PARTICIPANT: Absolutely not. FOCUS GROUP LEADER: You would not vote for it at any price. FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANT: I would want to know why the average consumer was being asked to pay for that. I mean, that would be my question. "Is this the only place that this funding can come from?" It's a question we need to answer, but do we need to pay for it? FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANT: For a mother with four children, 50 cents, you know, or even anything on the dollar adds up really quickly. FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANT: And then you don't really know if it would get used on that. I'm kind of skeptical as to where it is going to be used. NARRATOR: The argument that the rich nations should take the first step had not swayed the U.S. Senate. Does it resonate any better with the average U.S. voter? HANK C. JENKINS-SMITH, University of New Mexico: It doesn't seem to. First off, remember that people can quickly retreat to the idea that, "Well, we don't really know that it's that bad." And as long as they can retreat there, then you don't have much moral point. You can make a moral point if they begin to accept that these things are, in fact, having these potentially harmful effects. And we're just not there yet. NARRATOR: During the presidential primary campaign, some observers began to wonder whether even global warming's most ardent advocate was backing off from the issue. In his presidential announcement