Given today’s economic problems, you’d think the public would be in a surly mood about environmental protection, seeing it as a secondary and perhaps conflicting priority to jobs and economic growth. That’s certainly what conservatives are hoping as they continue to push their environment-wrecking agenda.

Turns out, though, the public didn’t get the memo. In the recently released poll from Yale University’s and George Mason University’s climate change communication programs, 58 percent of poll respondents said that protecting the environment improves economic growth and creates new jobs. Just 17 percent thought environmental protection hurts growth and jobs, and 25 percent thought there was no effect.

In the same poll, when asked to choose directly which was more important—environmental protection or economic growth—the public decisively favored protecting the environment 62 percent to 38 percent when there is a conflict between the two goals.

So no, the bad economy has not turned the public off to environmental protection. Conservatives, if they are wise, will factor that into their political calculations.

Ruy Teixeira is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. This is a CAP cross-post.

Related Posts:

• Gallup: 65% of Americans Support ‘Imposing Mandatory Controls On CO2 Emissions’
• Poll: 75 Percent of Americans Support Regulating CO2 As A Pollutant, 60 Percent Support Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax
• Polling Expert: Is Obama’s Reluctance to Mention Climate Change Motivated by a False Assumption About Public Opinion?
• 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

Interestingly, 48 percent of respondents — including 46 percent of Republicans — said they “support the Medicare program we have now, where people can choose the government run program or a plan from a private health insurance company.” Just 13 percent — and 26 percent of Republicans — would favor “a Medicare program solely run by private insurance companies.” The other results:

– 53 percent were opposed to raising taxes

– 60 percent opposed “increasing co-pays and deductibles so that out-of-pocket costs will increase”

– 72 percent support cutting the price Medicare pays for prescription drugs

– 57 percent are in favor of having people with higher incomes pay more for their Medicare benefits than people with lower incomes

– 54 percent support the proposal that doctors and hospitals be paid “based on quality and results, rather than the volume of care provided”

Currently, over 15 percent of the federal budget goes toward funding Medicare, and that number is expected to increase to roughly 18 percent by 2020.

– Fatima Najiy

While a little over half of Americans are telling polsters that the court should rule the mandate unconstitutional — a number that is unchanged since March — a majority still believe that the measure will continue to be implemented and support its individual provisions:

On the whole, these numbers may not paint the most positive picture, but given the coordinated multi-million dollar assault against reform and the relatively slow pace of implementation, it is fairly remarkable that public is almost evenly divided. And it suggests that as the benefits trickle in, the public will be at the very least open to accepting the measure more fully.

Women protest against anti-abortion bills in Georgia. (Source: AP)

The original legislation, sponsored by Republican Rep. Doug McKillip, would have effectively outlawed abortion 20 weeks, the point where the lawmaker said fetuses can feel pain — a concept that has been widely disputed by many doctors. Although exceptions were allowed in cases where a pregnancy threatened the life or health of the women, no exemption would be granted in cases of rape or incest. The law, once enacted, would have “cut by about six weeks the time women in Georgia may have an elective abortion.”

At the last minute, members of the Senate adopted a key change that “would allow women to get an abortion even after the five-month mark if a doctor determined a fetus has a fatal congenital or chromosomal defect.” Under current Georgia law, women are permitted to get abortions for any reason during the first six months of a pregnancy. Abortions are also legal during the last three months of pregnancy, but “only to protect a woman’s life or her physical or mental health.” Opponents of the 20 week ban argue that most late-term abortions are sought out by parents “who learn their unborn child will not survive outside the womb.”

“I think we need to give doctors and their patients that opportunity,” said Republican Sen. John Bulloch. He added that lawmakers should “not punish a pregnant woman.”

The passage of HB 954 would make Georgia the seventh state to ban abortions after 20 weeks:

Six states — Nebraska, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Alabama — have similar “fetal pain” restrictions; a seventh, North Carolina, restricts abortion at 20 weeks. Passing the bill now throws Georgia into a stormy debate in this national election year over abortion limits. Most notably, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell signed into law this month a controversial bill requiring Virginia women to undergo an ultrasound procedure prior to having an abortion, although he backed off a mandate to require a trans-vaginal ultrasound.

The bill now heads back to the House, where the proposal could fail if an agreement is not reached by Thursday, when the General Assembly adjourns for the year.

To see more about the anti-abortion bills legislators in Georgia and several other states have been debating, check out our interactive map HERE.

– Fatima Najiy

(HT: Towleroad.)

Poll Director Mark DiCamillo said the move to a 25-point gap goes beyond the gradual increase in support that has been expected as young voters age and “replace” older voters in the electorate. “This is now showing that opinions are changing irrespective of generational replacement,” DiCamillo said. “This is real change.” [...]

DiCamillo said voters still hold the judiciary in relatively high regard, and years of gay marriage court battles in California are likely contributing to the opinion shift. “The winds of change are blowing in other states (and) when judges start ruling the same way, I believe that has an influence,” he said.

Proposition 8 was found unconstitutional by a federal judge in San Francisco, “and his ruling was upheld by a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this month. But the appeals court is weighing a request from gay marriage opponents for a larger panel of judges to review the decision, and ultimately, the matter could be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court, with a decision years away.”

Political scientists have suggested that conservative efforts to outlaw marriage equality may have actually contributed to its growing popularity by increasing the visibility of LGBT issues and making “a topic that seemed taboo a little bit less taboo.” “One of the fascinating things is that with all this discussion out there whether positive or negative, being able to say the words, just made people more comfortable,” Professor Brian Powell of Indiana University told ThinkProgress in 2010.

Why the discrepancy? An examination of the polling methodology reveals a very different set of questions between the two polls.

The YouGov poll asked respondents [PDF]:

Suppose a number of countries decided to take action against Iran in order to
stop Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. Would you support or oppose your country’s Government taking part or assisting in each of the following?

Respondents were then asked whether they supported or opposed a number of actions including, but not limited to, air strikes. The question puts forth a situation in which a “number of countries” are acting multilaterally to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. This hinges on the hypothetical situation that Iran has decided to pursue a nuclear weapon — an assertion that neither the IAEA nor U.S. intelligence officials say there is enough evidence to definitely support — and a multilateral coalition coming together to conduct air strikes.

The United Technologies/National Journal poll released last week asked respondents:

As You May Know, Many In Congress And On The WH ’12 Campaign Trail Have Said That Iran Should Not Be Permitted To Produce A Nuclear Weapon. How Far Do You Think The U.S. Should Go To Prevent This?

This question poses no hypothetical scenarios about Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon or a multilateral effort to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The takeaway from the two contrasting poll results is that Americans are not unconditionally in favor of or opposed to military action against Iran. The IAEA and U.S. intelligence officials have expressed concerns about potential military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program but the YouGov polling question presumes a situation in which Iran is verifiably seeking to acquire a nuclear weapon. Details such as whether Iran must be stopped from constructing a nuclear weapon and the presence of a multilateral military campaign, are very important in determining American support for military action.

But the Christian Science Monitor’s headline, “Bomb Iran? Nearly half of Americans say ‘yes’ to halt nuclear program,” completely overlooks the complexity of the polling questions and the YouGov poll’s revealing insights into American thinking on military action against Iran.

Other provisions of the ACA that are gaining acceptance since November 2010: creating insurance exchanges where people can shop for insurance is up to 59 percent from 51 percent; requiring research to measure the effectiveness of different treatments is now at 53 percent from 44 percent; and providing tax credits to small businesses to help pay for their employees’ insurance is now up 70 percent versus 60 percent.

– Fatima Najiy

Interestingly, the survey also explores why so many — 67 percent — oppose the individual mandate: the most common reasons offered in their own words include that the government shouldn’t be able to force people to do something they don’t want to do (30 percent), that health insurance is too expensive (25 percent), and complaints about the fine for non‐compliance (22 percent):

That top reason sounds an awful lot like a GOP talking point and may say more about the public’s general weariness for larger government than its distaste for this particular provision. But once the requirement kicks in and Americans realize that the law offers a wide array of coverage options without any singular government mandated plan, their trepidation about paying a penalty for going uninsured will likely dissipate.

An earlier Kaiser poll found that people become more supportive of the mandate once they learn more about it. Support substantially grew, for instance, once voters are told that “without the mandate, people might wait until they are seriously ill to obtain coverage, driving up insurance costs for everyone.” Another pro-mandate argument tips the public even more in favor of the provision: “Sixty-one percent of those surveyed support it when told most Americans would still get their coverage through their employers and thus wouldn’t be affected by the mandate.”