The environment has fallen on the back burner of public concern in recent years. While more folks feel they understand global warming “very well” or “fairly well” now (80 percent) as compared to a decade ago (69 percent in March 2001), that has not translated to greater concern in recent years. The cap-and-trade bill quietly disappeared (much like the U.N.’s climate refugees), and environmental groups are witnessing enthusiasm for Earth Day and Earth Hour events shrink faster than the planet’s glaciers.
Public-opinion polls over the last decade reveal that environmental concern has waned. Worry over global warming dropped by double digits in the last decade, according to Gallup polling. In April 2000, 72 percent of Americans worried a “great deal” or a “fair amount” about global warming or the greenhouse effect. As of March 2011, the percentage had fallen to a bare majority, 51 percent. Similarly, since March 2001, those who believe that the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated has increased by 13 percentage points (30 to 43 percent). Despite the Nobel Prize–winning work of Al Gore over the decade and the recent environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, economic hardship has come to trump environmental concern.
For only the second time in Gallup’s polling history, Americans place economic growth (54 percent) ahead of protecting the environment (36 percent) in a direct tradeoff. These numbers have flipped over the decade; in January 2000, 70 percent favored protecting the environment compared to 23 percent who would give priority to economic growth, a monumental 65-point shift over the last 11 years. Likewise, concern for energy supplies over protecting the environment has similarly grown over the last decade. In March 2001, 52 percent of Americans gave priority to protecting the environment and 36 percent gave priority to energy supplies. The last decade witnessed a 25-point reversal in this gap, with 41 percent now prioritizing the environment and 50 percent prioritizing the energy supplies. It seems that extreme change of the last decade has been in public opinion, not the climate.
Well since it was all a lie from the start, what did you expect when people figured it out.
You don't think those 'kids' at the stupid conferences have a clue what they are talking about, did you?
Read the leaked emails.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI find it very interesting that, after decades of loud and persistent climate alarmism and ad hominem attack (deniers, anti-science, climate zombies, etc.), the new meme of the AGW Team and its acolytes is: "What we have here is a failure to communicate."
In my case, after reading many of the Climategate e-mails, my first mental image was of "The Great Oz" immediately after the curtain was pulled back.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSee when the economy is good and energy abounds (circa 2000) people have the freedom to be concerned about ‘noble endeavors’.
Consider soaring economy of the early 60’s and we get Rachel Carson and ‘Silent Spring'. In the boom years of the 90’s we got Global Warming. There are many other examples.
Problem with liberal philosophy is they get carried away with their emotions and lose the ability for critical rational thought. Couple this with their penchant for community organizing, activism and demagoguery and they pack a potent punch.
The unexpecting electorate never sees the sucker punch coming, so what do we get?
In a response to ‘Silent Spring’ the world bans the extraordinarily safe and effective DDT, result is countless dead from malaria yellow fever, and dengue.
Global warming brought ethanol, high speed rail, rampant green energy policy and regulations leading to enormous government waste in Europe and US and contributing to our gargantuan debt.
Are we doomed to have a naive gullible citizenry that allows this garbage to be foisted upon us??
Just a correlation here (not causation...I’m not a dumb greenie) but didn’t these lame-brained endeavors begin at the same time as the creation of the Department of Education? Perhaps if we can get rid of that monstrosity our next generation can be free of this bondage by idealism.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAh, "Earth Day" - when hypocritical liberals, like Al "Mr. Environment" Gore - he of the energy-hogging mansions and private jets - wag their fingers, lecturing the rest of us as to how we should be riding bikes everywhere. "Private jets for me; bicycles for thee."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseToday is a poignant example of the difference between "there is no for mankind" Earth Day and "salvation of mankind" Good Friday -- but it's Christianity that's supposed to be oppressive!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHey everybody (you too, Al Gore), "It is finished!"
Facts are stubborn things.
Either the earth is warming or it is not. Public opinion polls don't really change facts.
Evolution is either correct or not. Public opinion polls just reflect current trends. They don't change facts.
I would love to have someone explain to me why it is getting warmer on Mars. I don't think our NASA probes are the cause.
But my point is that facts are facts and opinions are not.
Please keep your blog posts to facts that support your opinions. Don't use opinions in place of facts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs one born in 1969 I still remember vivdly the menace of "global cooling"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn response to the comment about Rachel Carson "Silent Spring". The number is not untold deaths. On the African continent the estimated death toll is about 2 million per year. Since 1970 that totals almost 100 million Africans, most of them black. Wait, is that the democratic party, who is directly responsible and who portrays themselves as the party of the black man. Stupidity reigns.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI blame global warming for the fact that people do not believe in global warming.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor a more complete article, I would like to see the author investigate into the contributing forces of the public opinion shift. Maybe you could explore the funding behind the campaigns that sought to strike down environmental protections across the country? Who funded those campaigns and what was their message?
People do care more about the economy than the environment right now. Choices, the trees or food on the table, I'll go with food on the table for 500 Alex. However that does not mean that environmental policies should be scrapped or struck down. Environmental protection is our responsibility as global citizens, but it is also important due to economic and national security reasons.
This article misidentifies the real issue. Global warming is not the conversation, the conversation is about climate change. GOPers love this war of words argument, but it is scientific fact that average temperatures have risen. However avg temperature increases are not the real problem. The real issue is the climate changes, the massive shifts in regional weather patterns and temperatures that will cause problems with farmland and water resources. When arable farmland and the availability to fresh water is compromised, you have a national security issue.
Regardless, what concerns me most about this comment thread and conservative environmental policy is that there is an economically sound argument for environmental protection.
Oil will not be our largest source of energy forever and this is an indisputable fact. Eventually A. the supply of oil will drop due to availability or market rationing by OPEC and B. it will become too expensive to use at its current rate for both energy production and manufacturing.
A combination of oil sands, deep water drilling and last frontier exploration, sure, they may carry us over for a short period of time. This still does not change the fact that the price of oil is set by a international futures market. If you introduce a new supply (Anbar Oil Field in Alaska) there will be a draw back some where else in order to keep the market price at a profitable level (OPEC cuts barrel release numbers). Never mind the fact that those possible options really just exacerbate the problem. They do not offer any true long term solutions. At the end of the day we will not have oil to fuel our cars and make our plastic goods forever. If the GOP can offer a long term solution to solving this problem rather than drag their feet, I will put down my green sword and shield.
Economically, we need to invest time and money into retooling our energy platforms in order to continue economic growth past the age of fossil fuels. The first nation to rid themselves of foreign oil dependence is going to see an economic explosion. War in the Middle East right now is unfortunate, but I understand why we are their. Protecting our energy interests is extremely important. Without that protection the American economy is threatened. Higher energy costs result in a decrease in market growth. Why not work towards an energy platform that does not force us to have to wage war to protect our economy? Seems like a rational idea.
If the resources of the earth are the fuel of our economy, why would we want to jeopardize our investment?
We are financially invested in the well being of our planet. A farmer, weather he is republican or democrat, will tell you the better he treats his land, the better harvest yields he will have. A logger will explain to you that changes in forest temperatures can result in slower tree growths decreasing timber quality and availability.
The scientific community is behind the fact that we are slowly pushing the earth towards serious environmental problems. Yes, there is a chance that the real issues from climate change may not be brought to light in our lifetime, but they may during our kids or grand kids lifetime. Isn't it worth protecting their futures?
We are a nation hell bent on protecting our interests through pretty much any means necessary. Protecting our planet is economically sound, environmentally friendly, helps steer the nation away from foreign energy dependence, protects us from future national security threats and it is a responsible measure to taking care of where we all live.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusepjsher05: Whether temperatures have risen over the last 100 years, and if so, by how much is still very much a point of contention.
Beyond that, if it is happening, what has caused it is so far into the realm of conjecture that no real scientist dares to go there.
As to the claim that there is some massive disinformation campaign, that has also been completely refuted. For every dollar spent by a sceptic, a thousand is spent by the warmista mafia.
It does the environment no good whatsoever the spend trillions solving problems that never existed outside the fevered imaginations of activists and control freaks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusefossil fuels will not be around forever. However I'm willing to wait the 2 to 3 thousand years it will take them to run out, before I start panicing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI just want to know where Gore is now....quiet....it is SNOWING heavy again in North Idaho today! And it is the end of APRIL! Record low temps! I love it when mankind thinks he can control God's Creation! How arrogant of these men!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe enviro-nuts have brought this on themselves. Americans do care about the environment - the problem is that enviromentalists go to such harmful extremes that they can't be taken seriously. If they focused on the issues that truly matter - polution not CO2 for example, they would get a lot more traction.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse