This article shows that American people are in favor of governmental measures regarding the current problems regarding climate. Is this likely to influence the Trump administration?
Hahaha, no.
But it is a fascinating thought, considering what a smarter and/or more benevolent man could do with the kind of unthinking support Trump has. Although there’s an argument to be made that if he were smarter/more benevolent, he wouldn’t HAVE that unthinking support to begin with.
Why no? Even some of Trump’s fans would like this issue to be tackled properly.
Because there are too many greedy, wealthy people who feel that doing anything about climate change would diminish the money coming into their coffers, and Trump only cares about people with money and not you, or the climate, or the planet.
Why doesn’t this attitude cause the supporters of the Trump administration to either have doubts about their government or ask them to do something about it?
Also, is people’s concern with climate so low at the bottom of their priorities that the political opposition cannot capitalize on it?
The poll numbers might be far different if they were phrased another way, to bring home to people sacrifices they’d need to make.
It’s be interesting to see the response to “Would you be willing to see your home heating bill/gas prices double as part of a plan to tackle climate change?”
How many people would want to live within a mile, say, of a solar or wind turbine farm?
What major lifestyle alterations would they accept?
It doesn’t surprise me that people overwhelmingly support tree planting*, but probably would be less enthusiastic about giving up their lawns for a mini-forest.
*I think I’ve already planted at least a billion trees in my backyard. 
I’d have more trees around me even if it didn’t do anything for the atmosphere.I don’t like lawns that much anyway.
I’d live within a mile of a solar farm no questions asked. I’ve never spent a lot of time next to a wind farm so I don’t know how much of a noisy eyesore they get to be.
Sacrifice? Nonsense!
My lifestyle has improved dramatically while my carbon footprint went down, became zero and will soon become negative. And that’s living where it is cold and dark 4 months of the year.
My home is a GREAT DEAL more comfortable than ever with a great heat pump and heat recovery ventilation. Best indoor air quality ever. By far. Great confortable heating in winter. With less than one-third of the original energy consumption (which was already low being a relatively new house).
Now in summer, sitting here in the summer heat in my fantastic cooled home with negative carbon footprint. The solar panels cover the cooling energy many times over.
Or for another thought, who thinks it is a “sacrifice” to drive a Tesla??
I agree that the polls are worded wrong. They should be worded to stress the dramatic IMPROVEMENT in quality of life we all get when going to zero carbon footprint.
Just imagine asking someone who is asthmatic.
“Or for another thought, who thinks it is a “sacrifice” to drive a Tesla??”
The many who can’t afford one?
Those promoting green agendas need to be honest about it - substantial sacrifices will be necessary. Anyone who says the changes needed to arrest or materially slow down climate change won’t cost a bundle or involve putting the hammer down on a range of personal choices is incredibly naive or flim-flamming people*.
*For their own good, of course. 
I disagree entirely. No sacrifices are necessary. Life will be uniformly better. By a large margin. For everyone.
I don’t take a position on “costing a bundle”. Houses and cars already cost a bundle. They will still cost a bundle. They will be a lot better for that money.
The many who can’t afford a Tesla will be able to afford another brand of car. Just like today.
While I don’t take a position on cost in general, I do take a position on the little detail of the cost of battery cars. Battery cars are a lot cheaper than fossil cars, everything else being equal. Eventually governments will prohibit fossil cars. People will be able to buy battery cars instead, as one possible personal choice, and they will be cheaper, all else being equal. This is not true today but that’s only because we still live in the technological stone age. Soon enough battery cars will be truly cheaper (all else being equal) because they fundamentally are cheaper.
And prohibiting fossil cars is of course not a “hammer” on personal choice. You still have the personal choice of owning and driving a car. It will just not use fossil fuels or kill other people with pollution. Thinking that prohibiting fossil cars is a limit on personal choice is just like thinking that prohibiting any other immoral action is a limit on personal choice. (I won’t give examples, surely everyone can think of some.) Personal choice is closely tied to MORAL VALUES. It is not in conflict with them.