Poll: Majority of Americans Oppose Phasing Out Fossil Fuels

Climate change is a deeply polarizing issue.

I became much more interested in the issue earlier this year after I began digging into the polling data on the divisions on issue priorities within the Democratic coalition.

Take this poll which came out yesterday. It confirmed what I suspected which is that the blacks do not care about climate change. Whites and Hispanics have about the same level of interest in the issue. Whites are also extremely polarized though on the relative importance of climate change.

Check out these numbers which helpfully break down the Democratic and Republican coalitions into distinct clusters of voters and which probes their views on climate change and environmental laws. I couldn’t find another issue which 1.) more deeply polarizes shitlibs and conservatives, 2.) which activates populists and 3.) divides the Democratic coalition between DILEs and DLWCs.

Pew Research Center:

The Voter Study Group found a major difference between DILE and DLWC voters on climate change. The environment and climate change are the top two issues of DILEs while ranking ninth and twelfth for DLWCs. In contrast, DLWCs are much more motivated by jobs, entitlements and the economy.

Voter Study Group:

A few months ago, this survey came out of Trump vs. Biden voter issues priorities. It found that climate change was the top issue of Biden voters. The environment was the fourth most important issue.

Here are some interesting numbers from the latest Pew Research Center survey. Climate change is a top concern for 31% of adults and 49% of Democrats, i.e., the DILEs.

Pew Research Center:

If you ask ordinary people a loaded question like whether or not they want future generations to live on a sustainable planet, they will say yes.

Democrats are split down the middle, however, on phasing out fossil fuels:

A little over half of Democrats think that Joe Biden won’t go far enough on climate change which makes sense given that it is the top priority of the professional class:

What do you think about the idea of phasing out gas powered cars? It turns out a third of Democrats think that is a bad idea. Those people are working class Democrats.

Unfortunately, we don’t have any polling data among Democrat and Independent voters on their willingness to give up meat eating and switch to a vegetarian diet to save the planet with Greta. It seems likely that there would be much more resistance to that idea than giving up gas powered automobiles or an electric grid that depends on fossil fuels both of which are necessary to achieve Joe Biden’s climate goals. How does Joe Biden achieve his climate objectives with this level of resistance?

About Hunter Wallace 11895 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

20 Comments

      • You’re missing the point. We don’t need M.E. oil. When you import oil , you have to pay for the taxes, shipping and at the end of the day, you are paying more at the pump. Those countries that are at war with us are charge us mare than the going price because we sanction them, so they add it on to the barrel of oil.

        • “. When you import oil , you have to pay for the taxes, shipping and at the end of the day,”

          Shipping is like $2/bbl, Persian gulf to east coast.
          Taxes are all domestic.
          To lift most shale oil is about $40/bbl.
          Who charges us more ?

          Still don’t get your point.

          • I should think there’s more than enough domestic petroleum available to meet our needs for the next several decades but it is the structure of the capitalists’ global market (aka, “free” market) which forces us into exporting our oil and importing it from Nigeria, Venezuela or wherever.

          • Broke: Going into the Middle East and to get their oil either through global trading or foreign wars.

            Woke: Creating our own energy at a fraction of the cost once the infrastructure is there and not dealing with the 3rd world to get their shitty oil fund terrorist organizations. Or raising 3rd world out of poverty and developing their countries to 1st world countries by buying their oil. Furthering a more autarkic system and xenophobic isolationism.

  1. California and perhaps the rest of the Southwest will be running a little experiment this summer/fall; what is life like in the 21st century without electricity? It’s too late to change course now, Lake Mead and Lake Powell have low water levels meaning their electricity production is impaired meaning blackouts this summer. Normally there would be standby natural gas generators ready to fire up and provide reserve electrical power during times of high demand but they aren’t available because of California’s draconian, ridiculous, destructive environmental laws.

    The history of prosperity is the history of man’s ability to exploit new sources of energy. The first breakthrough was water power but that was severely limited by geography. Coal was used in steam engines in the early 18th century meaning power sources could be located where needed unlike water power. The early steam engines were greatly improved by James Watt about 1770 leading to their proliferation in industry. This led to mass production first of textiles then of everything else.

    Electricity production began in the late 19th century based upon turning generators with steam engines fired by coal later replaced by oil. All of these advances in the use of energy, first coal, then oil, then electricity drastically improved the lives of people and were recognized as progress by contemporaries. Life is simply impossible now without abundant cheap energy which must be derived from coal, oil and gas to be practical.

    Apparently science is some sort of democracy now with all the fraud, bribery and corruption characteristic of democracy. The “consensus” also believed that the earth is the center of the universe, there were two types of blood in the human body, disease was caused by spontaneous generation, heat was a fluid called caloric that each material had in it and so on. Science doesn’t proceed by consensus, politics does. The name change from “global warming” to “climate change” is also something grifters do when the old name gets too tired.
    i

    The “climate change” hoax is just another scam used to line the pockets of the well connected. The “proof” of climate change is not allowed to be questioned. When a reputable scientist from MIT contradicts the theory the fallback argument is the “consensus” declares that he is wrong.

    https://www.cato.org/people/richard-lindzen

    • “cheap energy which must be derived from coal, oil and gas to be practical.”

      If the ‘allies’ had not killed 20 million Germans and many of the best,
      we’d be running on thorium and ammonia. Without any concern on limits or disturbing the carbon cycle.

      With the current down breeding of races, the future will be rickshaws and wagons, except for the moneyed elite.

      The earth is being overpopulated with all the worst of humanity.

      • “With the current down breeding of races, the future will be rickshaws and wagons, except for the moneyed elite.

        The earth is being overpopulated with all the worst of humanity.”

        Absolutely. Everything is upside down. Oh, what could have been.

  2. “If you ask ordinary people a loaded question”

    There is the crux of all polls, how the question is put.

  3. I’m no expert on climate change as I’m not a scientist. But I do know we’re polluting and trashing the planet on land, in the sea and the air………..and CHINA are the biggest offenders! But when asked to cut emissions by a certain period, this dictatorship, which has a space program, makes ships and jets, has about twenty car makers, and is tipped to become the world’s No.1 economy, suddenly claims to be a ‘developing’ economy who shouldn’t be subjected to cuts that will apply to nations like Australia and New Zealand.
    How does a nation be the second largest economy, and a developing one at the same time?
    I’m effectively a social right winger, but an environmental leftist who cares about animal habitats, clean air and the natural world. Until such time that we step on Mars, this is our only planet.
    I oppose further immigration on environmental grounds……it brings extra traffic, pollution, overdevelopment and rubbish that we never asked for.
    I support electric and hydrogen vehicles. Fossil fuels will be required to run the power grids, but not the vehicles, which is better for the environment.
    Ice vehicles and electric vehicles will sell side by side for a while as the public transitions over. By the time the last ice vehicle is built, public acceptance of electric cars should be quite high. Spare parts and gas availablity for ice vehicles will be required by law for about ten years minimum after the last ice vehicle is built. People once employed in the industries supporting ice vehicles will likely transition to the electric/hydrogen sector over time. Electric cars provide jobs too!
    Finally, any fossil fuels no longer used in transportation can then be saved for other less prominent uses.

    • The amount of conventional energy resources that are required to mine, ship, manufacture and ultimately dispose of electric vehicle batteries negates any alleged benefits to the environment that “green transportation” supposedly provides. Electric city buses, delivery vans and taxis might be a good idea but at this point gas powered trucks and automobiles are the only practical vehicles for most purposes.

      • @Spahn
        Yes you’re correct. Any big transition requires a big readjustment of logistics and methods. Over time, I think innovations and improvements will help things along.
        The alternative is remaining in the Middle East to insure ongoing oil supply and continuity of gas vehicles until supplies run out altogether, and being unprepared when it does, or weening onto an alternative power source BEFORE any of that becomes an issue.
        And yes, you have raised some logistical issues that I have no answers for. But in doing nothing, we’re not addressing tomorrow’s issues today.

    • @Goose

      “I’m effectively a social right winger, but an environmental leftist who cares about animal habitats, clean air and the natural world. Until such time that we step on Mars, this is our only planet.”

      Based and Goose pilled.

      ” People once employed in the industries supporting ice vehicles will likely transition to the electric/hydrogen sector over time. Electric cars provide jobs too!”

      The Goose is in the house.

      “I oppose further immigration on environmental grounds……it brings extra traffic, pollution, overdevelopment and rubbish that we never asked for.”

      Your power level is too much for this site.

    • @Goose

      Wanted to add another thing to what you said to you Based Goose man.

      “I’m no expert on climate change as I’m not a scientist. But I do know we’re polluting and trashing the planet on land, in the sea and the air………..and CHINA are the biggest offenders! But when asked to cut emissions by a certain period, this dictatorship, which has a space program, makes ships and jets, has about twenty car makers, and is tipped to become the world’s No.1 economy, suddenly claims to be a ‘developing’ economy who shouldn’t be subjected to cuts that will apply to nations like Australia and New Zealand.”

      This underlines the extreme hypocrisy of “environmentalist” antiracists. They talk a big talk but essentially they want all 3rd world countries to become 1st world countries based on their antiracism, humanism, and xenophilia. They complain about the destructiveness of 1st world countries and then go on a tangent about how they want every African country to become like every Western country in terms of development for instance (due to their desire of eliminating inequality etc. their antiracism/xenophilia triumphs their environmentalism). Their environmentalism amounts to nothing more than hating white people with a simple environmental veneer glossed over.

      It’s why you have AOC whining about white people causing climate change.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcIl9RoQpHA&ab_channel=FUDBuddyFUDBuddy

      It’s why you have Greta screaming at [mainly old] white [politicians] people about how bad they are to the environment. “How dare you.”

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVlRompc1yE&ab_channel=TheTelegraphTheTelegraph

      Minority grievance racial animus towards white people masquerading as environmentalism. It’s incredibly gay. They’re xenophiles and that’s it.

      Also don’t forget Goose man, the hurdle is the large start up cost to change to a completely different energy source. The savings after is pretty huge (for working class people as gas is a lot more expensive as well as maintenance mechanic parts).

      • @Aspire
        Yes that was a pretty comprehensive post I made there!
        Hypocrisy is woven throughout leftist doctrine.
        ‘i support women’s rights……..let’s import more Muslims’.
        ‘I support the environment…….let’s import half the third world’.
        ‘We must address climate change…….. don’t pick on China, das waysis’.
        ‘i oppose racism………….except against whites’.
        Their hypocrisy is blatant.

  4. If the Usual Suspects were THAT concerned about “Climate Change,” the policies would stress conservation over creating new, obnoxious ways to annoy and inconvenience the average person.

    One thing that was nice about this Covid-19 scare was that traffic was down, because people were at home. Many employees were working remotely. Moreover, companies found that their employees were more productive when they were at home than when they were at work. Moreover, a Texan told me that during Stormageddon, the employees were still able to work remotely even though Texas’ idiotic experiment with windmills in place of winterization failed.

    Of course, like everything else, any crisis (manufactured or natural) can only effectively implement an agenda when they PRIORITIZE. IOW, one of the easiest way to lower gas emissions is to end school busing (which was done for racial integration purposes) and build a bunch of smaller, neighborhood schools which are easily accessed by sidewalks. Obese schoolchildren get exercise and tfresh air. The school systems can easily pay school bus drivers to provide crosswalk patrols

    Tax cut incentives where home owners can deduct any energy saving hacks they buy (like insulated windows and window drapes, insulation materials like caulk and fiberglass for their attics and garages, etc from their state, local, and federal income taxes could easily be done.

    Why wind-mill farms, when it would make more sense to enable home owners with yard to erect small wind-mills to offset their electric bills?

    Again, I am dating myself, but when I was a child, Acid Rain and smog were the big bug-a-boos. Fortunately, we did not have the same clown show running the environmental policies that we do now. We have a bunch of Americans with STEM degrees that need the work. Hire them to work on creating processes to reduce energy consumption and clean up the environment.

  5. “How does Joe Biden achieve his climate objectives with this level of resistance?”

    He can’t and won’t. We went over this. They’re cowards. They know they’d face resistance especially on meat. The population rules and rights are most important regardless of everything else, even the Earth.

    “It seems likely that there would be much more resistance to that idea than giving up gas powered automobiles or an electric grid that depends on fossil fuels both of which are necessary to achieve Joe Biden’s climate goals.”

    And you’re absolutely right. Due to America’s obesity and consumerism, this would be asking too much. But even then I reject bugs. Meat is good. But I realize things have to be done. Meat would be a last resort (which could be kept if other stuff was done). But no one wants to do anything. Because man is about comfort and stasis. This is the faggotry of democracy.

    Even IF you don’t believe in climate change, the cleaner air for the respiratory system makes it clear this is better. Plus reducing immigration to prevent further urbanization and preserve the environment/ecosystems is another important. Conservatives and Liberals argue about immigration only in relation to the GDP. Reducing the population in the 3rd world is important on environmental grounds.

    I’m the one (and others like me) who have the most consistent beliefs. Nationalists *may* (most don’t and are Conservatives in many ways) argue my positions only in a cynical way but it’s really about racism at the end of the day (just like antiracists are full of shit about the environment as they’ll never touch non-white groups and countries like China like Goose mentions). Those that do, I have high doubts about their commitment due to other positions like resisting any policies that deal with any change that white people must undergo.

Comments are closed.