Disturbing Trends in What Americans Believe about Climate Change
The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press released results of a major survey tracking what people believe about “Global Warming.” It is not encouraging! Across age, gender, race, political affiliation, and religion there have been declines in the number of people who believe that human activity is involved and increases in the number of people who don’t think it is happening. My own demographic (white, male, 54 years old, political Independent, Evangelical Christian) is among the most skeptical, though the Baby Boom slightly bucks the trend for age. Some friends and I are working on a strategy to challenge the Church on this issue.
- » See also: Revenge of the Angry Mermaid
- » Get Sustainablog by RSS or sign up by email.
The emerging scientific evidence continues to strongly indicate that climate change models are too conservative if anything. So why this trend? It would be appealing to cite a “FOX News” factor because their audience is the furthest along this road, but the changes in other groups suggests an even broader problem. I’ve already argued that making this something about saving polar bears is a bad education strategy (its really about starving poor people in places like Africa).
What do you think is going on here? Any good ideas for how to counter-act this across-the-board rejection of good science? As I watch the way that climate change is already effecting agriculture this really concerns me. It makes it increasingly unlikely that Congress or States will pass rational legislation in this area. I am saddened to see most farm groups lining up to oppose a cap-and-trade even though it could potentially lead to payments to farmers who sequester carbon by using the best farming practices (no tillage, cover crops, controlled wheel traffic…).
I would be even more discouraged about this if there wasn’t an unexpected bright spot - many major food companies and multi-national technology companies are taking carbon emissions very seriously and are working on ways to reduce their “footprint” (and often that of their suppliers and customers). I don’t think this is because they “didn’t get the memo,” but because they have taken a serious look at this threat. They have realized that addressing it is not just the right thing to do, it can often improve their bottom line (efficiency tends to do that).
So I’m not completely depressed by this new survey, but I’m still disturbed by the trend.
You are welcome to comment on this site or you can email me at feedback.sdsavage@gmail.com
Graphs by Steve Savage
Thanks Steve for yet another good and interesting post. I’m also a little disturbed and puzzled on how people don’t revere this as a serious and deadly threat to a lot of people in the Earth.
It would be interesting to see what Europeans and others would answer on the very same questions. I truly doubt that 1/3 of Swedes (my countrymen) would say that they don’t think global warming is happening. Back home the debate has been going on for quite some time now, but it’s not about whether it’s happening or not, rather how we can tackle it in the best and most effective way.
So how come Americans are more ignorant then others on issues like this? Well my best guess is that you are for more exposed to counter-productive lobbying that any other western country. I find it very sad that out-of-control greed makes some companies and single interests stand in the way for things we have to do to save a lot of peoples lives, maybe also including our own.
Thanks again for great blog. Keep up the good work!
Cheers! // Dudde Sweden
Could it be that many people are unimpressed with the climate of fear politicians use to institute personal change under the premise of global warming? It’s interesting to note that conservatives (those resisting change) are the most unlikely to accept global warming. Could be due to disillusionment.
Thanks Dudde. There was a very good “Non Sequitur” cartoon on 10/14 that concluded, “stupidity is a condition, ignorance is a choice.”
Tom,
I’d agree with you if I heard much from the politicians about climate change. There is a need for some real statesmanship and articulation, neither of which seems to be well supplied in the political realm today on either side of the aisle
Steve,
Excellent article and great graphs from the Pew study.
Let me give a quick intro — I am an artist and environmental author with 20 years experience in design & marketing.
So, I am very interested in the question: How do we motivate people to make significant lifestyle changes? How do we make going green so appealing and compelling that people will change their lifestyles and take personal responsibility? It’s a marketing, education and government policy challenge to change behaviors. It can be done. Why do I believe that?
We can look 30 years back at many successes that have improved society — 5 examples are recycling laws, drunk driving laws, anti-smoking laws, seat belts laws — and the New York Pooper Scooper Law from 1978. That last one is a favorite of mine. It’s hard to believe that 31 years ago people didn’t pick up after their dogs. But now, fines coupled with social pressure have resulted in most people picking up after their pets. I like to say, “If we can convince people to pick up dog sh*t, who knows what social change is possible?”
But clearly with the Pew study we have a long way to go — especially in North America. Change is bubbling up from the grassroots but it has not taken hold yet. Environmental awareness is growing. Just look at Oct.24th International Day of Climate Action — 181 countries, and over 5200 actions.
2009 reminds me of the early days of the world wide web. Back in 1995 I jumped onto the web. I embraced it with fervor and changed our business to include online services. But so many others (clients
scoffed at us and said it was just a trendy fad. Most people did not believe the web was going to change their lives, and the world at large. But it has revolutionized the world. You can’t walk into a coffee shop today without hearing conversations about blogs, email, Facebook etc. Almost everybody is online now — including grandparents. It is part of the fabric of our lives.
Although climate change is here now, many North Americans don’t follow the scientific news. They may have heard about the melting polar ice, rising sea levels, acidification of the oceans, droughts, floods and climate refugees — but they don’t think it’s going to change their lives in the near future.
Within 10 years climate change is going to be part of our daily lives — just like the web is today.
As environmental writers we can (and must) do our absolute best to educate people and encourage them to take personal action. I think of the next generation — our future grandkids — and how furious they will be that we didn’t take action when we had the chance. They will say we were stupid and selfish and mean — and they will be right. So, I may not be able to change government policies but I can change my own habits. I want to be able to tell my future grandkids that I saw the writing on the wall and I took action to reduce my carbon emissions.
But the world is edging closer to 400ppm — or higher — and we’re facing a possible 4 degree change in global temperature…
Well, I think you’re right to be concerned. I am very concerned. We must keep working to educate people about climate change and how important it is to take action now.
Dr. James Lovelock, the author of over 200 scientific papers, and most recently The Vanishing Face of Gaia says, “Our wish to continue business as usual will probably prevent us from saving ourselves.”
My reaction to Lovelock’s statement is irritation. Society can change. And it’s people like you and I that are going to make it happen. We cannot continue with business as usual.
Regards,
Franke
Franke James, MFA
Author, Bothered by My Green Conscience
Twitter: http://twitter.com/frankejames
Somewhere between 390 and 350: Still uncertain
Andy Maser: Kayaking For Climate Change | The Outside Blog
By Guest Blogger
On August 5th, Trip Jennings, Sam Drevo and I spent the evening herding 20 sea kayakers, whitewater kayakers and one standup paddle-boarder into the
shape of a giant floating “350” [1] on Portland, Oregon’s Willamette River.
And with no intent to be rude:
To civilians who to “350″ allude
As the level, certain,
That won’t ring down the (world) curtain:
It’s likely only an estimate, crude.
________________________________________
[1] On October 24, thousands of student groups, faith groups, community organizations and outdoor
enthusiasts around the world will participate in 350.org’s International Day of Climate Action , and
we’re rallying the paddling community to be a part of it all.
Why 350? In 2007, NASA’s chief climatologist, Jim Hansen, released a study marking 350 parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere as the safe level for humanity. Anything higher than that and we risk reaching environmental tipping points that could make our planet much less hospitable–the level is currently 390ppm (emphasis added).
[What will happen between 390 and 350
350.org hasn't yet said
But, theoretically, as between life and death (planetarily speaking),
The latter will by then be ahead].
I think we need strong government action on this issue, and I think it’s ridiculous that the United States (and the Europeans) have been twiddling their thumbs trying to find the most palatable and profitable way of doing something that is absolutely necessary.
In the 1960’s, we didn’t try to make money off of ending segregation. We didn’t take polls to see if integration was popular. We put our foot down and did it because it was the right thing to do. In the 1930’s, we didn’t try to figure out how to make a quick buck off of keeping the elderly and disabled from starving. We just did it because it needed to be done. Now we’re going to trash the planet because it’s profitable and change is unpopular? What has this country come to?
Unfortunately, with only a few exceptions, the mainstream environmental movement has been taken over by corporate interests who have no interest in actually changing anything about the way we use fossil fuels. But that’s another problem. Needless to say, I wouldn’t expect anything to be done on this anytime soon. Even if a climate bill passes in Congress, the fine print is going to allow industry to pollute as much as it wants — that’s all a carbon market does.
Ignorance.
On both sides. The extreme environmentalists spout doom-and-gloom predictions. The anti’s cite recent studies that 1998 was the warmest year on record and, therefore, Global Warming is a myth.
The general public watches local weather forecasts which are significantly in error on a routine basis; if you can’t get it right three days from now, how can you predict 10yrs hence? (Don’t go there; I KNOW the difference between weather and climate.)
Realistically, NO ONE knows the short or long term consequences of CO2 levels at their present values and rate of increase.
Americans are middle-of-the-roaders and extreme rhetoric will alienate them.
Somewhere, between air pollution and doomsday, there is a middle ground environmental message that both sides could agree to meet on and send that message to Joe and Josephine Public. Perhaps then there would be enough public consensus to actually steer this country in a unified direction. Until then, it will continue on as it is.
Respectfully,
Gary
Global warming is a myth. Climate change is a natural occurance on this planet.
Human caused global warming is a fraud upon the world perpetrated by people like Al Gore to make people like Al Gore a ton of money. We are finally realizing that.
Climate science is an extremely complex discipline, based upon reams-and-reams of raw data. It’s a young science with many discoverious ahead.
Unfortunately, the global warming ‘discussion’ has left the realm of climate science and become a politicized ‘battle’ with zealots for foot soldiers.
I blame the politicization of climate science on the United Nation’s ‘Climate Change 2007′ report that claimed CO2 drives global warming. This conclusion, made in the report’s summary, went well beyond the scientists’ findings in the body of the report. The fact is, the UN’s claim is not backed up by a smoking gun that proves CO2 drives global warming. The implications of this ‘leap of faith’ are huge on our energy policy.
Hindsight also makes it clear that the UN had not even proved their most basic point: that climate change is global. Their data and more recent discoveries suggest climate change varies by region.
If ‘drives’ and ‘global’ are correct, America and the rest of the world must quickly restructure our energy infrastructure to reduce CO2 emissions. But if CO2 merely ‘contributes’ to global warming we need to rethink our response to whole thing. If Mother Nature actually drives climate change, then we should not move precipitously to burden our economy with carbon taxes and alternative-energy subsidies. I, for one, do not want to pay a dollar or two more per gallon, skimp on the heater or see the blight of wind mills because of faulty science. Moreover, America just can’t afford it.
Sadly, we out-sourced our scientific opinion to the United Nations. …an organization more concerned about political influence and funding than conducting good science. …an organization that needs to perpetuate the Kyoto Protocol to remain in the game.
It’s crystal clear. The United States needs our own objective, transparent climate commission to think-through global warming. We need the advice of a Climate Truth Commission before we burden our economy with expensive energy. Both sides of the man-made global warming issue should welcome such an approach. Each is so darn sure of its facts.
– Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com