... can be found here (hat tip to pollster.com).
Here's the important result:
American voters tend to see Global Warming as a serious problem but are divided as to whether it's caused by human activities or long-term planetary trends.
This is important because:
As with most issues, the understanding of why something is happening has a huge impact on perceptions about the issue. Among those who believe human activity is the primary cause of Global Warming, 71% consider it a Very Important issue. Among those who believe long-term planetary trends are causing the warming, just 17% rate the issue Very Important.
The scientific community is quite united on the fact that humans are contributing to climate change. So why does this public misunderstanding exist? Because the public has been subjected to a concerted and ongoing disinformation campaign over the past twenty years. And it's still going on. Sen. James Inhofe's recent hearings were a great example of the tactics used to discredit both science and the media that honestly reports it.
I've referred to this as the the uncertainty agenda. Sophisticated advocates know that by sowing uncertainty, they can essentially draw the debate into gridlock -- in which case the status quo of inaction wins.
This holiday season, go out there and strike a blow against Inhofe-ism: talk to a friend, neighbor, co-worker, etc. about the reality and dangers of climate change.
Climate psychology in cartoons: clues for solving the messaging mystery
Jon Stewart praises ‘SuperFreak’ author
The big stories out of Tuesday’s Senate hearing on Kerry-Boxer
Comments
View as Threaded
David Roberts Posted 7:06 am
19 Dec 2006
www.grist.org
Permalink
CyberBrook Posted 7:32 am
19 Dec 2006
Another Inconvenient Truth
http://www.eatkind.net/inconvenient.htm
EarthSave:...
Another Inconvenient Truth: Meat is a Global Warming Issue
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3312
Another Inconv...
UN: Which causes more greenhouse gas emissions, rearing cattle or driving cars?
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.ht...
Livestock's Role in Climate Change and Air Pollution (ch. 3)
http://virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A070...
Cow `emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars
http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/global_warm_c02.htm
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:28 am
20 Dec 2006
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 2:57 am
20 Dec 2006
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:32 am
20 Dec 2006
The best life cycle analysis I could find (Toyota's--which admittedly has to be biased) shows the Prius reduces CO2 by about a third over a Corolla. Imagine how that would compare to a Hummer. Here is an article pointing out some flaws in the study you didn't give a link to. The Prius is no magic bullet, but it is clearly a radical move in a positive direction. The Prius is enjoying unprecedented success as a high status car. That will eventually end and hopefully will be replaced by products that are even more environmentally benign, as each consumer strives to one up their neighbor (at a subconcious level of course).
Striving to eat less meat in one's diet is analogous to eating less food in general. Both consume more energy than necessary. Obesity is growing all around the world as a result of poverty reduction. In any case, I would not call "eating less" any more radical than "eating less meat." Harping at people to eat less and exercise more would be just as effective as harping at them to eat less meat (not very). We should know by now that asking people to sacrifice does not work. In fact, it tends to be counterproductive. Good luck convincing billions of people to sit in a 55 deg house, go childless, walk to work, forgo a source of food that has been a critical part of the diet in our omnivore genetic lineage for hundreds of thousands of years.
Got any math to back up your suspicion that you could produce less CO2 by changing your diet than by driving a Prius? It is a moot point in my opinion because proposed solutions must be implementable. Human nature prods people to want to drive a car that others envy. The Prius is making huge reductions in CO2 on a life cycle basis, the calls for dietary sacrifice over the last thirty years, zip. Veganism is about as appealing to the masses as riding an electric bike. Both are nice personal choices, but neither hold any potential for significant change because neither will be embraced in large numbers.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 5:38 am
20 Dec 2006
However, having said that, posts like CyberBrook's miss several important points:
The big CO2 number attached to meat (particularly beef) includes impacts from feeding, processing, and transportation
thus, local meat has a much lower CO2 footprint
grassfed beef likewise has a lower CO2 footprint
backyard meat (chickens, rabbits, etc) eliminates 95% of all the carbon sources associated with meat production
no meaningful comparison has been made (as far as I have seen) between the carbon impacts of a meat diet and the carbon impacts of a conventionally-grown vegetarian diet
I think the point that we should be focusing on, whether we're concerned about global warming or animal welfare, is the destructive nature of the conventional industrial food system. The problem is not the meat, per se. It's the way it is made. And the solution is not to go vegetarian, it's to change our food production system. (Although going meat-light, and carefully sourcing your replacement protein, is a good idea.)
Note that I'm not trying to pick on CyberBrook in particular, here. I've seen this same broad-brush thinking expressed by lots of people. It's a problem. Things are not that simple.
Permalink
EliRabett Posted 1:45 pm
02 Jan 2007
Permalink