Poll: Americans deeply, perhaps irredeemably, confused 10

Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   GreenEngineer Posted 4:02 am
   26 Oct 2007

   unsurprisingRecycling has been part of the picture for a relatively long time -- the current generation grew up with it -- while energy and climate change are relatively new issues in the public awareness.  Those same kids grew up with $20/bbl oil, and climate change viewed as a fringe issue.  So I'm not surprised that we haven't caught up yet.  On the other hand, it's not clear that we have the time to catch up.

   Permalink

2. 

   odograph Posted 6:17 am
   26 Oct 2007

   aluminumThere are things like the aluminum energy cycle ... "It takes 95% less energy to recycle aluminum than to create it from raw materials." [reference]
   Maybe they saw something like that.

   Permalink

3. 

   MCollins Posted 7:26 am
   26 Oct 2007

   How to change?I agree with GreenEngineer--not surprising at all. But there has been little in the way of concentrated effort to raise awareness of climate change, its causes, and what we can do to stem the possible effects. That might be changing a little (thanks, Al Gore!), but still, can Americans be blamed for being unaware of something that very few institutions, including their own government, are taking pains to advertise?
   To our credit, we're starting to get both more involved and more interested as a nation, but we've got a ways to go. And while it isn't going to reverse the trends of climate change on its own, recycling isn't all bad! At least it's keeping the issue in the public consciousness. Sort of.
   
   Editor, http://www.getsolar.com

   Permalink

4. 

   trock Posted 10:23 am
   26 Oct 2007

   I betAnd I bet 3 out of those 4 percent work for coal, oil and natural gas companies that think global warming advocates want to put then out of business.
   See, you thought it couldn't get worse.

   Permalink

5. 

   JMG Posted 11:24 am
   26 Oct 2007

   A rare defense of the common manI typically yield to no one in my despair over what passes for understanding in America now that people who have grown up in the age of TeeVee are firmly in control of everything.
   But, if the question was as described, there is absolutely nothing wrong with those three answers:
   recycling was one of the three most important things they could do to reduce [global] warming. Reducing driving came in next, at 25 percent, followed by reducing energy consumption, at 23 percent. Only 4 percent thought limiting fossil fuel use was most crucial.
   After all, what would do more to reduce fossil fuel use than reducing driving and energy consumption?  I would agree that I would place less emphasis on recycling, but it's way up there if you want to build a sustainable society a la McDonough (there is no waste, everything is food for something else, etc.)
   Remember, for most people, driving is 100% on fossil fuels, and electric use is at least half coal for most, and natural gas heating and electric production is all fossil fuel use too -- so who cares if they didn't give the abstract thing (reduce fossil fuel use) first -- they named the behaviors that count in the top three.
   I'm just glad they didn't list "using cloth diapers" or "shopping online whenever possible."
   
   Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

   Permalink

6. 

   justlou Posted 9:14 pm
   26 Oct 2007

   AwarenessThe level of environmental awareness among readers of this site represents maybe 1% of the US public.  
   Without looking up the numbers, I guess that a majority of people never read a newspaper or news magazines, or even watch the news on TV. A lot of people just are not into it.  And some, in the Gore hater crowd, even castigate "NPR liberals" who seek out news.  You hear them interviewed filling up their SUVs, like, "I wouldn't have payed so much for this monster if I knew the cost of fueling it would be so high!".  Duh!!!  
   People get their news about 7 years too late, like some are just waking up after voting for Bush 7 and 3 years ago.  Like we didn't know this guy was a loser when he was governor of Texas?  
   I am sorry but there are a lot of fools out there who can blame the environmentalists all they want to, but they make their own nests.

   Permalink

7. 

   Sam Wells Posted 4:21 am
   27 Oct 2007

   SurveysYou have to be careful about drawing inferences from a survey you don't know how it was conducted.  For example, if people think it's an architect's thing and all about houses, they might think that recycling would be a wonderful idea (indeed, a major part of Green Building).
   Give people more credit than what you read in the funny papers - I don't believe half of what I read and am skeptical about 80% of any media information.
   For example, was it a random survey that was stratified by age cohort and well as geographically?  Did they use regular phones instead of TV, cell phones, or what?  
   Then watch out for how a survey question is worded.  If the question is "What is important to you RIGHT NOW?" I wouldn't put "avoiding fossil fuels" on my list because there's not much you can do without spending a lot of money.  
   If you asked "What is the most important issue in the future that we need to overcome?" then fossil fuel reduction might come out to be number one.
   It could have been a push-poll for all I know and by the way, the American Association of Architects (or is it AIA) is funded by builders, developers, and Realtors, right?  
   Thank yew ... now back to the drink thang.
   
   Onward through the fog

   Permalink

8. 

   Greta Posted 7:01 am
   28 Oct 2007

   The little drummer boy...or girlI think that what the survey teaches is that people will believe something is important if it is drummed into them. Recycling has been a prominent campaign for a long time.  While the true positive environmental gain of curbside recycling (about which most people likely would have been thinking) is open to debate, it has been a noteworthy effort in focusing Jack and Jill Citizen's attention on environmental issues of some kind.
   Hey, I am happy that 31% of people connected the words "recycling" and "important".  
   [That being said, every Tuesday, I can look out the window and see only 2 recycling bins in front of some 6 or 7 neighboring houses. sigh]
   So, once a "new message of importance" is drummed into their heads, perhaps a new level of environmentality will be engrained. And, so on, and so on.
   Whether or not you agree with his presentation of the message, you cannot argue that Al Gore is beating the drum: "Climate change bad."  And beating it loudly.
   Hey, it's phoenics versus see-and-say.  It would be far better that people actually understand the mechanics, but if they only understand "Recyling good", "Climate change bad", well, it's a start, I guess.  People first must accept that there is a problem before you can engage them in solutions.
   This makes the task of selecting drummers all the more important.
   Al Gore is not the Climate Recovery Movement any more than Martin Luther King was the Civil Rights Movement. But formidable drummers/band leaders, nonetheless.
   
   www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org

   Permalink

9. 

   amc89 Posted 2:11 am
   29 Oct 2007

   Wish more people knew about impact of foodIt's also unfortunate that few people realize that changing their diets to include more local and organic foods and less meat and processed foods is also a highly effective way to reduce your personal impact on global warming. But with Al Gore and his crew allowing hamburgers to be served at LiveEarth, who can blame them? It's nice to see some eco-minded concert organizers establishing policies of only serving free-range meat and offering more vegetarian/vegan options.

   Permalink

10. 

    zacaroni Posted 4:00 am
    29 Oct 2007

    recycling pollutes!This is indeed an issue of poor education: most people still buy into the myth that recycling is an environmentally friendly practice, when it's actually quite destructive.  People seem to have forgotten that "reduce" and "reuse" are the first two steps in the three r's, and that recycling comes last, as a last resort.  There's nothing "green" about shipping large amounts of material across the country so that it can be put into a hazardous chemical process that pollutes air and water systems, and remade into an inferior product that nobody buys - not even environmentalists!
    And, to twist the knife, those that need to be educated first are: YOU!  Readers of Grist!  Environmentalists!  We need to have a serious conversation, here on Grist, about the myth of recycling, and the importance of moving away from the flawed principles of the industrial revolution.  We need a cradle to cradle design system.  Anyone want to start the conversation?  Anyone?
    
    

    Permalink