Americans, it seems, are starting to see through the whole climate change horse squeeze.
Now, let me once again qualify that remark. The climate does change. It always has, for 4.6 billion years, give or take a hundred thousand or so. It always will. For the vast majority of that time, the climate has been warmer than it is now; sometimes a lot warmer. There were long intervals in which humans couldn't have survived on the planet. The Earth's climate is an incomprehensibly vast, chaotic system, far larger than mankind's puny efforts. Our actions do make some difference, yes, but the question is whether that difference is enough to justify dramatically reducing our standard of living.
The attendees of the United Nations' ongoing COP30 climate conference would doubtless say "yes." But Americans are starting to express some skepticism. A recent TIPP/I&I poll shows a strong plurality of Americans are doubtful about the effectiveness of this expensive, wasteful conference. Issues & Insights scribe Terry Jones has some details.
The latest I&I/TIPP Poll, taken from Oct. 28 to Oct. 31, asked 1,418 adults the following question: “How confident are you that the upcoming United Nations climate talks (COP30) in Brazil, with a goal of raising $1.3 trillion in climate finance, will succeed in curbing global warming?”
Overall, just 34% said they were either “very confident” (11%) or “somewhat confident” (23%), while 49% said they were “not very confident” (27%) and 22% said they were “not at all confident.” Another 18% said they weren’t sure.
Here are the specifics:
— Ward Clark (@TheGreatLander) November 12, 2025
Count me firmly in the "not at all confident" number, by the way. But, as Mr. Jones points out, there is a concern, which is the age gap.
Among those 18 to 24 years old, 46% were “confident,” while 38% were “not confident. For 25 to 44 years, the comparable numbers were nearly identical: 47% confident, 37% not confident. But for those 45 to 64, the confident share fell to 26% while the not confident jumped to 52%. For 65 and above, the confident number dips further to 20%, while the not confident surges to 65%.
Clearly, there’s a major generation gap on the climate change issue.
The old quote, we suppose, applies: "If a man at 20 is not a liberal, he has no heart. If a man at 40 is not a conservative, then he has no brain." There's probably an age and experience element to all this. But party affiliation also shows a similar gap.
Democrats (41% confident, 43% not confident) aren’t really too far from Republicans (35% confident, 51% not confident) when it comes to confidence, but as the numbers show GOP members are less confident overall.
It’s not the Republicans who take the prize for least confident overall, but rather the independents who come in at 26% confident, to 54% not confident. That’s a 28 percentage-point confidence gap, compared to a 16 percentage-point deficit for the GOP and just 2 percentage points for the Dems.
Here's the interesting thing: Independents, those people who are always touted as election swingers, are really not at all confident in the COP30 crowd's effectiveness. And why should they be? Has the United Nations accomplished anything on this front, to date, other than push for ineffective, low-density, intermittent "green energy" that would dial our modern technological lifestyles back?
When it comes to what the people who doubt the COP30 summit's effectiveness think should be done, energy-wise, a slightly less robust plurality favors, in effect, "stay the course" or "do nothing and let demographics handle it."
But now comes the question for those who are not confident: What should be done? Specifically, I&I/TIPP asked: “If you are not confident in the UN’s ability to curb global warming, which of the following approaches do you think is best for the future?”
Overall, 21% selected “continue using conventional carbon-based fuels and rely on technology to find better, cheaper replacements”; 25% picked “keep using alternative energy sources, even if they cost more and have limited effect on CO2 emissions”; just 14% opted for “force companies and consumers to use less fuel through taxes and higher prices to reduce global temperatures”; and 21% went for “none of the above — global population decline will naturally reduce the carbon footprint.”
Here are those specifics:
— Ward Clark (@TheGreatLander) November 12, 2025
There is, again, quite a partisan gap here. But look at that third item: "Force companies and consumers to use less fuel." 14 percent overall, including 26 percent of Democrats, favor that option.
Yes, you read that right. They favor the use of force to make us surrender our modern technological way of life.
Read More: Royal Wake-Up Call: Time to Question the Climate Bill at COP30
Hypocritical UK Energy Guru Ed Miliband Jets to COP30 - Twice
That means the government, of course. Government, after all, has a legal monopoly on the use of force. For all the left's worrying chatter about corporations, corporations, businesses have to persuade; government can compel. If there's one truly distressing thing to come out of this survey, this is it.
Around the globe, energy prices are rising, in no small part due to interference from government in the energy marketplace. Intermittent, unreliable "green" sources are subsidized. Reliable, traditional sources are taxed and regulated. The United Nations has been largely ineffective in dealing with any of this; they have certainly been ineffective at their stated goal of reducing global carbon emissions, thanks in large part to China and India, who have gone on merrily burning coal and oil while UN bureaucrats wag their fingers.
Here in America, it seems, the numbers are tipping towards sanity. People are getting hip to the scam, as the old saying goes, and learning that in Earth's climate, as in everything else, the one constant thing is change. We're in a warming interglacial right now, coming off the Wisconsinan glaciation. That's a good thing, overall. It's good for agriculture, it's good for human activity, and it's good for our lifestyles. Most of all, it's more or less inevitable. And, it certainly doesn't hurt that, with the present administration's energy-friendly efforts, gas and other energy prices are starting to trend downward.
To understand the climate, to understand the Earth's history where climate is concerned, you have to take a longer view than just the last 50-100 years. Perhaps more people may be starting to do just that.
