Obama Re-Polarizes America: From Red vs. Blue States to Carbon vs. Anti-carbon

The National Journal reports:

Politically Obama is better positioned for the fight, too. That’s not so much because public opinion has shifted. Comparing 2009 to 2013, Pew Research Center polls show that slightly more adults believe human activity is changing the climate, with gains heaviest among independents, the college-educated, and those under 50. Polls, however, show that most Americans don’t prioritize carbon reductions and remain leery of price rises. In terms of overall opinion, one senior White House official acknowledges, “this is a tough slog.”

What’s changed politically since 2009 is that Obama’s reelection demonstrated Democrats could sustain a presidential majority despite unprecedented energy-industry spending against them. Resource-dependent states that generate the most carbon per dollar of economic output will probably erupt most over further EPA regulation. But in presidential races, Democrats can survive that hit: 17 of the 20 most carbon-intensive states (according to federal figures) voted for Mitt Romney in 2012, while 18 of the 20 least carbon-intensive backed Obama. The 14 Democratic senators from the most carbon-intensive states will face greater risk, but some would reduce their exposure by opposing any EPA regulation. [Emphasis added]

Read more…

2 thoughts on “Obama Re-Polarizes America: From Red vs. Blue States to Carbon vs. Anti-carbon”

  1. “Comparing 2009 to 2013, Pew Research Center polls show that slightly more adults believe human activity is changing the climate, …” That’s amusing; during this period, temps are falling as CO2 emissions rise.
    Obama and the Enablers (he has to have a lot of help) have got the country polarized several ways. Possibly people at various poles will realize that Obama loves them in one position and scorns them in their other positions.

  2. This article reads somewhat like an Obama speech. Full of generalities disguised as truths (people have actually been trnding away from AGW). And the use of the word “unprecedented” – Obama throws that word around constantly.
    To summarize the article, he is doing this because he has the power to get away with it–not because it is right.

Comments are closed.