Poll: How much of your own money would you be willing to personally spend each month to reduce the impact of climate change?

[jderimig]

There was a recent poll on this subject I am curious how this community compares to that poll. I will share the results of the other poll after responses have had time to be given.

Edit: Before this thread gets locked I will post the result of the other poll that asked the exact same question. Interesting the results were similar but this community is slightly more polar. The AP had similar poll with a different question, words matter, but the results were also similar. In the AP-NORC poll 68% of the respondants wouldn't spend $10 a month in higher electricity bills to fight climate change. (AP poll re

 

[Maxitout]

Absolutely none. Climate is going to change, no matter what we do or not do about it. It's been changing since this planet was formed. 50 years ago, I remember all the warnings about the coming ice age. Didn't happen. This whole thing is a bunch of BS.

 

[mh9162013]

Can't answer your "poll," as my answer depends on how much "impact" my money would have.

 

[Hobie1dog]

Absolutely none. Climate is going to change, no matter what we do or not do about it. It's been changing since this planet was formed. 50 years ago, I remember all the warnings about the coming ice age. Didn't happen. This whole thing is a bunch of BS.

I'm afraid to comment after that

 

[Sandy H.]

There was a recent poll on this subject I am curious how this community compares to that poll. I will share the results of the other poll after responses have had time to be given.

Could you clarify the scope a little? I know there are many different opinions on the subject for sure, but is the poll oriented toward sending money to an entity that would build green energy sources (for example, not just this, but in concept) or doing things at home like putting in more insulation?

Sandy.

 

[jderimig]

Could you clarify the scope a little? I know there are many different opinions on the subject for sure, but is the poll oriented toward sending money to an entity that would build green energy sources (for example, not just this, but in concept) or doing things at home like putting in more insulation?

Sandy.

I am just repeating the question as polled in the other poll. You can interpret how you see fit. I interpretted is a direct net cost to me (for example higher per unit energy bills). Personally for me I would not include capital costs to lower my energy usage. That might be a cost savings.

 

[KC3KNM]

Switching to an EV and carpooling has saved us a considerable amount of money. As has being reasonable about thermostat settings. I’d say I’m saving ~200$ a month with some lifestyle changes, while being generally less crappy to the planet.

 

[les]

I think this relates to my questions on the validity of polls I did here on TRF

Polls - why are they wrong

This poll is really unanswerable as written. It is too open ended with no cost/benefit info to allow someone to make a decision, as others pointed out....

Can't answer your "poll," as my answer depends on how much "impact" my money would have.

Could you clarify the scope a little? I know there are many different opinions on the subject for sure, but is the poll oriented toward sending money to an entity that would build green energy sources (for example, not just this, but in concept) or doing things at home like putting in more insulation?

Sandy.

It reminds me of one poll I referenced that asked “Would you be willing to spend more for more eco-friendly packaging?”
Well, how much more? - that isn't defined.
How more eco-friendly is the new packaging? - again not defined.

Hence, IMO, any results that this poll develops is, to be blunt, bogus............

 

[kuririn]

So "personally" does not include taxes we pay, I take it?
Because whether you like it or not, local/state/federal governments are spending your tax money on climate change mitigation programs right now.
And enacting policies to that end.
Presuming out of pocket payments, most consumers are paying to reduce climate change already without knowing it. Their motivation is economic, not altruistic.
I would pay the higher up front costs for LED bulbs even if incandescent bulbs were still being sold. Reason: Net savings over the life of the bulb by using less electricity. Plus I got tired of changing frequently burnt out incandescent bulbs.
I paid for a heat pump water heater ten years ago for the same reason. Higher up front cost but substantial savings in electricity over the life of the product. Again net savings.
And do people spend thousands of dollars on rooftop solar because they are concerned about the environment? No, it's entirely for a selfish reason. You guessed it.
And do most people buy EVs because they want to save the world? I'm sure a few do. But most want to save money by buying a vehicle that fits their driving profile and uses a more economical power source.
So bottom line we are already dishing out money every month without writing a single check or plopping down a single bill.
Yeah, people are selfish.
Surprise, surprise.

 

[Funkworks]

Reminds me there's a thread on atmospheric sciences somewhere here. Anyone is free to visit and discuss the various ways an atmosphere can change over days, years or eons, locally or globally, for different causes. There's always something new going on somewhere, and I just happen to be brushing up on this when I'm not here. I might enjoy looking up specific topics. Not limited to Earth!

As for the poll question, I see so many issues with it I don't know where to start, so I'll just pass. Don't feel like arguing about it either.

 

[lakeroadster]

So "personally" does not include taxes we pay, I take it?
Because whether you like it or not, local/state/federal governments are spending your tax money on climate change mitigation programs right now.
And enacting policies to that end.
Presuming out of pocket payments, most consumers are paying to reduce climate change already without knowing it. Their motivation is economic, not altruistic.
I would pay the higher up front costs for LED bulbs even if incandescent bulbs were still being sold. Reason: Net savings over the life of the bulb by using less electricity. Plus I got tired of changing frequently burnt out incandescent bulbs.
I paid for a heat pump water heater ten years ago for the same reason. Higher up front cost but substantial savings in electricity over the life of the product. Again net savings.
And do people spend thousands of dollars on rooftop solar because they are concerned about the environment? No, it's entirely for a selfish reason. You guessed it.
And do most people buy EVs because they want to save the world? I'm sure a few do. But most want to save money by buying a vehicle that fits their driving profile and uses a more economical power source.
So bottom line we are already dishing out money every month without writing a single check or plopping down a single bill.
Yeah, people are selfish.
Surprise, surprise.

Only thing I would add is that I wouldn't call people spending their own money the way they want selfish, regardless of their reasoning.

Now if they are spending money they don't have and living beyond their means, and wanting me to bail them out, I've got a number of words for them.

And if they are getting subsidies from the government, where I have to pay for the things they want, I've got a number of words for them and the government.

 

[Igotnothing]

Perhaps you should change the poll to specify "man-caused climate change". Otherwise, you are just polling for the impact of emotional hype on the ignorant.

If you really want to know, specify "woman-caused climate change".

See?! The climate in here just changed.

 

[teepot]

I wouldn't pay anything. I believe that climate change is cased by how much energy the Sun puts out. How many fires or volcanoes going off. To me weather cyclic. Some years are hotter, some a colder. If it's colder than normal. How did people make it colder? I could be full of it too. But, that is what I think.

 

[jderimig]

Perhaps you should change the poll to specify "man-caused climate change". Otherwise, you are just polling for the impact of emotional hype on the ignorant.

If you really want to know, specify "woman-caused climate change".

See?! The climate in here just changed.

I am repeating the exact same question that was on a larger poll across a broad demographic.

 

[Titan II]

Reminds me there's a thread on atmospheric sciences somewhere here. Anyone is free to visit and discuss the various ways an atmosphere can change over days, years or eons, locally or globally, for different causes. There's always something new going on somewhere, and I just happen to be brushing up on this when I'm not here. I might enjoy looking up specific topics. Not limited to Earth!

As for the poll question, I see so many issues with it I don't know where to start, so I'll just pass. Don't feel like arguing about it either.

Nothing like dissing the OP and promoting one of your numerous attention seeking threads. Very tacky.

 

[bjphoenix]

I don't have an answer. I think that people should do things to improve the environment. So many things that people do are harmful for the environment so we need to do things to help. Similarly I think that people should do things to improve lots of things in life, help other people, etc. I try to make decisions about what I'm buying, what I'm doing, according to whether it helps something, and some of those probably come with a cost, but as for quantifying the amount that is hard for me to do.

Right now I need a new computer. I'm trying to decide whether to drive 60 miles to a Microcenter to buy the parts, or just order them on Amazon. I prefer to buy from a local store than to buy from Amazon, but OTOH the 60 mile drive burns fuel and negatively affects the environment some small amount.

 

[KenECoyote]

I'd chip in five bucks to make cows fart less.

 

[modeltrains]

Given that my Social Security Disability payment amount is right at the Department of Health and Human Services poverty level for a household of 1, because SSD is based on income when one was working and my health has always limited my working ability, the amount I am willing to personally spend to reduce the impact of climate change is $0.00 as the SSD amount already is not enough money to cover the cost of living and the cost of Medicare.

And while we're here ...

There is this ...

"
However, these victories for some come at a cost for others. Disabled people, who are commonly left out of environmental justice discussions, often rely on single-use plastics in order to live independently. Plastic alternatives are not always accessible or safe for them to use. Additionally, alternatives such as metal or wooden utensils, cups, and straws are typically more expensive, making them inaccessible to those of a lower socioeconomic level. This necessary reliance on single-use plastics, combined with social stigma and implicit bias surrounding disability, has led to the ‘othering’ of disabled people.
"
...
"
I reflected on how sustainability is not always accessible or equitable, and how social media can feed into this false narrative. Sustainable products, whether that be food or plastic alternatives, typically cost more. Vegan or vegetarian diets are not a viable option for everyone, whether because of allergies or a variety of other reasons. Plastic straw alternatives, as explained in the article, are often not a feasible option for disabled people. Thus, recognizing that ‘green’ is not always the healthiest or safest option is an important step to help reduce the stigma surrounding single-use plastic. Disability activists have shared stories about how their continued use of single-use plastics has led to others treating them as second class citizens. Everyone has different circumstances, so refraining from making assumptions about people’s lifestyle choices is particularly important, considering both visible and invisible disabilities.

The first step to making sustainability more inclusive and accessible to everyone is by recognizing some of the initial prejudices and false assumptions at the root of the mainstream environmental movement, and ...
"

https://turninggreen.org/tg-collect...ans-are-an-injustice-to-disabled-populations/

 

[modeltrains]

And then there's the thing where a group of rather intense climate change activists tells you to your face, in-person, that because you have been disabled all your life you should have been aborted for the good of the Earth.
Oh?
Really?
Well understand this, after that, if you are a climate change advocate or activist you are now considered to be an inherently evil, satanic, person and I have a very deep and violent hatred of you, you, you specifically, you personally.
Whether I have ever met you is irrelevant, you are one of them and you are by definition evil and my sworn enemy.

 

[Marc_G]

I voted $100+. I think I'm the only one to have done so, so far. My vote is based on an assumption that it is part of a collective effort globally to bring our impact on the climate down to the point where it can start to heal, to the point where it will trend positively in the next 50 years or so.

But I think such a poll is inherently misleading. We either pay now or we pay much more later. An ounce of prevention, with interest becomes a pound of cure needed. Increasing cost to me of couple percent to make the world better for my grandkids is fine by me.

 

[jahhash]

when you figure out a way to control the Sun , you have a way to control this warming hoax.

 

[Hobie1dog]

Well understand this, after that, if you are a climate change advocate or activist you are now considered to be an inherently evil, satanic, person and I have a very deep and violent hatred of you, you, you specifically, you personally.
Whether I have ever met you is irrelevant, you are one of them and you are by definition evil and my sworn enemy.

you might want to take 2 Valium and call the Dr. in the morning

 

[Tech 68]

From people considerably more knowledgeable on the subject than me...

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2022/12/18/the-sound-of-settled-science-143/

 

[Steve Shannon]

I'd chip in five bucks to make cows fart less.

My wife will chip in five bucks to make me fart less…

 

[dhbarr]

I'm already spending more than a hundred bucks a month on more expensive water, electricity, truck, appliances, house features, etc. I don't begrudge this progress, because ultimately it's these types of improvements that have enabled 8bn people not to die as grandparents in their 30's.

 

[David Schwantz]

I would spend zero dollars as the people with more money than me are going to do anything they want anyway. And the whole global warming thing is being caused by the windmills. The earth has been blown off its orbit around the sun. Haven't y'all noticed that the stars have changed position in the night sky?

 

[jderimig]

My wife will chip in five bucks to make me fart less…

Steve, how much does that work out to per fart?

 

[Steve Shannon]

Steve, how much does that work out to per fart?

Some days it’s $0.50

 

[H_Rocket]

you might want to take 2 Valium and call the Dr. in the morning

I think Haldol is way more appropriate.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

I picked $100+. I’d pay that each month just to reduce the number of fires and 105+ degree days I have to suffer through each year. I used to really anticipate fun summers and outdoor living, but now I have a bit of dread each year when the warm weather starts up, wondering if I’m going to be trapped indoors for weeks at a time by dangerous levels of smoke or extreme heat. It didn’t used to be like this, and I’d pay to keep it from getting worse.

And as has already been pointed out, many people are already paying more due to climate change. Our water rates have increased. That’s true for a lot of people. I’m not sure what’s going to happen when Lake Powell and/or Lake Mead reach “dead pool”, which is looking pretty likely, and huge parts of the west lose their power and water supplies, but I bet it’s going to cost residents in several states more than 100 bucks a month to deal with it.

For me, the investments I’ve made to cut back on my use of fossil fuel energy have all saved me money. It’s does cost more upfront, but this poll is framed in terms of monthly costs. We bought a rooftop solar power system a few years ago, and it wasn’t exactly cheap, but it was affordable for us, and now we pay nearly nothing for electricity. Last year we paid $105 for electricity for the entire year, and that includes using our air conditioner all summer long. We work at home and leave it on all day. The system will pay for itself in another couple of years, and then it’s free electricity for the life of the system, which is warranted for 20 years. In 2018 we bought a Camry hybrid, and the car gets as much as 50mpg on road trips, which is more than double the mpg of our previous car. I’m on a trip right now. We gassed up in Dublin, CA, where it costs less than $50 to completely fill the tank from empty. And we drove all the way to San Diego without filling up again, and have gas to spare. That’s about 500 miles. We will fill the tank again before heading home, but it won’t need a full fill up. So the whole trip will be less than $100. To me, that’s pretty affordable.

Anyway, those are just a few examples. Climate change is definitely real, definitely caused by human activity that creates greenhouse gasses, definitely already having noticeable effects, and will definitely get worse for years to come. And to me it’s worthwhile to invest in keeping it from becoming worse than it needs to. And some of those investments end up saving money or having other benefits that are worthwhile in themselves.