THE VINE MARCH 12, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Yesterday, Gallup released a poll suggesting that Americans seem to be less and less concerned about climate change. Here was the big headline-grabbing chart:
So why the rise in skepticism? Was it those Climategate e-mails? All those news stories harping on a few small errors in the IPCC's report? Sure, it's possible that both episodes could've affected public opinion, even if neither was significant on the merits. Still, it's interesting to look at the crosstabs of the poll, as Josh Nelson does, and note that skepticism about global warming is almost exclusively on the rise among political conservatives. Two years ago, for instance, 50 percent of conservatives believed climate change was already happening—that's now down to 30 percent.
I'd guess it's just as likely that political dynamics are a big driver here, as opposed to, say, a handful of e-mails from East Anglia. After all, climate change has become increasingly identified as a Democratic cause—in no small part because it's one of Barack Obama's main agenda items. And, on the flip side, you have key Republicans like John McCain and Charlie Crist facing primary challenges and edging away from what was once a signature issue for them. Energy issues have become far more partisan of late, which could explain the sharp uptick in skepticism over the past year and a half.
On the other hand, maybe it's just a bad idea to read too much into climate polls. As Dan Weiss has noted, Americans have been deeply confused about whether or not there's a scientific consensus on climate change for more than a decade—and yet majorities still favor clamping down on greenhouse gases. Public opinion is odd.
3 comments
It is a backlashes and not altogether bad. Backlashes can sharpen debate and draw attention to problems in the dominant consensus. It doesn't matter how many agree or disagree that global warming is a problem. That question is pretty much decided and the current backlash won't change it. I think the issue now is what do we do about it. That's where differences matter. "Cap and Trade' will never get through Congress. It is too complicated to have mass appeal and there are too many special interests (like coal) to push it back. That leaves two alternatives: 1) A command regulatory system that limits carbon waste to specific amounts for specific plants and processes. (In fact, 'cap and trade' was invented by industry groups opposed to the 'command' regulation approach. It's ironic that so many environmentalists now champion it as the be-all-to-end-all solution.) If greenhouse gas is a problem, regulate it like we did toxic discharges under the Clean 0Water Act, one of the most successful pieces of legislation in the 20th century. "Cap and Trade" is cooplicated, watered-down and incomprehensible to most people. Do the polliing ans see. 2) Putting money into alternative energy sources and ways of reducing carbon through physical or biological sciences. Obama stressed the need for R&D in this area throughout his campaign. Dr. Chu was chosen as Energy Secretary for his hands-on, practical experience. and his understanding of promising technologies vs. long-shots. He is working under radar to achieve some of his goals. The backlash of which you speak may be primarily conservatives. Make it simple and within reach. But it certainly predicts or announces more apathy within the general population. Scary scenarios, worst case situations and prophesies of doom are beginning to fall on deaf ears. If you want to keep the support of the majority, give them a way out of the mess that is simple, realistic and has worked before.
- CAMtwo
March 13, 2010 at 9:14pm
The chart is interesting but it seems only to confirm what is increasingly apparent in politics and society. The increasing gap between "conservatives" and fact-based reality is evident in every area of public policy -- the Tea Party deathers and birthers are providing the energy that has fueled the resurgence of the Republican Party, and it is an energy, and an ideology of denial, that attaches to the kind of ignorance that disdains science and expertise. Ignorance was once shameful, but today it is celebrated among the followers of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin -- and so even those "conservatives" who might otherwise have the good sense to be embarrassed by their own lack of knowledge and understanding of climate science (or, for that matter, evolution) are encouraged to shuck any misgivings they might have and to proclaim loudly that it is all just godless, unpatriotic, lefty nonsense. What the chart shows is the trend in polarization and the increasing degree to which the GOP has embraced the wacko fringe as its base. Neil
- purcellneil
March 15, 2010 at 9:23am
There is a serious debate among scientists about the extent to which human activity is contributing to global warming. (That debate is usually misrepresented in the mainstream media.) But the Al Gorean cult of warmist apocalypse has nothing to do with science. It is a weird mixture of hysteria, pseudo-science and leftist politics and the American public, to its credit, no longer takes it seriously. Support for the theory of AGW has fallen about 20 points within the last few years. The decline is pronounced among Republican, Democrats, and independents. http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m10d25-Global-Warming-losing-support-from-American-public Liberals love the AGW cult because it is a good excuse to enjoy the benefits of civilization while looking down on those tacky middle Americans out there who produce those benefits. Worse than that, it is an excuse to turn the land of the free into a “progressive” fascist state.
- bulbman1066
March 17, 2010 at 4:38am