As if in response to David Roberts’ point that "[t]here is nothing close to the public or political support necessary to pass the kind of sweeping policies necessary to eliminate America’s emissions," Pew is out with a new poll saying just that.
Kevin Drum (via Andy Revkin) has the details:
Global warming, once again, ranks as the lowest priority from a list of 20, and the more general category of "protecting the environment" fell 15 percentage points from last year.
And as if that’s not bad enough, Revkin also points to a new Rasmussen poll, which finds that 44% of U.S. voters don’t believe humans are the cause of global warming, compared to only 41% who do. That’s even worse than last year’s results.
Somehow, those numbers don’t surprise me. Leaving aside the fact that, thanks to the contingencies of history, the developed world has ended up occupying the parts of the planet likely to be affected least by climate change, the whole phenomenon is too vague and amorphous for most Americans to focus on. It just doesn’t feel real to many people. After all, the weather is weird. Sometimes it’s warm. Sometimes it’s cold. Sometimes it rains.
In fact, I’m willing to bet the poll numbers for global warming will wax and wane in correlation with the temperature in any given year (just like a president’s approval rating correlates pretty well with perceptions about the economy). Is it cold this year? Support will fall. A beastly hot summer? Up go the poll numbers.
Meanwhile, we as a society aren’t particularly good with the whole science thing in general. Let’s look at some numbers from a National Science Foundation poll back in 2004.
- Only 40% of Americans know that the universe began with the Big Bang.
- Fully half don’t believe in evolution (with 1 in 5 entirely "unaware" of the concept at all).
- 58% of Americans think lasers focus sound waves rather than light. Lasers! Didn’t these people see Star Wars?!
- And capping it all off: 29% of Americans don’t know that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
What part of Americans’ confusion regarding anthropogenic climate change is hard to understand? Even the concept of the scientific method is understood by only a fraction of our society. This all is why Joe Romm is running a pool on the nature of the near-term catastrophes required to turn Americans’ climate change doubts into certainty.
And, tellingly, the partisan split is huge, with 59% of Democrats saying climate change is caused by humans, while only 21% of Republican agree. And why should they? Climate skepticism has been a cornerstone of Bush Republicanism for eight years—and so far it looks like many in the GOP will continue to use it as a rallying cry.
If there’s any hope in these recent climate poll numbers, it comes from a figure buried in Rasmussen’s poll. They found that 64% of American voters believe climate change, whatever the cause, to be at least a "somewhat serious" problem (41% say it’s "very serious"). So we may not rank the issue very high at the moment, and we may not be sure why it’s happening, but a solid majority of us are ready to be persuaded.
And President Obama has left little doubt that we’ll be hearing a lot about climate change in the months and years ahead. If anyone can move public opinion on the issue, it’s going to be him, don’t you think?
What to make of the new climate poll
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
Pompey Road Posted 11:56 pm
22 Jan 2009
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 12:11 am
23 Jan 2009
This isn't to dismiss the enormous problem of scientific illiteracy, but simply to point out the basic problem with poll-tested decisions. On a whole host of issues, which are in no means limited to scientific ones, we need to rely on leaders who will make the right decisions without the votes, or even in the input of the majority. (Civil rights issues being an obvious example. See also Jefferson's/Madison's early concerns about the "tyranny of the majority")
So while it's sad that Americans don't understand global warming science, it's much sadder if we have reached a point where no policy actions are possible that don't have majority support.
Permalink
PurpleOzone Posted 1:21 am
23 Jan 2009
A cottage industry is happy to feed the emotional factors by sowing doubt about the science. A bunch of public relations thugs dress up as scientists and pontificate, spreading lies and propaganda. The major media continues to feed these trolls -- including the New York Times with its Tierney log and CNN Lou Dobbs (although CNN announced in 2002 the science of global warming was no longer in doubt so there was no 'other side').
What to do? Emphasize that people aren't bad because it's hard to change. Take the guilt trip out of it and foster positive ideas about improving while changing. Make sure people understand addressing climate warming is a broad challenge, to be faced by governments, businesses large and small, and, yes, individuals. Emphasize that there are economic benefits and everyday benefits to be obtained. (Yes, cloth bags carry groceries better than the plastic bags that spill out all over the trunk and cut into my hands when carrying.)
Finally, polling might address these questions:
1) How do you think global warming may affect your life? Your children's?
2) What do you think you should do about it? Your employer? Your governments?
Permalink
cavecanem Posted 1:39 am
23 Jan 2009
Mankind is so disconnected from nature, and it is highly disturbing. It's easy to say the Earth isn't warming and to not worry about pollution when we are comfortable in our houses and cars and when everything we buy has the pollution and slave labor and ecosystem destruction externalized so that the regular Joe Plumber isn't even aware of it.
Educate your children. Get them outdoors, for the sake of humanity. Let them appreciate the planet, and don't hide truths from them. It is, I feel, our only hope.
Permalink
gmobus Posted 2:20 am
23 Jan 2009
We try so hard to do the one-size-fits-all turn them all into scientists. I've seen kids turn away from the subjects just because of the way it is crammed down their throats.
What we should be teaching the majority (after all, not everyone will be a scientist) is how to appreciate what science does and how it enriches our lives, what the nature of scientific knowledge is (as compared with uniformed beliefs and opinions), and how to read and interpret science news stories. On the latter point, we need to better educate the science press as well!
The true science courses (biology, chemistry, etc.) should be reserved for those students who really show an aptitude for the procedural and mental attitudes needed for real science.
What the majority of students need are courses in the philosophy and sociology of science. These can include examples from all of the sciences to introduce students to science-based knowledge, but not with an emphasis on the more quantitative aspects or requiring memorization of arcane facts.
In our zeal that everyone should know every science fact or theory we have literally shut down the avenues to producing citizens who appreciate science (and BTW can recognize when it is being inappropriately used for political agendas).
But I am sure that in our panic to produce more scientists to stay competitive with the rest of the world we will simply redouble our efforts to teach science to everyone and make matters worse.
I would rather have a citizenry armed with the understanding of how science works and the critical thinking skills needed to evaluate how scientific findings are being used than simply having once been forced to measure reagents in a chem lab and quickly forgetting everything they were forced to regurgitate on a test. I suspect that such a citizenry would pay more attention to what scientists report.
Of course there are always going to be that 13% or so who sincerely believe their ideology trumps all. You know, the ones who are still cheering GWB!
Question Everything
George
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 2:27 am
23 Jan 2009
People don't care about science because scientific knowledge isn't rewarded outside of a limited number of job descriptions. Science majors work harder, pay the same tuition and face lower incomes than law or business majors. Why bother?
Succeed at science and the EPA fires you for violating policy. Fail at banking and you only get 60% of your bonus even when your bank is on life support. Who can't do that math?
When the dummies start to understand that good science is the difference between hungry and dead maybe we'll all pay attention. Right now entertainment still trumps.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
archigeek Posted 3:23 am
23 Jan 2009
The mellotron is your friend.
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 5:01 am
23 Jan 2009
Teach about climate change while using the memes that will heal the planet:
Green Jobs. Clean Energy. Energy efficiency. Weatherization. Lower heating and cooling bills.
You know those terrific clean coal ads that show empty land signifying "today's clean coal technology"? Follow those ads up with photos of destroyed and denuded West Virginia mountaintops.
Not satisfied? You want to help people care about climate change for its own sake? Segue to photos of Katrina while you quote some credible scientific organization/report saying that climate change leads to stronger storms.
That's the short term plan to get support for the policies. Teaching the kids science is the long term plan.
Permalink
rogerwegener Posted 2:30 pm
23 Jan 2009
The way to fix it is with a facts based education agenda - perhaps with the new administration we have a chance.
But the only way to fix something is to acknowledge that it is broken and understand why that is so.
I am not sure that we are there yet.
Permalink
J4zonian Posted 9:32 am
27 Jan 2009
I don't believe the problem is that people don't care; that's an apparent symptom caused by psychological problems (society-wide trauma, eg.) that make people cut themselves off from the parts of them that do care, because to care is too scary, infuriating, depressing, hopeless, or painful. Self-absorbed lives are about distracting ourselves from those lurking emotions and the knowledge that causes them; not the problem itself, and changing the lives can't happen until people are slowly and gently made less afraid of the emotions.
Yes, we have to get people outside; we also have to be able to sit in bars and talk about--maybe not soil carbon levels but human and other natural phenomenon in a way that excites curiosity and fans embers of it that haven't been snuffed out by a terrible education system. I'm with archigeek, but that's only one part of what we need. Try this: there is an iridescent species of bee, in the Euglossine (good-tongued) family that makes a sound of a certain pitch when it hovers. Only that sound opens a certain orchid that the bee specializes in, so the bee can get its nectar, and coincidentally transfer pollen from that orchid to the next one it visits, helping the orchid reproduce. Doesn't that get your sense of wonder going? Doesn't that make you less likely to do things that would kill the bee and the orchid?
Permalink