Post-Gore: Still two Americas
On climate, U.S. attitudes are split along partisan lines 20
-
Posted 3:09 PM on 23 Mar 2007
by Anna Fahey -
Posted in
-
Read More About
Anna Fahey is a communications strategist at Sightline Institute, a Seattle-based research and communications center working on sustainable solutions for the Pacific NW.
Related Stories
Climate talks timeline: From 350 to Kyoto to Copenhagen and beyond
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
odograph Posted 1:07 am
24 Mar 2007
It is similar in that regard to one that asked if global warming was a "critical" issue.
The way my mind works is to say that (a) I am not worried, and (b) I equate critical issues with the more short term (Iraq).
On the other hand, not only am I ready for global warming action, I started long ago. I've switched over to efficient refrigerator, washer, dryer, lighting, and a hybrid car.
I'm ready for even more action on a national scale ... but would that show up in such a poll?
Permalink
GulfAaron Posted 1:49 am
24 Mar 2007
"Windmills!?! They want to make us get our energy from f*&%ing windmills?!!?"
Besides hardcore birders, I didn't think anyone got really heated about windmills. There are definitely two americas, and unfortnately, the more prominent the Al Gore/Hollywood collaboration supports action, the more attacked and embattled the second America will feel.
So go out, and tell our politicos to Step It Up! but make sure to ask any republicans you know to come along and find out the windmills aren't going to sap and impurify your precious bodily fluids, or whatever crazy theories inspire such vitriol.
Aaron Viles
Campaign Director
Gulf Restoration Network United for a Healthy Gulf
Permalink
odograph Posted 2:45 am
24 Mar 2007
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:07 am
24 Mar 2007
It is interesting, and disappointing, even disturbing, that concern about global warming as a crisis gets more and more explicitly and consciously mixed up in the minds of the Other America as just another obviously objectionable liberal un-American enthusiasm, such as working for equal rights for gays.
Similarly, there was that essay in that far-right evangelical Christian site (WDC Media, or something like that), picking up with great approval the comment of Vaclav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic, that opposition to global warming is an international movement equivalent in evil to communism. See DR's recent post.
As for Bill McKibben's Step It Up organization, and the mid-April events being planned, no doubt we shall be hearing a lot more about all that, including what kind of influence it will have. Demonstrating is personally not my style, but I hope that these events will be very good things.
As for the graph of "Percentage Worried ... by Party ID," from 4/1999 to 3/2007, possibly the most curious feature is the double low, of 3/2004. Why should that period be the time of the lowest readings? Because it was around the first anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and Americans' concern was focused elsewhere? Because during the Democratic primary season our candidates were talking about a number of other issues but not global warming?
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:01 am
24 Mar 2007
In one America lives Richard Branson, Al Gore, Leonardo di Caprio, Nancy Pelosi and many of the rich Grist Liberals. These people have made vast fortunes from the limited natural resources during the cold spell of the last two centuries. They want to remain in power by feeding the people Bread and Circuses such as "Inconvenient Truth" and "Carbon Offsets". This is the 3% that represents the Haves.
Then there is the other 97%. They are not billionaires. The don't make movies in Hollywood and then whine about how green they are by driving a $200,000 Italian "hybrid car". These are people who live in normal sized homes and apartments, or smaller. These are people who insulate their roofs and try to save energy -- not because of the "planet" but because of the "pocketbook". They set their themostats lower than they would like to because they can't afford any more heat.
The Haves of the IPCC and Anthropomorphic Global Warmers know that their time is at hand...yet, they want to pull the wool over our eyes for a few more years, so Richard Branson can buy another tropical island, and Al Gore can buy another mansion and Nancy Pelosi can get another facelift (maybe two). After that, the circus will leave town, and Joe Average can start to enjoy the better weather and easier living under Global Warming's benefits.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
RaySmith55 Posted 6:56 am
24 Mar 2007
Regardless of whether humans are the cause of the temperature increases throughout the globe (which everyone concedes are occurring), we should all be very concerned about it! If at some point in the future, there is a dangerous asteroid heading towards the planet, then whether asteroid strikes are simply a part of the Earth's natural history or whether some human activity provoked the asteroid to head our way should make little difference. We need to act to solve the problem! So even if Americans aren't convinced that human activity is responsible for increased temperatures, a strong case can still be made that we need to take preventative action. Perhaps a good next step would be a new vocabulary to describe the problem.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:04 am
24 Mar 2007
I agree with you, but I would add a 3rd option. You defined two categories:
AGW - Anthropogenic Global Warming
NGW - Naturogenic Global Warming
Those strictly relate to causation. But there is another question which is never raised (except by me): Is Global Warming to the benefit of most of Mankind?
I state "yes" -- Global Warming so far has been the basis of the huge upsweep in prosperity in the past 200 years. And, I see that continuing and increasing with the projected 2 - 3F increase in the next century.
The only people who have to fear Global Warming are the people who are entangled in resources that become less necessary when the planet becomes warmer: Energy, Real Estate, Clothing, Food, Technology, Insulation Materials.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:01 am
24 Mar 2007
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/naturogenic
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
kimall Posted 10:15 am
24 Mar 2007
No. Fear and panic prevent us from thinking and acting clearly. I don't want to know how many people have ulcers or can't sleep becuase they're worried about climate change. I want to know how many people have seen the problem clearly and are ready to act on it rationally and reasonably, without panic, hyperbole, or primal screaming. Let's just move forward, together, cooperatively. Not quaking in our boots, throwing accusations around, or raising our blood pressure.
Climate change is serious. But like ambulance workers when dealing with a serious car accident, panic and "extreme concern" are not helpful. Environmentalists who raise the alarm level higher and higher are defeating their own purpose, which is doubly tragic.
Permalink
Stephanie Ogburn Posted 11:38 am
25 Mar 2007
http://www.yale.edu/envirocenter/environmentalpoll.htm
OR
http://environment.yale.edu/4467/sea_change_in_public_att ... (press release)
I, too, think many of these questions are weirdly worded, like comparing climate change with terrorism is kind of an odd thing to do. And, notably, if you pass over the center's (and my school's) spin on the whole thing and look at the real questions and answers, particularly on p. 4 of the pdf of the actual survey report, (http://www.yale.edu/envirocenter/yale_epoll2007_topline.p ...) you'll note that: 1. They ask some really odd questions; 2. almost no one supports actual taxes on gasoline or inefficient cars.
Yet 81% also say that "it is my responsibility to help reduce the impacts of global warming."
What to make of this? One take: the American public is good at being concerned, but even better at hating taxes--at the expense of the globe.
Polls continue to mystify me, and I'm not sure if they'll ever actually mean anything.
Stephanie
http://www.stephaniepaigeogburn.com
Permalink
odograph Posted 8:38 pm
25 Mar 2007
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:00 pm
25 Mar 2007
But polls do indeed ask "weird" questions, as Stephanie observes. Very frustrating, if you are patient enough to sit through a questionnaire. Is there really a science behind their weird questions? Possibly, but it would be nice of them to give us a hint that they think the questions are weird too ...
Yesterday, a story was carried by AOL News that Prince Harry, that cutey-pie, staggered out of a bar, made a swipe at a paparazzo, and needed to be caught before he fell to the ground altogether.
A poll question attended the story: A. This is serious. B. This is not serious. C. I'll have whatever he was having.
You can imagine how I answered.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Shambu Posted 12:53 am
26 Mar 2007
Although it might be liberal sacrilege to criticize Mr. Al Gore, the Great Prophet of Climate Change, his does us all a great disservice by cracking a joke about George Bush in the first 10 minutes of Inconvenient Truth. There is a very large portion of the population that we want to work with, that we need on our side but after that joke, a large percent of viewers will not hear another word of this very important message. How can we get more people - of all classes, ethnicities and political perspectives - to embrace environmental activism when partisan politics is involved at every step?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:01 am
26 Mar 2007
We will never convince them, nor do we need them. Forget 'em, they are too stupid to live.
In a pre-nanny state, freemarketeerian frontier culture they would not survive. Their breath-holes would get plugged with mud.
Like "Aunt Baby", they would not make it.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 1:48 am
26 Mar 2007
Meanwhile, the choice of spokespeople for global warming is not Al Gore or Mythical Ideal Uniter of the Country, it's Al Gore or nobody. Something about looking a gift horse in the mouth ...
www.grist.org
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:21 am
26 Mar 2007
That is a very mistaken idea. Among that third of the country, among that 100,000,000 (one hundred million) people, Bush is very, very popular.
It is simply there is one third that does not want to seem him in power -- many of them Liberal media moguls who use their power to overemphasize their own opinions, and the final third of political non-combatants that does not care one way or the other.
Bush is strongly supported by the people that support him. Show me a rock star or tv personality that has one hundred million loyal fans...
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:55 am
26 Mar 2007
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Mmimika Posted 3:03 am
26 Mar 2007
Are you seriously one of those people who is looking forward to global warming or are you making fun of the red states?
If the latter, let me speak for my republican and evangelical neighbors. Most people I know voted for GWB because of their conservative social values, or because of a belief in small government. But red-staters are not morons. Nobody wants global warming.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:35 am
26 Mar 2007
We can tell ourselves that "majority rules" but that is far from reality.
We live in a Republic, not a Democracy. The most important legislative body, the Senate, is highly undemocratic. The Executive branch holds great centrist power and it controls the Judical in the sense that it appoints it.
I doubt if there will ever be a true Majority in power -- because even when one mainstream Party gets a lot of votes, many people opt out of voting and also others vote because there is no better choice for them.
That is to say, that the 33% supporting Bush are like the 300 defending Sparta -- a strong focused group with a clear idea of what to do is often "allowed" to lead America.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:25 am
27 Mar 2007
That didn't actually stop me from becoming an (old-time) conservative.
It did however reinforce some beliefs about power and corruption.
... I'm sure there are some how desperately self-identify with the 300 ... so much nicer an image than sweaty Nixon.
Permalink