Quantcast
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

sponsored by
News


Cap-and-trade legislation gets cold shoulder

Half of Nevadans are opposed to cap-and-trade climate plans







For half of Nevadans, the debate over legislation designed to control the climate is just so much hot air.

A new Review-Journal poll found that 50 percent of the state's residents oppose federal cap-and-trade legislation that would allow the government to limit companies' abilities to emit carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that some say is warming the planet. Another 42 percent of Nevadans support the legislation, while 8 percent say they're undecided.


Most Popular Stories
  • Three suspects arrested in shooting death of police officer
  • Three suspects arrested in shooting death of police officer
  • FATAL SHOOTING: Police again mourn comrade
  • NORM: Biden finds rank has its privileges
  • NORM: Walton: Coach deserved a punch
  • Two of three suspects in slaying of officer could face death penalty
  • DEADLY HOME INVASION: Police suspect link to family
  • Station Casinos posts $455 million third-quarter loss
  • NORM: 'Girls Gone Wild' creator feels heat
  • Las Vegas police shoot at man fleeing after traffic stop
  • Las Vegas police shoot at man fleeing after traffic stop
  • UNLV sacks football coach Sanford




  • The poll revealed major variations in partisan support of cap-and-trade. Just 21 percent of Democrats oppose carbon caps, while 81 percent of Republicans are against such limits. Among independents, 57 percent call cap-and-trade bad policy.

    An unscientific survey of locals tanking up Friday at a Terrible's gasoline station on Sahara Avenue found an even split between local supporters and detractors.

    Steven Yague, a regional manager with a financial-services company, said he's for carbon cap-and-trade because limiting fuel emissions would benefit the health of both people and the environment.

    Congress should consider ways to pay for the cap that wouldn't affect the price of energy or consumer goods, Yague said. The nation is spending billions of dollars a month on wars in the Middle East, for starters, so perhaps lawmakers could redirect some of that cash to buy down carbon emissions, Yague suggested.

    But Lonnie Gandy isn't having any of it. The jewelry-industry retiree said he worries that cap-and-trade would have a ripple effect on the prices of virtually all consumer goods. What's more, he sees enough scientists arguing against global warming to make him question whether government efforts to control Earth's temperatures are worth it or would work. Worse still, capping U.S. emissions would be pointless when major global polluters such as China and India have no plans to curb carbon output.

    "It'll just raise all my energy bills, and I'm not convinced yet that it would really do what they say it's going to do," Gandy said.

    Local utility executives say the jury's still out on how cap-and-trade would affect consumers' power bills.

    Chelsie Campbell, a spokeswoman for local power utility NV Energy, said it's too early to determine how cap-and-trade laws would affect the cost of energy because the Senate still has to write its own version.

    But Campbell did say NV Energy supported the House proposal because it allowed utilities free carbon-emissions allowances for a period of years. The Senate version includes a price cap on carbon, and it's still unknown how that bill would call for issuing free allowances.

    Keith Schwer, director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, said he wasn't sure why more voters oppose cap-and-trade than support it, but he did note that consumers in the midst of a recession typically have heightened concern about their economic well-being.

    A springtime Gallup poll backed up Schwer's conjecture. The survey found that, for the first time in 25 years of polling, more Americans care about economic growth than the environment. Just 42 percent of people questioned said the environment should take precedence over growth, while 51 percent said economic expansion is more important.

    Brad Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, called the economy the "overriding concern" for voters, and he said he believes that's the major reason people are turning against cap-and-trade legislation.

    "I don't think they (lawmakers) have made a compelling case that this bill is going to help the economy, and some could argue pretty strongly that it could hurt the economy," Coker said.

    An Aug. 5 report from the federal Energy Information Administration backs up doubts about the bill's impact on the economy.

    The administration's study found that the House's bill would increase the cost of energy, slash economic output, hurt purchasing power and cut $432 billion to $1.9 trillion from the nation's gross domestic product by 2030.

    Coker said he thinks legislation fatigue could also be pushing voters away from cap-and-trade. From the $787 billion stimulus to the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to $1 trillion in health-care reforms, Americans are growing leery of big-ticket policy proposals.

    "Cap-and-trade is like health care in that it's just another in this quick series of major policy changes. Nobody is quite sure what the details are, and people's heads are kind of spinning from all these proposed regulations," Coker said.

    It's cost issues that give Nevadans like Ray Bacon pause.

    Bacon, executive director of the Nevada Manufacturers Association in Carson City, said some of the state's -- and country's -- biggest and best-paying manufacturing sectors would suffer most from cap-and-trade. Cement plants, wallboard makers, manufacturers of wood products, plastics factories and chemical operations are all energy-intensive businesses that would see marked gains in expenses if cap-and-trade passes the Senate in the fall, Bacon said. Bacon said he recently toured a Northern Nevada cement factory whose operating costs would jump an estimated 30 percent to 40 percent.

    Bacon also noted that Mexico's state-run cement maker is quietly opening distribution centers in California to ship cheaper, Mexican-made, cap-and-trade-free concrete products to the United States.

    Bacon said consumers will pay substantially more for gasoline two to three years after the bill's passage.

    Mason-Dixon Polling & Research of Washington, D.C. conducted the poll on Monday and Tuesday. The company surveyed 400 registered voters in the state and has a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

    Contact reporter Jennifer Robison at jrobison@reviewjournal.com or 702-380-4512.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 105 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    sugrdd wrote on August 24, 2009 08:22 AM: Just because over 50% on Nevadans believe somethign DOES NOT make it true. The earth is not flat, Jesus did not walk with dinosaurs, and floride does not make us compliant drones to the UN. People start using your brains!!!


    Nunya Business wrote on August 22, 2009 11:45 PM: I hope everyone realizes that this has nothing to do with "saving the earth".

    The sole purpose of this legislation is to legitimize another commodities market for Wall Street so they can bilk the planet of even more money.

    Why, there's already an exchange set up to trade these "Carbon Credits" on. Check out the Chicago BOE.

    This will do nothing except make the fat cats fatter, while emptying your pockets with ever higher energy prices.


    GH wrote on August 22, 2009 11:43 PM: I wish I had a better solution patrick but I don't.

    I may be grasping at straws with nuclear energy but that is only because coal seems to be the worst possible energy source yet it's what we're currently stuck with.

    I don't know the facts or figures but if nuclear could last for 25 years I would hope that's long enough that we (as a country) could come up with something better.

    I guess my main problem with cap and trade is I don't see were it offers a solution. I think coal companies will just keep burning coal and charge higher rates to us so they can pay to buy the carbon offsets. If that happens we're still dependant on a terrible energy source, we're just paying more for the energy. The coal companies break even, the customers get poorer and a few companies that can sell offsets get rich and the environment still pays the price.

    We are in a no win situation. Every solution we currently have has it's drawbacks and with all the money to be made off of coal, natural gas, and oil the companies with the money influence our politicians more than those of us they are supposed to represent.

    If anyone has a better stop gap solution I'm be more than interested in hearing it. I just know that another 30 years of burning coal is not an acceptable solution in my mind.


    patrick wrote on August 22, 2009 10:49 PM: GH:

    Do you know how much uranium exists in the world today and how much energy it will produce?

    I'll help you out here, IF uranium were used alone, to produce the power the United States needs the entire world supply would meet that need for...................25-30 years.


    That's it. And after all the uranium in the entire world is used up, and we have all that nuclear waste sitting around then what?

    This is no solution my friend, and the cost of producing a kilowatt of power with nuclear energy today cannot compete against ANY of the sources of energy that you identified.

    Its not a choice at all, nuclear power, at least until they resolve many many issues, is dead. And that ain't my saying so, that is what every power company in the country has decided.


    GH wrote on August 22, 2009 10:39 PM: GladK... this isn't a contest. You asked a question and I supplied an answer.

    Is nuclear the end all of energy? I hope not. But as you said the technology has been around for 30 years and even though it is cleaner and better for the environment than coal we've resisted it and most of our energy still comes from coal. That makes no sense.

    I grew up in the north where there is a lot of strip mining for coal. It's unbelievable what we do to the landscape to get coal. Add in the sulphor, CO2, and NO pollution and it boggles the mind that coal is still our main energy source thirty years later.

    You are correct that something needs to be done but wouldn't we be better off using the better of 2 evils until we do find something better?

    Hydro is clean but destroys river eco-systems. Wind is clean but very expensive and not practical as a main power source. Solar is clean but is incredibly costly at the moment. Wave technology is still in the test phase. We have parts of the solution in the works but nothing currently available can replace the huge amounts of energy produced by coal, other than nuclear.


    patrick wrote on August 22, 2009 10:27 PM: LOL

    Marc:

    You are not SERIOUSLY claiming that because temperatures FOR JULY are below the average for the entire 20th century that this means the earth is not warming are you?

    I guess that means if it rains tomorrow we can't be in a drought, or because yesterday in Las Vegas was the HOTTEST day on record that it means temperatures for the next hundred years will be over 110 degrees; right?

    You sure you weren't pumping gas the other day when a strange women started asking nonsense questions about what you "think" about global warming?


    Marc D wrote on August 22, 2009 10:02 PM: silly facts getting in the way again

    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090810_julystats.html

    temps down again for the US

    don't worry though I read some climate experts saying that there will be a decade or two of cooling but overall global warming will return.

    LOL this is turning into a friggin joke.


    gladK wrote on August 22, 2009 09:46 PM: ok ok, GH & Jennifer & Neanderthals, you win! You're too smart for me. I give up. Obviously the best course of action is to do nothing, and go with all that great 1980's technology your pollsters slyly suggest to the public. Let's just sink another couple hundred OIL DRILLS off Santa Barbara, or Alaska, or whichever country we Americans feel like bombing next, for their oil. Obviously, the guy you were chatting with at the gas station was Las Vegas' most illustrious & informed citizen, Carrot Top! He's got a different color gas-guzzler HUMMER for every day of the week! Money trumps all. . Whooppee gal, let's go !


    GH wrote on August 22, 2009 09:04 PM: GladK... you wonder why people question global warming? Have you ever heard the story about the boy that cried wolf? It's hard to trust the scientific data when they keep changing it to fit the argument.

    As I pointed out below they have been crying wolf for years and when the climate changes in a way that doesn't match what they are screaming they just change the title from cooling to warming to change.

    When someone screams about pollution and then bans or hinders cleaner technology like nuclear energy it makes one question their motives.

    When someone screams about how we're to dependant on foreign oil yet bans or hinders allowing us to drill for oil in America it makes one question their motives.

    Al Gore flies around in a private jet yet talks about pollution.

    When someone says one thing and then does the opposite it's hard not to question what the motive is.


    Fair and Balanced Fred wrote on August 22, 2009 08:56 PM:
    If the poll only included people with strong science backgrounds, say physicians, pharmacists, chemists, physicists, engineers, biologists, etc. what percentage of them do you suppose would be more amenable to the legislation than your average Joe Sixpack? How might the opinions of these professionals with strong science backgrounds differ from the current results of this poll?


    Read All Comments