A recent Gallup poll claims that the portion of Americas that believe Global Warming is exaggerated in the media has risen to 41%–the highest level since the poll began in 1997. While the fact that the majority of the country still believes that the media is either adequately covering global warming or under-estimates it, this is a disturbing figure. There are a number of the secondary readings that seem to stand out.
The fact that 66% of republican respondents are downplaying global warming is unfortunate. The reasons for this could be numerous from creationist mantra to big oil investment holders but it is difficult to take on issues in a bipartisan way when only a fraction of us are even on the train yet.
Somewhat unsurprising is the fact that the largest percentage rise in doubters occurred in the age group 65 and older. Of those surveyed this is most likely the least educated group on global warming issues, both problems and solutions, but also the least at risk given that the likelihood that material damage will occur in their lifetime is slim. Thankfully, the youngest age group of 18 to 24 remained unchanged.
The statistic that I find most important parallels exactly the focus of dialogue here at Intercon.
Altogether, 68% of U.S. adults believe the effects of global warming will be manifest at some point in their lifetimes, indicating the public largely believes the problem is real. However, only 38% of Americans, similar to the 40% found in 2008, believe it will pose “a serious threat” to themselves or their own way of life.
Though people may be starting to understand the concept of sustainability, the isolated nature of its media coverage has not lead people to how it affects them. For too many, environmental problems are still detatched concepts lingering on the periphery of daily life.
The frustrating part of this for those of us that have spent time in fields relating to sustainability is the notion that doubt is the result of ignorance. While some of us are flooded with information, this is one more example where a lack of education has kept the topic of sustainability and global warming from seeping too deeply into the population.
Image Credit and Article Source VIA Gallup
March 13, 2009 at 11:14 am
I will share my frustration with you on this then…Global Warming is bullshit….but sustainability is good.
So why does Global Warming have to come up as the prerequisite to anything that could save energy or be good for the environment? Why can’t we have a country that drills for more oil, expands nuclear power, AND makes things more efficient?
This is the fallacy of a two party system, and even more a failure of looking to the government to dictate what is valuable. In a more free market system, our energy reserves would be greater, and companies that made things more efficient (thus saving people money on their electric bill, or saving them gas, etc.) would prosper.
Instead of that we have to pick sides, or scare people with the Global Warming boogeyman in order to institute cap and trade, or more gas taxes. The Democrat approach to sustainability is like trying to put someone on a diet by stealing their refrigerator, stove, and money so they have no choice but to eat grass. It’s about force, not offering better solutions.
March 13, 2009 at 11:56 am
I’ll agree that global warming and sustainability are not the same thing and are not necessarily mutually exclusive. We can make many strides in sustainability that do not target global warming. But even if one were to take that stance, sustainability is more than just improved efficiency. Sustainability is about achieving a balance that can last indefinitely. You cannot simply prop up wind turbines and solar panels for 15% of your energy production with 40% still coming from coal and call that sustainable.
Drilling for oil is not sustainable. Oil in general is not a sustainable resource. It’s finite and so is its consumption. Whether or not carbon dioxide is making the earth a warmer place, emissions from coal plants and cars still pollute the air and promote asthma in the populace. Until we have better ways of dealing with its waste, Nuclear is not really a sustainable form of energy production either. Is it better than oil and coal? Absolutely, but it can’t be the endgame when it creates some of the most hazardous material known to mankind. CO2 emissions aside, things like species extinction, deforestation, water pollution, air quality–these are all issues of sustainability, not just energy.
I think this administration’s approach to sustainability is the one that the government has to take at this point in our culture. It’s making proactive, informed decisions until such a time that people decide to take the time to educate themselves on the issue. I’m all for our free market system but when the bottom line is cash then cultural change is not easily spurred via only natural capitalistic evolution. There is no free market reason for cars with higher efficiency (we know because it’s been 30 years and we’ve seen marginal improvement.) That doesn’t mean forcing the standard higher is not a good idea.
March 13, 2009 at 2:30 pm
If sustainability is the endgame we can’t expect to get their tomorrow…Oil, nuclear, coal, are our power today, and we can’t replace them immediately with sustainable energy.
I don’t know if we truly know there is ‘no free market solution’. There is no free market in the United States, and hasn’t been for much longer than 30 years.
I really miss how the Obama administration is doing anything other than punishing proven forms of energy, and raising costs on all Americans with things like ‘cap and trade’ provisions, or the ‘Green Czar’ who has just been appointed.
March 13, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Agreed, a switch takes time and involves setting challenging but feasible goals to reach at a steady pace–which I think other countries have done better but we are beginning to do as well.
Oil and coal were the only answers yesterday. Today, when we are faced with how to increase or renew capacity we have more options. I do see punishing and not-helping as the same things. Oil and coal companies are doing fine. If they were smart they would be preparing for conversions or expanding their business model off of a dying product line.
Whether or not one believes in stimulus as a solution is an issue to itself, but as long as we have it, the administration is promoting high speed rail, funding green energy expansion, and using technology to update and upgrade our grid. All sustainable, all job sources, all helping us to keep our technological edge. Again, these are things we should have anyway whether or not the public understands them enough to make the decision for themselves.