10/28/13 03:37 PM ET

Voters in swing states are more likely to favor the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed carbon pollution standards for power plants, according to a new poll funded by the League of Conservation Voters.

Roughly 74 percent of voters support the proposed carbon regulations — and 58 percent of those were Republican voters in states where Senate seats are up for grabs come 2014.

The 1,113 surveyed are "likely voters" in the 2014 election cycle. Seven of the 11 states went to Republican nominee Mitt Romney in the 2012 election and the other four states went to President Obama.

The 11 states surveyed were Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Virginia.

When asked if they would be more likely to vote for a Democrat who supports the EPA regulations on carbon pollution or a Republican who opposes them in a Senate race, the voters surveyed gave Democrats a 14-point advantage.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/330971-voters-in-2014-swing-states-favor-epa-carbon-rules#ixzz2j3sFYrFe

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Why would they not poll WV or KY, the only races where it will be an actual issue?

[King]

Why would they not poll WV or KY, the only races where it will be an actual issue?

I think we already know the answer there.

[Zioneer]

The fact that people in Alaska and Louisiana support these rules is interesting.

[memphis]

Pretty sure voters who know jack about this issue are greatly outnumbered by lesbian black Republicans.

[bedstuy]

Pretty sure voters who know jack about this issue are greatly outnumbered by lesbian black Republicans.

This is what makes these threads about EPA rules fairly annoying.  The main authority for this rulemaking was a bill passed 43 years ago.  Whatever the public thinks about this is irrelevant.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Pretty sure voters who know jack about this issue are greatly outnumbered by lesbian black Republicans.

Yeah, most people who support this only do so because they've heard in the media that carbon dioxide is bad and it causes global warming.

I wouldn't be surprised if a large portion of people surveyed would support a hypothetical rule by the EPA to outlaw carbon dioxide entirely.  Even among many who are educated on the law and the basic science that goes into these rules, you see a lot of ignorance and misunderstanding.

Conducting a poll among the general public without giving them any education on why CO2 should be regulated and what potential negative effects that regulation could have on the economy renders such a poll essentially meaningless.

[traininthedistance]

Conducting a poll among the general public without giving them any education on why CO2 should be regulated and what potential negative effects that regulation could have on the economy renders such a poll essentially meaningless.

And how about the (much greater) potential negative effects of not regulating carbon?

[barfbag]

These are good rules for the environment.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Conducting a poll among the general public without giving them any education on why CO2 should be regulated and what potential negative effects that regulation could have on the economy renders such a poll essentially meaningless.

And how about the (much greater) potential negative effects of not regulating carbon?

Yeah... that would fall under the "why CO2 should be regulated" part of what I said.

[bedstuy]

Conducting a poll among the general public without giving them any education on why CO2 should be regulated and what potential negative effects that regulation could have on the economy renders such a poll essentially meaningless.

And how about the (much greater) potential negative effects of not regulating carbon?

Yeah... that would fall under the "why CO2 should be regulated" part of what I said.

I think it's relevant the the EPA does not consider the economic impact of this regulation and is actually legally prohibited from taking economic impact into account in this decision.  So, I don't think understanding the economic impact is really all that important to public knowledge about the EPA rule here.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Conducting a poll among the general public without giving them any education on why CO2 should be regulated and what potential negative effects that regulation could have on the economy renders such a poll essentially meaningless.

And how about the (much greater) potential negative effects of not regulating carbon?

Yeah... that would fall under the "why CO2 should be regulated" part of what I said.

I think it's relevant the the EPA does not consider the economic impact of this regulation and is actually legally prohibited from taking economic impact into account in this decision.  So, I don't think understanding the economic impact is really all that important to public knowledge about the EPA rule here.

It's not true that the EPA is prohibited from taking economic impact into account.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Just like 6 and 10 Americans backed Cap and Trade, a similarly great electoral success!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/27/cnn-poll-6-in-10-back-cap-and-trade/

Man, we leftists sure like to delude ourselves with issue polling...

[barfbag]

Just like 6 and 10 Americans backed Cap and Trade, a similarly great electoral success!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/27/cnn-poll-6-in-10-back-cap-and-trade/

Man, we leftists sure like to delude ourselves with issue polling...

I don't know it sounds like Republicans are pretty similar to you if 6 in 10 support it.

[bedstuy]

Conducting a poll among the general public without giving them any education on why CO2 should be regulated and what potential negative effects that regulation could have on the economy renders such a poll essentially meaningless.

And how about the (much greater) potential negative effects of not regulating carbon?

Yeah... that would fall under the "why CO2 should be regulated" part of what I said.

I think it's relevant the the EPA does not consider the economic impact of this regulation and is actually legally prohibited from taking economic impact into account in this decision.  So, I don't think understanding the economic impact is really all that important to public knowledge about the EPA rule here.

It's not true that the EPA is prohibited from taking economic impact into account.

I'm not an environmental lawyer, but I'm pretty sure I'm correct on this.  The Clean Air Act sets standards of performance based on a technological standard of what emissions reduction is possible and achievable using current technology.  If you mean the EPA can take into account the cost of different types of emissions control technology, sure.  But, there's no ability to lower a performance standard because achieving the NAAQS would be detrimental to the economy.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Conducting a poll among the general public without giving them any education on why CO2 should be regulated and what potential negative effects that regulation could have on the economy renders such a poll essentially meaningless.

And how about the (much greater) potential negative effects of not regulating carbon?

Yeah... that would fall under the "why CO2 should be regulated" part of what I said.

I think it's relevant the the EPA does not consider the economic impact of this regulation and is actually legally prohibited from taking economic impact into account in this decision.  So, I don't think understanding the economic impact is really all that important to public knowledge about the EPA rule here.

It's not true that the EPA is prohibited from taking economic impact into account.

I'm not an environmental lawyer, but I'm pretty sure I'm correct on this.  The Clean Air Act sets standards of performance based on a technological standard of what emissions reduction is possible and achievable using current technology.  If you mean the EPA can take into account the cost of different types of emissions control technology, sure.  But, there's no ability to lower a performance standard because achieving the NAAQS would be detrimental to the economy.

No, that part is correct - I just wanted to clarify that it's not true that cost-benefit analysis can't ever be used.

On a related note, using the CAA as a way to combat climate change will be a disastrous failure, and if Congress wants  to accomplish something regarding it, a new law should be passed.  It's likely that achieving the NAAQS won't even be possible since the U.S. only emits 16% of the world's CO2, and the effects of CO2 aren't local.

[bedstuy]

Conducting a poll among the general public without giving them any education on why CO2 should be regulated and what potential negative effects that regulation could have on the economy renders such a poll essentially meaningless.

And how about the (much greater) potential negative effects of not regulating carbon?

Yeah... that would fall under the "why CO2 should be regulated" part of what I said.

I think it's relevant the the EPA does not consider the economic impact of this regulation and is actually legally prohibited from taking economic impact into account in this decision.  So, I don't think understanding the economic impact is really all that important to public knowledge about the EPA rule here.

It's not true that the EPA is prohibited from taking economic impact into account.

I'm not an environmental lawyer, but I'm pretty sure I'm correct on this.  The Clean Air Act sets standards of performance based on a technological standard of what emissions reduction is possible and achievable using current technology.  If you mean the EPA can take into account the cost of different types of emissions control technology, sure.  But, there's no ability to lower a performance standard because achieving the NAAQS would be detrimental to the economy.

No, that part is correct - I just wanted to clarify that it's not true that cost-benefit analysis can't ever be used.

On a related note, using the CAA as a way to combat climate change will be a disastrous failure, and if Congress wants  to accomplish something regarding it, a new law should be passed.  It's likely that achieving the NAAQS won't even be possible since the U.S. only emits 16% of the world's CO2, and the effects of CO2 aren't local.

Cost-benefit analysis is a staple of regulation; of course the EPA can sometimes use cost-benefit analysis.  What I'm saying is that the economic impact of the technological requirements for stationary sources is not a permissible consideration for the EPA in setting a technological standard for NSPSs.  The permissible costs in their analysis might be the cost of different types of scrubbers or capture systems.  The general impact on the economy is not a part of setting the standard.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Right.  But the EPA can't really set a good level for how much CO2 a factory should be able to emit.