National survey of American public opinion on global warming via Jon Krosnick, Stanford University

Politicians and pundits and the public have all been told by the media and others that public belief in global warming has dropped sharply.  Except that it hasn’t, as polling by Stanford and Ipsos and Reuters make clear.

Yes, other polls, notably by Gallup and Pew, do seem to seem to show a sharp drop.  But in exclusive interviews with Climate Progress, two leading experts on climate, public opinion and media coverage — Jon Krosnick and Max Boykoff — explain what’s really going on.

The big apparent drop in some polls is almost certainly due to the combination of the collapse in media coverage of global warming and pollsters asking a deeply flawed question.

How is that possible?  Well, let’s look at a typical media spin on the subject, “Where Did Global Warming Go?” by Elisabeth Rosenthal in The New York Times last month:

Across the nation, too, belief in man-made global warming, and passion about doing something to arrest climate change, is not what it was five years or so ago, when Al Gore’s movie had buzz and Elizabeth Kolbert’s book about climate change, “Field Notes From a Catastrophe,” was a best seller.  The number of Americans who believe the earth is warming dropped to 59 percent last year from 79 percent in 2006, according to polling by the Pew Research Group.

Hmm.  That’s a pretty big drop — except the Pew Research group doesn’t actually ask people whether they believe the earth is warming!

Unfortunately, Pew asks people “From what you’ve read and heard, is there solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades, or not?”  Instead of asking people what they believe or think, Pew asks them what they’ve read or heard.

Both Krosnick and Boykoff make a strong case that this rather fatally taints the whole question, especially since media coverage — which represents much if not most of what the public reads or hears on climate change — collapsed in 2010.  Boykoff has an excellent new book, Who Speaks for the Climate? Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change, which you can buy here.  He discusses this specific subject in a must-read section titled, “Polling and public sentiment.”

I’ve long been a fan of Boykoff’s work and interviewed him last week.   It was his research (among others) that documented the recent media collapse in climate coverage in this stunning chart:

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE OR COMMENT

Read more

By Christy Goldfuss and Jessica Goad, of CAP’s Public Lands Project, and Michael Conathan and Kiley Kroh, of CAP’s Oceans Program.

Tomorrow, less than a week after issuing the most recent five-year leasing plan for offshore oil and gas development, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar is slated to testify in front of the House Natural Resources Committee on “The Future of U.S. Oil and Natural Gas Development on Federal Lands and Waters.” As part of the committee’s 19 previous hearings, members of the committee have accused the Obama administration and the Secretary of “dramatically declined permitting,” imposing “constant obstacles,” and putting “the brakes on” American energy development.

As described in more detail below, we are drilling more in this country than we have since 1987. So why are we sitting through a 20th hearing on oil and gas drilling when the committee has only held four on wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower combined? Follow the money. We have compiled a chart of the members of the Natural Resources Committee who can count the oil and gas industry among the top five contributors to their election campaigns over the course of their careers.

Using data from opensecrets.org, ThinkProgress has also determined that Republicans on the committee have already taken in $485,506 for next year’s election, compared with Democrats who have received at most $79,000 in donations. So, the party holding a majority of seats in the House — and therefore in charge of setting the hearing schedules—has taken six times as many campaign contributions from Big Oil in 2012 cycle compared to the minority.

Although the committee’s leadership have tried to make the case that the Obama administration is standing in the way of oil and gas development on federal lands and waters, the facts show that we are drilling for oil and gas more than anywhere else in the world. Here are some important pieces of information to keep in mind for tomorrow’s hearing:

- The Wall Street Journal reported in late August that U.S. oil drilling is “up nearly 60% in the past year and the highest total since at least 1987, when oil services company Baker Hughes Inc. began keeping track.”
- A June 2011 report by Headwaters Economics found that U.S. onshore drilling activity was at 91 percent of the 20-year high.
- There is more drilling in the U.S. than the rest of the world combined. As of today, there are 2,016 drill rigs operating in the U.S. and 1,697 rigs operating in the rest of the world, according to industry statistics.
– In 2010, total U.S. oil production (onshore and offshore) was the highest it has been since 2003.
- In 2010, the BLM processed 5,000 drilling permit applications; in 2011, that number is projected to be 7,200.
- Shallow water permits have averaged more than seven per month since fall 2010, about equal to 2009.
- Earlier this year, the administration announced a massive sale of offshore leases in the Gulf of Mexico
- Despite serious misgivings from the public, conservationists, and the Coast Guard, the administration approved initial permits for Royal Dutch Shell to commence exploratory drilling in the Arctic.

Meanwhile, the Big Five oil companies have posted $101 billion dollars in profits so far this year, which does not necessarily mean they will spend that money to put people back to work. From 2005-2010, BP, Shell, Exxon/Mobil, and Chevron combined to make more than half a trillion dollars in profits, and they reduced their U.S. workforce by over 11,000 jobs. In 2010 alone, while oil drilling increased nearly 60 percent, and they pocketed $73 billion, they handed pink slips to 4,400 Americans.

Funny stuff.  McKibben knows how to deal with Colbert:  Go with the flow (wherever the absurdist host takes it) but stay on your talking points.

The result is Colbert was nicer to McKibben then he is to many such guests.  But then Colbert is an optimist: He says with the tar sands, the climate would be half full … of carbon.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

 

Not long after the bankruptcy of Solyndra, Florida Republican Congressman Cliff Stearns said he didn’t believe the U.S. could compete with China in renewables. “Green energy isn’t going to be the solution” to economic growth, he explained.

Stearns, who oddly thinks that subsidies should go to mature companies rather than emerging industries, is one of the Congressional leaders investigating the Solyndra bankruptcy. Like many of his colleagues, he has used the opportunity to pan incentives for clean energy across the board, rather than ask how they can be more effective.

But those incentives to clean energy, which are dwarfed by historic government support of fossil fuels, are providing real, tangible benefits. When asked by Think Progress to comment on Stearns’ assertion that America can’t compete in clean energy, Iowa Republican Congressman Steve King responded by pointing to the 39 wind turbines just outside his property.

Watch it:

Read more

Last month, the BBC released Frozen Planet, its much-anticipated follow-up to the Planet Earth series. The new seven-part documentary explores life in the Arctic and Antarctic, including an entire episode on the dangers posed by humans and global warming.

However, viewers in the United States will not see that final episode because the BBC believed it would not play well abroad.

The Discovery Channel, which will broadcast the series in the U.S., claimed it “only had slots for six episodes,” preventing an extended discussion on the effects of climate change. The BBC also justified the move by claiming that Sir David Attenborough, the iconic British voice of many nature documentaries, was not well known enough to justify the episode, which features the Brit talking at length to the camera.

British viewers will see seven episodes, the last of which deals with global warming and the threat to the natural world posed by man.

However, viewers in other countries, including the United States, will only see six episodes.

The environmental programme has been relegated by the BBC to an “optional extra” alongside a behind-the-scenes documentary which foreign networks can ignore. [...]

Viewers in the United States, where climate change sceptics are particularly strong group, will not see the full episode.

Instead, the BBC said that Discovery, which shows the series in the U.S., had a “scheduling issue so only had slots for six episodes,” so “elements” of the climate change episode would be incorporated into their final show, with editorial assistance from the Corporation.

The Earth’s poles are acutely affected by climate change. Any discussion of their life and environment would be sorely lacking without noting the ways in which they are harmed by global warming. Unfortunately, the BBC has decided to alter its series for American viewers rather than have a frank and honest discussion with Americans about the effects of climate change.

House members’ anti-clean air actions may hurt their re-election bids, a new poll from the NRDC Action Fund and Hart Research Associates finds. A majority of those polled responded less favorably after political ads ran on three representatives’ positions on a clean air measure.

Voter support clearly drops for the two candidates voting to weaken public health rules. As the chart below illustrates, a majority responded less favorably to Rep. Tim Walberg’s (R-MI) and Rep. Steve Stivers’ (R-OH) support for weaker air quality standards, with at least a quarter responding much less favorably. Support for Stivers fell a huge 15 points after the ads, shrinking his lead over an unnamed opponent to only five points.

The reverse effect in polls proved true as well, for the member who took a pro-clean air position. A majority of voters found Rep. Betty Sutton (D-OH) more favorable, leading to a five-point uptick over her unnamed opponent.

The polling only reinforces how Senators made the right decision last week for their political futures — if not for the quality of public health — by voting down Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s (R) attempt to overturn key air regulations.

This is the true joy in life, the being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one; the being a force of nature instead of a feverish, selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy.

I am of the opinion that my life belongs to the whole community, and as long as I live it is my privilege to do for it whatever I can.

I want to be thoroughly used up when I die, for the harder I work the more I live. I rejoice in life for its own sake.

Life is no “brief candle” for me. It is a sort of splendid torch which I have got hold of for the moment, and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it on to future generations.”

– G. B. Shaw, quoted by Dr. Eric Chivian in his remembrance of Paul

I was fortunate to get to know him over the years in the various meeting we attended together and then through blog posts he submitted.  He was passionate and brilliant and tireless and thoughtful, a physician and public health expert who helped steer scientists and climate hawks toward a crucial understanding of the impact on humans of human-caused global warming.  He was a great communicator who schooled us all on how to convey scientific information to the general public.

You can read some of his prolific work on the subject of health impacts of climate change here, including his  New England Journal of Medicine article, “Climate change and human health” and the exhaustive Climate Change Futures: Health, Ecological and Economic Dimensions.  You can read the NYT obituary here.

Here is a post on his groundbreaking article detailing the economic, health and environmental costs associated with each stage in the life cycle of coal – extraction, transportation, processing, and combustion: Life-cycle study: Accounting for total harm from coal would add “close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated.” But he had diverse interests, as evidenced by his September 17 Climate Progress post explaining how a a levy on currency transactions could fund the clean energy transformation and healthy development.

Epstein was associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School.  The director, Dr. Eric Chivian, a longtime friend and colleague of Epstein’s, sent out a long remembrance of him, which he has given me permission to repost in full.

He ends by saying, “When thinking about Paul’s life, and my own, and that of others I love, I think of what George Bernard Shaw said in 1907, as it says it all about Paul.”  After relaying the quote above Chivian says:

Let us grab the torch from Paul and make sure that it burns as brightly for us and for the world as it did for him.

Here are some details of the remarkable life of Dr. Paul Epstein from Dr. Chivian:

Read more

Iowa Scientists:  “Over the last 40 years intense rainfall has occurred about five times more often than in our previous history. As a result our communities have faced enormous expense to recover from repeated “500-year” floods. Cedar Rapids, Des Moines, Iowa City, and Ames all have suffered multi-million dollar losses from floods since 1993. In 2008 alone, 85 of Iowa’s 99 counties were declared federal disaster areas.”

“A sign is completely submerged along a road north of Vinton, Iowa, as water from the Cedar River continues to rise Wednesday June 11, 2008…. Flood waters have inundated the electric plant in Vinton and the entire city is now without power. Officials are preparing for the Cedar River to crest at record levels all across the state. (AP Photo)“

JR:  Here is a news release and statement by three dozen Iowa scientists.

SCIENTISTS ACROSS IOWA SAY THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS AFFECTING IOWA, URGE CANDIDATES TO ACKNOWLEDGE CLIMATE SCIENCE

DES MOINES - Scientists from across Iowa issued a statement today re-affirming that climate change is real and urging candidates to acknowledge the science of climate change and present “appropriate” policy responses.  The statement, signed by 31 scientists from 22 different colleges and universities in Iowa, is being delivered to Governor Terry Branstad’s office today and will be available for participants in the Iowa Energy Forum sponsored by Politico in Des Moines on Wednesday.

In the statement, the scientists point out that Iowa is already experiencing the effects of climate change, such as increased precipitation, and that those changes have “clear connections to changes in global climate.”

“All major scientific societies and the US National Academy of Science have affirmed that the recent rise in greenhouse gases in the global atmosphere has contributed to changes in our climate,” the scientists say.  Additional climate changes will challenge farmers and planners “to maintain the prosperity of our state and its role in national and global food security.”

Read more

“We tracked the dollars spent, and RGGI generates greater economic growth in every one of the 10 states that participate in RGGI than would occur without a carbon price. The states’ auction of the CO2 allowances was important for generating those public benefits.” — Susan Tierney, managing principal at the Analysis Group

A new report finds that America’s first mandatory, market-based carbon cap and trade system added $1.6 billion in value to the economies of participating states, set the stage for $1.1 billion in ratepayer savings, and created 16,000 jobs in its first three years of implementation.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) — a modest 10-state cap and trade program designed to reduce carbon emissions in the utility sector 10% by 2018 — was implemented in the Northeastern U.S. in 2008. At that time, there was a strong consensus that policy action to address climate was needed, and the program was crafted with bi-partisan support.

However, as the faux climategate scandal unfolded and the plan for a national cap and trade program unraveled, some of the support for RGGI disintegrated. Driven by an aggressive multi-million dollar campaign from the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity, some state legislatures considered pulling out of RGGI. Only New Jersey’s governor Chris Christie, who once strongly supported RGGI, actually acted to take his state out, claiming the program was a “gimmick.”

But this latest three-year analysis from the economic consultancy Analysis Group shows that the program has been anything but a gimmick — creating solid economic returns that outweigh the costs. According to the study, RGGI has created 16,000 jobs, helped states avoid $765 million in out-of-state energy imports, and created over $1 billion in net present value for ratepayers:

Read more

The Obama administration’s decision to add a likely fatal delay to approving the Keystone XL pipeline defied pundits who bet on the pipeline’s approval as recently as two weeks ago. The decision to redo the environmental and national interest assessment is a major victory for the climate movement, the result of tireless work from indigenous groups, youth climate activists, Nebraska progressives, landowners, labor leaders, and Obama supporters who drew a line in the sand.

The fight is far from over. Canada’s right-wing government is still trying with all its might to pump out the oil sands to China and the rest of the global oil market. TransCanada and Alberta Premier Allison Redford are trying to salvage the Keystone XL pipeline, desperately seeking ways to get approval to build within six to nine months. Redford even met with House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) to discuss the pipeline, turning a diplomatic issue into a partisan attack.

Numerous alternate routes for getting the tar sands crude to Texas refineries are in development, when and if TransCanada’s pipeline is killed. No single project matches the 700,000 barrel-per-day throughput of Keystone XL, though their combined effect would be greater:

Enbridge’s Monarch project is intended to transport up to 480,000 bpd of crude in a 24″ pipeline from Cushing, OK to the Houston, TX.

The 30″ Seaway pipeline, a joint venture of Enterprise Products Partners and ConocoPhillips, currently runs from Freeport, TX, to Cushing, but flow could be reversed to ship 200,000 bpd of Canadian crude.

CN’s “PipelineOnRail” oil-tanker train system could ship as many as 200,000 bpd to the Gulf of Mexico.

An analysis of the Keystone XL project conducted by Ensys for the Department of Energy finds that these projects would need to be stopped if the tar sands are to stay in the ground:

Production levels of oil sands crudes would not be affected by whether or not KXL is built. (It would take a total moratorium on new pipeline – and also rail – capacity.)

In Nebraska, the Keystone XL special session is continuing. Jane Kleeb, one of the leaders of the Cornhusker movement against TransCanada’s invasion of their state, said, “Now, more than ever, the Legislature needs to take action on behalf of the citizens of Nebraska. They have run out of excuses.” Nebraska Farmers Union President John Hansen said, “Nebraska must use this welcome window of opportunity to claim its routing and siting authority so that the interests of our water, soil, and especially our landowners can be protected.”

In the New York Times, Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Michael Levi sneeringly described the Nebraska movement against the quasi-legal depredations of the foreign oil company against their state as “shortsighted” NIMBYism. The Nebraskans “simply did not want a pipeline running through their backyards,” Levi writes, dismissing the ecological, economic, and political concerns that galvanized them.

The grassroots organization that put together the White House arrests this summer that galvanized the movement, Tar Sands Action, is not backing down. Their site has a “pledge to take nonviolent action against the pipeline,” with signers “the first to know about anything we need to do down the road.”

Despite the urgent need in many of their home states, House Republicans refuse to provide funding for infrastructure development and blocked the recent piece of President Obama’s jobs act offering $60 billion to rehabilitate America’s roads and bridges. It appears the only way Republicans are prepared to fix America’s crumbling infrastructure is by threatening the environment with domestic drilling. GOP Rep. Steve Stivers (OH) announced the GOP plan Friday to fund all infrastructure with 37.5 percent of drilling revenues earned specifically from opening up the Gulf of Mexico, Virginia’s coast, and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil rigs:

On Friday, Rep. Steve Stivers (R-Ohio) put meat on the bones by announcing a plan that would require lease sales in areas off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, among other areas, and lift a congressional ban on oil-and-gas leasing that covers most of the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

The plan includes a lease sale off Virginia’s coast by mid-2012. [...]

Separately, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) introduced legislation that authorizes oil-and-gas leasing in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Stivers insists that removing drilling bans, or “government roadblocks,” will “provide much-needed revenue to help pay for vital infrastructure improvements.” However, as opening up the ANWR to drilling will do little to fill the need for revenue as the Department of Energy noted it’d take at least 10 years to produce any oil from the Arctic. It will only serve to endanger the home of America’s last polar bears and porcupine caribou.

Of course, the Senate Democrats plan to pay for infrastructure with a small surtax on America’s millionaires would actually yield the needed revenue to pay for these “vital infrastructure improvements.” But, as always, the Republicans are dead set against a revenue plan that doesn’t further their special interests agenda. And, as always, it’s done at the expense of the most vulnerable.

by Shauna Theel, in a Media Matters cross-post

Other stories below: CIA Urged to be More Open About Climate Change; Lawmakers Scrutinize Foreign Aid to China

TransCanada says it will work with Nebraska on new pipeline route