I missed this when it first came out, but check out the Zogby poll on global warming:
The survey also indicated there is strong support for measures to require major industries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to improve the environment without harming the economy -- 72% of likely voters agreed such measures should be taken. That sentiment was consistent across a wide age spectrum of respondents, but there was some split along party lines. Among Democrats, 81% agreed major industries should be required to cut greenhouse gas emissions, while 61% of Republicans agreed. Among independents, 73% said major industries should be required to decrease certain emissions. [my emphasis]
I wish some clever politician would figure out how to convey the following message to the public: the question is not whether or not to "harm the economy." The question is, which will harm the economy more, measures to stabilize and eventually reduce GHG emissions or the severe weather, rising oceans, and trade disruption brought on by global warming.
I happen to think that cutting GHG emissions will ultimately stimulate the economy, not hurt it. But at the very least, we need to shake this myth that the economy will roll merrily along if we ignore global warming.
Comments
View as Threaded
Robert Delfs Posted 11:59 am
29 Sep 2006
What concerns me on the downside isn't just the weakness and inadequacy of the measures to avert global warming that most Americans would be willing to support now, but that the importance of Katrina and this year's heat waves in changing people's way of thinking betrays how much people are focusing on events over a very short term.
What might look like an upsurge in awareness of the reality of global warming could go right back in the box if there happen to be fewer hurricanes again over the next year or two. What might appear to be a return to more "normal" weather patterns in North America over the next 1-2 years is not impossible, or even unlikely.
People aren't responding to what scientists say, Or if they are, it is only because those messages happen to be in synch at the moment with widely-held immediate, personal perceptions that the climate and weather are changing in bad ways.
Persuading people there may be huge medium- and long-term economic costs if the growth in GHG emissions is not reversed - not just slowed - will clearly be much harder. Getting Americans to acknowledge that their country (among the developed economies of the world) bears primary responsibility for the crisis is probably impossible.
Robert Delfs
Permalink
bookerly Posted 12:05 pm
29 Sep 2006
Robert is correct. But we need to pay attention to the role of the MSM in framing and discussing this issue.
Unfortunately, we live in a time where television provides most people with most of their information. (This is truly frightening and explains many things!)
The MSM switches coverage back and forth, and focuses only on the "now". This tends to encourage this trend in people.
We really could use a more intelligent serious media and less shows like something called "Lost" (all the rage among my students).
Otherwise, we have very little hope of getting people to focus until their cars start to melt.
patrick
Permalink
robertmacelvain Posted 10:46 pm
29 Sep 2006
In the year 1905, Nobel physicist, Albert Einstein, published his E=mc² EQUATION, which opened the door to THE WORLD OF THE PROTON GENIE, the door to all of the abundant energy that Earth will ever need. But, nobody looked or listened except the Energy Cartel, which stood to loose its enormous wealth and power if Einstein's EQUATION should ever become implemented.
Many have attempted to implement Einstein's EQUATION, but even the most promising successful efforts are routinely thwarted.
In brief review, "E=mc²" provides the basis for extracting and fusing PROTONS from ordinary, pure water, which will ultimately make everybody on Earth so idly rich and content from the benefits of this clean, virtually-free, and inexhaustible energy supply that nobody should ever again have to worry about pollution, war, or poverty, and Mother Nature will once again regain total control of any Climate Changes.
The Atomic Doomsday Clock reads, "7 minutes until Doomsday, and counting!"
Is it too late? Or, will some ordinary, individual Tinkerer (maybe just an average high school student) rise to the occasion, connect the dots, and construct a simple physical demonstration of Einstein's EQUATION so that the entire World Population can become enlightened to the prospect of a new future of peace, contentment, and prosperity? Anything less will fail to uncork the PROTON GENIE for the benefit of mankind because "The Special Energy Interests" have sufficient resources to block any individual efforts to provide Cheap Power.
Please encourage your correspondents to link to this blog, and help spread Einstein's great-inspired VISION, "A Free-Energy Paradise On Earth."
http://howtosavecivilization.blogspot.com/
Permalink
Heidi Posted 2:49 am
30 Sep 2006
Does anyone know of any regular old news agencies that do a good job of reporting trends? I'd love to get my hands (or eyes) on it. It gets exhausting trying to keep up on my own!
http://groxie.com
DIY Environmentalism
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:11 am
30 Sep 2006
This is called push polling, you ask a leading question and influence the opinion of those answering the poll.
If fact the renwable energy economy will greatly benefit the economy. Was that wrong headed question intentional? Of course, the talking point propaganda spread by media is right out of corporatist think tanks.
Drudge is on the computer screen of virtually every US news oulet. Pure right wing tabloid corporatist sludge invading media consciouness.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 1:41 pm
30 Sep 2006
There is much talk of Global warming being due to carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere.
However if you impartially look at the unfolding climatic situation you will find there is a confused case for the warming scenario, and a very strong case for drought.
A warmer and wetter earth is no problem. A drying Earth is a very serious problem.
First to understand this
The Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere of the earth are disconnected when dealing with climate.
The Northern Hemisphere is experiencing a mixture of floods, severe storms and drought.... all within the bounds of the theories about a CO2 greenhouse effect. This is because the Northern Hemisphere has a very large land mass to dry.
The Southern hemisphere is experiencing severe drought in many areas.
Common to both is ice melt and drought.
There is a molecular thin layer of petroleum oil overlaying the surface of the sea. This surface micro layer inhibits water evaporation, and upsets the hydrology cycle of the entire Earth. Removal of clouds accounts for ice melt, and transient local warming by increasing the occurrence clear skies.
If you look at the air temperature records, what becomes apparent is that the temperature range (ie the difference between the maximum and the minimum air temperature is widening.
The earth is slowly becoming a desert... not a wetter and hotter place.
Of course big oil and big coal, set their spin doctors to hide this information, and in truth, you still drive your car.
A carbon dioxide problem is trivial, an oil slick is terminally sick.
The first step in addressing any perceived problem is to determine just what is the problem.
see
omegafour.com/forum/
Permalink
TokyoTom Posted 3:18 pm
30 Sep 2006
On top of that, the fossil fuel producers and users have invested effectively in muddying the science and Republicans have figured out how to make political hay by both taking contributions from indutry and bashing Dems on this issue.
I wonder when the left will consider trying to accommodate fossil fuel industry and manufacturers, and thus directly remove the source of the blockage (and undermine Republican transigence as well). I have addressed this recently in my last post in the libertarian blog of the Von Mises Institute, which I take the liberty of quoting:
"Climate change falls into this latter type of open-access resource problems. Properly understood, dealing with climate change is not focused on stopping the negative effects or the activity that causes them, but simply in creating rules that allow make it in the self-interest of those who are creating negative effects to take into account the interests of those who are affected.
We are in the middle of community negotiations about the creation of climate change rules. As part of the discussions, it seems to me that everyone is naturally trying to maximize their self-interests. I am sympathetic to all sides, but think that it is clear that we need at set of rules that acknowledge the negative effects, and would like to get past the policy blockage.
It seems to me that at the core of the policy blockage -both nationally and internationally - are distribution issues. These distribution issues need to be resolved in order to move ahead. Those who create the negative effects deny them, when they actually have a fairly strong argument that they have "homesteaded" rights to emit GHGs. For this, perhaps the easiest path to a solution is to expressly provide GHG emissions rights to existing large-scale emitters (contributions by individuals are nominal and can of course be ignored), and to compensate them if their share under any collective cap is less than their current emissions. Likewise, certain developing countries have a point when they argue that the application of any limits to them is unfair in view of the fact that up to now the problem is due wholly to the industrialize economies. How do we get them to agree to a cap, except by a combination of carrots in the form, of subsidies for new technologies (as Bush is doing) and sticks (trade sanctions - which Bush and the EU ignore)?"
TT
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:54 am
01 Oct 2006
Developing countries are NEVER going to agree to caps that prevent them from developing UNLESS developed countries agree to reduce their emissions to the same levels as the "capped" developing countries.
And that's per-capita.
So far, alas, it sounds like developed countries have no interest in getting serious quickly.
But there is long term hope, maybe.... (flip a coin).
patrick
Permalink
dobermanmacleod Posted 2:57 pm
01 Oct 2006
First, with a growing population and with growing per capita greenhouse gas emissions, dramatically cutting emissions is unrealistic. Currently, policymakers seem content to only prescribe a freeze in overall emissions, because India and China have to catch up to the Western per capita greenhouse gas emissions.
Second, cutting emissions is a mitigation strategy, not a solution. We are already committed to almost a 1C increase, and some say it is unlikely that there is the political will to stop warming below 3C.
Finally, when forced, the climate doesn't warm gradually and linearly. Instead, it changes abruptly, going from one stable state to another with little time in between. Caps is a strategy that is intended to gradually wean us off of burning fuels that emit greenhouse gases. Yet, it is probable that abrupt climate change will occur in the next decade or two-completely nullifying any attempt to gradually tapper off our carbon emissions.
The only solution is biosequestration, where nature removes the carbon from the air after it has been emitted. Nature already does this, but we are overwhelming her ability to cope. Yet, it is predictable that runaway global warming and abrupt climate change will destabilize human civilization, and there will be less than a billion people alive by the end of the century.
Permalink
klatu Posted 1:57 am
02 Oct 2006
The existing status quo, institutionally holds in place the predominant values expressed by any culture or society. Those values have not changed over the centuries. Accumulated wealth remains the primary measure of success in our world.
That dominant materialist perception defines the ethical conception, via law, of our history, which continues leading us towards the environmental abyss and worse!
Whatever progress we may feel ours or any particular culture has made, without sustainability, the whole enlightenment project, that is, the developement of spiritual, ethical and material rationalism, with a view to progress is a political-culture failure!
On this basis it is necessary to question the possible limits of natural reason and human nature itself and where those limits have lead us to self deception and illusion.
I am not questioning anyones sincere aspirations to save the planet, but like ending war, that other great moral/political failure, what we are able to dream is not always what we have the ability to accomplish. Why have we, as human beings, been unable to integrate such a sustainable ethical conception within our evolution?
So where are the intellectual road blocks that would prevent us asking the harder questions and seeking out new solutions that might speak to the whole of humanity?
Human aspirations beyond the political have historically been the preserve of 'religion' but their 'hope' has now proved a dead end. With humanity caught between the proverbial and environmental rock and a hard place is their anyplace else to go?
Well that's a good question, but one that may now in fact have a answer and a very big one at that, and just in time. Anyone interested in pioneering the search for a new, practical ethical/spiritual conception, one where ethics defines the material, that might be a potent catalyst for change globally, may want to check out a couple links:
http://www.energon.uklinux.net
http://thefinalfreedoms.bulldoghome.com
'Problems cannot be solved by thinking within the framework in which they were created' A. Einstein
Permalink