Yet another poll finds Americans do understand the planet is warming and driving more extreme weather. The Washington Post/Stanford University poll conducted in mid-June — before the recent monster heat wave — found 6 in 10 Americans understand that the climate is warming and weather patterns are becoming more unstable. Poll details are here.
A full 77% agree government should “limit the amount of greenhouse gasses that U.S.businesses put out.” This is consistent with other 2012 polls (see “Poll: 75 Percent of Americans Support Regulating CO2 As A Pollutant, 60 Percent Support Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax“). Some 57% “think global warming is causing there to be more droughts,” — an accurate understanding of climate science and real-world observations.
Only 22% believe the warming we have seen is due to “natural causes” while 30% understand it come from “things people do” and 47% say it is both of the reasons “equally.” It’d be interesting to ask people directly what percentage of recent warming is due to human activity. For the record, It’s “Extremely Likely That at Least 74% of Observed Warming Since 1950″ Was Manmade; It’s Highly Likely All of It Was.
When asked, “If nothing is done to reduce global warming in the future, how serious of a problem do you think it will be for the United States,” 40% said “very serious” and another 38% said “somewhat serious.”
Significantly, only 12% of respondents said taking steps to address global warming would decrease the quality of their own lives, while 43% said it would make their lives better. No doubt that’s why so many support strong action.
Related polling posts:
- Public Understanding Of Climate Science Rebounds, 72% of Independents Say There Is ‘Solid Evidence’ Of Global Warming
- Gallup: 65% of Americans Support ‘Imposing Mandatory Controls On CO2 Emissions’
- Polling Expert: Is Obama’s Reluctance to Mention Climate Change Motivated by a False Assumption About Public Opinion?
- Poll: Large Majority Of Americans Understand Global Warming Made Several Major Extreme Weather Events Worse
- Pew Poll: Clean Energy Is A Political Wedge Among Republicans
- Independents, Other Republicans Split With Tea-Party Extremists on Global Warming
- Democrats Taking “Green” Positions on Climate Change “Won Much More Often” Than Those Remaining Silent: “Our research suggests that it would be wise for the President and for all other elected officials who believe that climate change is a problem and merits government attention to say this publicly and vigorously, because most Americans share these views. Expressing and pursuing green goals on climate change will gain votes on election day and seem likely to increase the President’s and the Congress’s approval ratings.”
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
The Republicans, of course, are joined at the hip to Big Oil, and won’t change. Meanwhile, Democrats have been handed an issue that could catapult them to power for decades, and open up the possibility that our climate can be salvaged.
So what are we hearing from them? Nothing, except for a few polite statements from a few Senators like Kerry and Cantwell. There is hardly a peep from Obama, who is steaming ahead on drilling in the Arctic.
“Leaders” in Washington are afraid of the fossil fuel companies. We no longer live in a democracy.
Neither you, nor any other citizen of a capitalist society has ever lived in a ‘democracy’. All capitalist states are plutocracies, kleptocracies, kakistocracies and pathocracies, but, never, ever, democracies. Sure the plutocrats’ indoctrination system keeps up the pretense, and there is all the paraphernalia of rule by the people, but it’s all a Potemkin village, behind which facade all decisions are made by the money power, then enacted by their political employees. You might have 99% agreement that something must be done, but it will only occur if that crucial 1% sees it as in their interests.
You should study American history. We had a functioning democracy at different periods in our history. Otherwise, Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Jefferson would not have been elected.
I’d rather stick to my guns. Your plutocratic system sometimes throws up good and talented individuals, no doubt about it, and more so, it would seem, in the past. But today, and for some time, it’s been nearly all robopaths of one sort or another. In many ways, certainly in regard to environmental law, Nixon was streets ahead of the current mob, including Obama. The situation is the same in Australia, where, at present, I cannot think of a really admirable individual in politics, save a Green or two. A few decades ago, and politics was, if not full at least partially inhabited by thinkers, morally and spiritually upright individuals and those whose word could be trusted, on all sides. Today it’s nearly all lies, slander, hypocrisy and naked appeals to greed and bigotry. In any case I do not believe that real ‘democracy’ can ever exist in mass societies of millions with intense, class-based and deliberately fomented partisanship the rule. It’s just ‘divide and rule’ tactics utilised by a cynical ruling caste.
I agree with your analysis. With nature screaming at us, even CSPAN is relatively quiet. As if there were no issue, I rarely see either a Book TV or Washington Journal hour, etc. that even touches the subject.
A coalminer knows his product causes pollution and climate change, so the crucial question is this: will he surrender his job for the good of his fellow man, and by definition the rest of the world?
we all know the answer, and what his answer means for everybody else
Sorry, but I think this sentiment is completely backwards. We all know our cars cause pollution and climate change. So do our furnaces. Should we be expected to surrender our cars and heat in the winter?
We need to address climate change, I’m not arguing with that. But I think on the list of blame, individual coal miners rank VERY low). Climate change is a global problem, and focusing on individuals like this will get us nowhere. It comes off as unnecessary demonizing, quite distasteful.
I assumed that my reference to the coalminer would been seen as an indication of the overall problem, not a condemnation of the miner himself.
Our lives depend on energy extraction and consumption. That is obvious, surely?
Our lives depend on all the many services provided by the sun and the earth.
Sunlight to light our way and to grow our crops, our fibers, our building materials. The earth, a place with gravity and soil and ecosystems. The oceans, full of life.
Sunlight to drive our weather systems and purify our water back into rainfall, which becomes the water we drink and farm with.
Raw materials of all kinds, some born in the hearts of other suns, so we may have green plants and glass windows and so many things.
Of all things upon which our lives depend, fossil fuels are in truth a tiny fraction, and over due to struck from the list completely and for ever.
fossil fuels are condensed sunlight, we built our modern infrastructure on that anomaly.
we used that condensed sunlight to boost our collective productivity to a point where our consumption has exceeded any possibility of natural regeneration.
Collectively we cannot accept that our way of life is unsupportable without oil coal and gas, and instead engage in wish-science that says we will have alternatives to carry on business as usual
and as to demeaning, I feel I should add that I am from a family of (at lest) 4 generations of coalminers.
gotta start somewhere
The miner must be compensated and given a new, non-destructive, job. That’s the essence of humanity and solidarity, hence unknown to the Right. We must not allow the capitalists to throw people on the scrapheap, nor make them the enemy of the good by threatening them with that fate.
there are no jobs, other than professional hermit, that do not depend to a greater or lesser degree on the extraction and consumption of primary energy, oil coal and gas.
our entire civilisation has been built on it, and will collapse without it
that is a fundamental truth that the vast majority of people simply refuse to accept
I had in mind work like reforestation, the production of biochar, local food production, the building of energy efficient housing etc. I respectfully submit that your position is somewhat extreme.
I hate to agree with you, but I can see no alternative to extreme. I wish I could a gentle slide down into a kind of agrarian utopia.
most people involved in reforestation will demand machinery to help them do it, reforestation also uses land needed for food
anyone building any kind of housing will expect mechanical help. You cannot fire bricks without fossil fuel input, and there isnt enough timber to build them any other way.
If local food production involves, say, horses, a horse needs 2 acres of land for its own energy source.
The biggest problem of all will be that redirection of workers to new jobs will involve some kind of overall control. it cannot be a voluntary system because while some might have the skill to work the land, most will not, you cant work at food production on days when you feel like it.
some are bound to hold onto established wealth, while others have to ‘labour in the fields’and as the wealth gap inevitably widens, history clearly shows that resentment will explode.
They were making bricks long before they were digging coal. Wood works fine, or you can just run the tunnel kilns on electricity. Its proven technology.
Agricultural tractors are a challenge, true, but in the big picture of a global economy worth 60 trillion dollars year, some new and more expensive tractors won’t even be a blip on the charts. The irrigated fields with overhead booms could easily be adapted to cord powered tractors.
New Holland has a demonstrator farm where they make H2 and run the tractor on that, all from renewables. Or, for a lithium battery setup, you could set up fast charge points anywhere there a electric company line. They are doing buses like that, works a charm. http://www.thecleanenergyleader.com/en/nh2_tm_hydrogen/hydrogenenergy.html
We have to at least attempt to radically downsize, and the Cubans proved that it was possible, given the will. Only a little place, but they managed the transformation, relying on permaculture and other techniques, and became what the WWF said a few years ago was the only ecologically sustainable society on earth. I still reckon we can do it, but not, definitely not, under capitalism.
Alternatives are growing rapidly, topping $1 trillion in investments. They also create more jobs than dirty energy.
When the Wright Bros. were asked, what good is your little air machine, they answered “what good is a baby?”
with regard to the Cuba context of survival: 1 they had a small population, 2 tropical heat,3 superfertile soil, 4 they were held on an island, 5 from which thousands were constantly trying to escape
While I agree capitalism won’t work to sort out this mess, the opposite will be far worse than any of us can imagine, because it will involve severe controls over ALL our daily functions.
That implies controllers, and for that you must look to the rise of theo-fascism, particularly in the USA, all convinced that our problems are the result of unrighteousness. there will be plenty of volunteers lining up for those jobs
dont forget Bush and Reagan belonged to evangelical beliefs that good old JC would return to clear up the mess we’ve made, once the world was rendered fit for him to walk on. Imagine what the next crop of godbothering lunatics will look like by 2016 or 2020—we saw enough crazies line up for 2012, next time one of them might just get elected, or probably someone far worse
“Meanwhile, Democrats have been handed an issue that could catapult them to power for decades” – Too bad they are also joined at the hip to Big Oil.
But you’re right. Many studies have been done that show we can address climate with many other positive side effects (cleaner air/water, big boost to economy and jobs, increase our energy security, etc.).
Something tells me that our political elites HAVE to know this. It would be one thing if they were trying to pursue this multiple-win policy and failing. But that’s not the case. Both parties are actively pushing policy in the opposite direction.
It’s a very troublesome conclusion.
You mean the conclusion that the ruling global Rightwing elites either want most of humanity dead, or simply don’t give a toss? You’re right-it is disturbing, and I’ve been very disturbed by it since I realised, about ten or so years back, that it must be their objective.
40% say it is a very serious problem. That is encouraging but I wish they had asked, “How upset are you that President Obama has done nothing to address AGW?” My feeling is this most believe is an issue that can wait…I will believe that folks are demanding immediate serious action when they stand up for it at Obama rallies.
It is not true that President Obama has done nothing to stop global warming.
It is true that the Obama administration has not done enough to stop global warming, but that’s a very different proposition.
In the area of administrative actions, not requiring Conressional approval, the Obama administration has done a great deal, even if not enough.
Congress is a real roadblock to better US government action on climate change, and Congress is not really Obama’s fault.
When things are in fact gray and complex, it rarely helps to treat them as black and white.
interesting datum… http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/07/greendex
So 77% agree this is a big problem? I guess it is the other 23% that are purchasing SUV and other cars that get such poor mileage (= more GHG). While it is heartening to see that there is support and that people want the government to limit the amount of GHG that businesses put out, I don’t see many people attempting to do this for their own GHG footprint in terms of their own choices re: cars purchased, amount of driving, amount of flying, etc.
Limit carbon pollution? How much? Does it mean I have to pay $1.00 more for a gallon of gasoline? If so, I ain’t for it sayeth the polled.
It’s a useless poll because much of that support is lukewarm. What if the polled were asked whether they would forgo economic growth to limit carbon pollution? You’d find less than 5% in favor.
This is where the Right are so diabolically clever. They institute an economic system that increases inequality greatly. They make more and more jobs contingent, precarious and miserable. They entice the rabble into more and more debt to maintain the consumption that the MSM and the advertising psychological molesters brainwash people to see as the only purpose for human existence. Then, when everyone is on the brink of ruin, one stagnant pay-cheque from the pit, they screech that the hated Greenies want to put up your petrol prices. It works every time, as Goering said of the similar tactics used to promote war by manipulating patriotism and xenophobia.
Mulga,
Before long, people will see climate change as far more threatening than greenies. (Because climate change drives awareness of climate change.) Then the climate will change, so to speak.
Here’s hoping you are correct. I rather think that you must be, but am haunted by the thought that it might be too late.
If Congress would get off their High Horse and Legalize Industrial Hemp and Medicinal Hemp we could not only reduce our Carbon footprint, but we could replace literally all fossil fuel products by 2020! Actually we could fuel our vehicles (ALL SIZES) with zero impact on the air and environment. Of Course Congressmen and women will have to give up that “Oil Subsidy” they themselves are used to having to fuel their campaigns!
I believe Henry Ford once had a car made out of hemp, and was filmed hitting it with a sledge-hammer, to no apparent effect.
What good is it to conduct a poll where 77% of respondents agree that “carbon pollution should be controlled,” when such opinions seem to neither translate into who is elected to office, or what laws are enacted to achieve that result? While the public may express its concern for pollution or global warming, such concerns are meaningless if they don’t translate into action. Opinions are cheap. It is time for action, and the time for action is running out. The longer we wait the more painful and costly will be the reality of our inaction.
Spot on, Peter. We have a bill in the House, the Save Our Climate Act, that is strongly supported by the NAS, Brookings, Jim Hansen, yet the Tea Party is expected to kill the bill.
Dirty Energy has snuggled down with these folks. We need a Tea Partier who will say “I am for small government, but I also want to get real about the climate and pass this bill!”
Regarding the idea that “most Americans” understand that “climate is warming and making droughts worse”.
Anne Duignan, New York based analyst for JPMorgan Chase & Co., was interviewed by Tom Keene for Bloomberg Radio, aired on Bloomberg Surveillance, July 10, 2012. The topic was the drought and its effect on corn production.
Tom Keene: “Is there a sense here of global warming, or is the sense this is a cyclical tough time?”
Anne Duignan: “I would say that most people in the agricultural industry assume that this is cyclical, since we have precedent. We’ve had huge cycles in weather through the ages. So I don’t think anybody is calling this global warming at this point.”
Keene’s question comes at minute 9:00 in this video: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/23896045