I suspect the global warming alarmists in the North Carolina General Assembly may try to ignore this survey data from Rasmussen:

Just one-out-of-three voters (34%) now believe global warming is caused by human activity, the lowest finding yet in Rasmussen Reports national surveying. However, a plurality (48%) of the Political Class believes humans are to blame.

Make no mistake. Unless someone puts the brakes on what’s taking place among the Political Class in the state’s Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change, North Carolinians will face some very unpleasant consequences, as I outlined in this February commentary.

The LCGCC is considering more than 50 proposals. They include a cap-and-trade plan, CO2 tax, vehicle-miles-traveled fee, building energy codes, energy efficiency requirements, smart-growth policies, and public transit initiatives. Each comes with a significant cost to consumers.

Under a cap-and-trade system, the state would impose a cap on the amount of CO2 that can be emitted by regulated entities. Since the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports 86 percent of total energy consumption is from fossil fuels, which emit CO2, the impact would be sweeping. To avoid fines, those over the cap would be forced to buy credits and/or turn to costly “green” alternatives. Producers also would incur tracking and compliance costs. You and I would pay for it all via higher prices for almost every good and service we purchase.

Driving would become more expensive if the LCGCC recommends new taxes and fees. Ideas being considered include a tax on the number of miles driven and a registration fee based on how “environmentally friendly” your car is. If tougher tailpipe emissions standards are recommended, expect the price of a vehicle to jump by $1,000 to $4,000. North Carolina’s Climate Action Plan Advisory Group recommended that the LCGCC endorse the tougher tailpipe code California is seeking to impose. After appearing to die last year, California’s request to impose a tougher standard than the EPA’s was recently resurrected when President Obama directed EPA to reconsider California’s waiver request.

If the LCGCC recommends “smart growth” initiatives, the choice of where to live would be limited to lifestyle options deemed acceptable to government, or made more expensive. For example, the construction industry would have no other reasonable choice than to pass on to consumers the compliance costs for stricter “beyond code” rules.