In what can only be considered a tidal wave of public opinion, a new Yale research survey reveals a significant shift in public attitudes toward the environment and global warming. Fully 83 percent of Americans now say global warming is a “serious†problem, up from 70 percent in 2004. More Americans than ever say they have serious concerns about environmental threats, such as toxic soil and water (92 percent, up from 85 percent in 2004), deforestation (89 percent, up from 78 percent), air pollution (93 percent, up from 87 percent) and the extinction of wildlife (83 percent, up from 72 percent in 2005).
Most dramatically, the survey of 1,000 adults nationwide shows that 63 percent of Americans agree that the United States “is in as much danger from environmental hazards, such as air pollution and global warming, as it is from terrorists.†It reveals growing concern about dependence on Middle Eastern oil, with 96 percent of the public saying this is a serious problem. As a result, the public overwhelmingly supports increasing the use of alternative energy, including solar and wind power, as well as investing more in energy efficiency.
The survey indicates that while 70 percent of Americans believe that President Bush doesn’t do enough for the environment and should do more, many citizens are ready to act on their own. Seventy-five percent recognize that their own behavior can help to reduce global warming, and 81 percent believe it is their responsibility to do so.
The results further suggest that many Americans want greener products and are ready to spend money to try new technologies that will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Seventy percent of the public indicates a willingness to buy solar panels, and 67 percent would consider buying a hybrid car. These numbers suggest that the growing number of companies that see market opportunities in providing climate-change solutions—alternative energy, “cleantech†products and energy efficiency—may be on the right track.
Dan Esty, director of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, which commissioned the survey, says the United States is in the midst of a “revolution,†in which the business community is embracing the profit potential of a burgeoning green consumer movement. And frustrated with the limits of government action, the public increasingly wants business to solve environmental problems.
“There’s been a dramatic shift in the business community’s attitude toward the environment,†notes Esty. “Rather than seeing environmental issues as a set of costs to bear, regulation to follow and risks to manage, companies have begun to focus on the ‘upside,’ recognizing that society’s desire for action on climate change, in particular, will create a huge demand for reducing carbon-content products.
“It’s clear that the public is not waiting for the government to take the lead. Americans no longer think it’s entirely the domain of government to solve environmental problems. They expect companies to step up and address climate change and other concerns.â€
The survey also suggests that the public’s reasons for wanting investments in alternative energy and action on climate change vary widely. For some, concern stems from the rising cost of gasoline (Forty-nine percent of the public sees this as a very serious issue.). Others want the nation to be free of imported oil (93 percent). Forty-three percent believe that preventing global warming is a religious duty.
“The coalition supporting action on climate change has broadened considerably,†said Gus Speth, dean of Yale’s environment school. “With the public ready for carbon controls and business stepping up to the climate change challenge, it is disappointing that our political leadership is lagging so badly on this issue.â€
The survey was conducted on behalf of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies by Global Strategy Group from February 5 to 11, 2007. The survey was conducted using professional phone interviewers. The nationwide sample was drawn from a random digit dial (RDD) process. Respondents were screened on the basis of age, i.e., to be over the age of 18. The survey has an overall margin of error of ±3.1% at the 95% confidence level. The survey questions and full results can be found at the website of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy.
Here’s another interesting result from the survey:
When asked to respond to “As the Bible says, the world literally was created in six days,” 58% agreed with it!
Just FYI (you can read it for yourself here:
http://www.yale.edu/envirocenter/yale_epoll2007_topline.pdf)
Congratulations on your piece being celebrated by WSJ Opinion Journal editor James Taranto. While the herd instinct governing generals ,theologians and intellectuals tends to drive them into concurring that sloth is as deadly a sin as zeal because it too can lead to scandalously uninformed opinions, many editors display minds of their own,and occasionally even thoughts.
Not always. When it comes to climate change ,Taranto predicates Opinion Journal’s skepticism on pure intuition, confessing himself to ‘ lack the time, the inclination and possibly the intellect to delve deeply into the science. ‘ But if he does not understand what scientists know , or how they come to know it , whence his assertion that “The global-warmists speak with a certainty that is more reminiscent of religious zeal than scientific inquiry?”
His assertion in today’s Opinion Journal that Scientific American is playing political catch up with a 2003 Pentagon report predicting climatic catastrophe is illustrates the perils of not reading what he writes about . The report he refers to is still available on line (http://www.grist.org/pdf/AbruptClimateChange2003.pdf) Read it through and you will see that its purpose was to ask what the military would have to do to adjust to the sort of science fiction scenario the WSJ is constantly taking Al Gore to task for advocating- an abrupt 20 foot rise in sea level. The report clearly states that this is a near future impossibility, and that the authors are addressing the wildly improbable scenario , which is out of bounds according to every IPCC study the UN has produced, simply because the brass need to have answers when politicians ask stupid questions like “What will you do if seal level rises 20 feet?â€
Scientific opinions as to climate evidence often differ , but science differs from politics in differentiating debate about the meaning of empirical facts from the defense of received opinions. In asking ” what is it but an act of bullying to deny that there is any room for honest disagreement? “ in Opinion Journal , Taranto does no good service to objective journalism, or the memory of Senator Moynahan, who wrote the final word on this sort of aberration years ago: ” We are all entitled to our own opinions but not to our own facts.”
Yeah, people say they are real worried about global warming. But, what are they willing to do about it? According to the survey, none of the following: a mileage tax; a pollution tax; a pollution fee; a gas tax increase; build more coal-burning plants; build more nuclear plants; drill in ANWR; cut the speed limit to 55; tax gas guzzlers. What are they willing to do? Hammer the car companies, offer varioius tax credits and fund research. Woopee.
Wondering…
How is the grape harvest doing in Vinland?
Is Greenland green again???
If the Polar bears are threatend, why are there more of them now than 20 years ago??
Is the Mars Rover now an SUV and resonsible for the warming on Mars???
Since Air Conditioning creates more heat than cool, when will congress agree to turn off the air conditioning in DC???
How much is Albert Gore paying for his carbon offsets and how much profit does he make off of it?
Gore and Bush both come from wealthy families, why does Al live in a huge wastful mansion and GWB build a mid sized energy efficient home????
Why doesn’t the EPA sue Gore for the Zinc mining waste on his property???
If CO2 is increasing .00000021 percent in the past 50 years, how much faster will plants and food crops grow????
Russle: I was not aware that anything I had written was in the WSJ?! Do you have a link to this piece?
Richard: I too would like to see more action. But it will come from education. Knowledge is power after all. I just hope that the collective “they” get their act together soon enough. I still have hope.
Greg: If I am reading your stream of questions correctly, and we take this poll to be accurate, you are part of the radical fringe minority. How does that feel? Do you also deny gravity, and evolution, and a heliocentric solar system? Just asking. (and just for the record, Al Gore has nothing at all to do with global warming so the “Al Gore is fat, so global warming is not real” argument is a hollow one)
Here’s the link to your Wall Street Journal debut:
http://opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009865
The context is framed by National Review Online devoting an entire blog ,” Planet Gore” , to the Former Imperial Planetologist’s
efforts to merchandise his skills to the Carbon Permit Trading Guild .
Full Disclosure : I opposed his campaign for Harvard Student Council in the Sixties
Will you look at that… Its kind of surreal, how he triple block quotes the piece. I think I might have been caught in the crossfire between him and the writers of the Scientific American blog, but hey all publicity is good publicity right?
The study is simply a measure of public opinion. And that is how I reported it. I didn’t try and prove global warming was real or false because of what public opinion has to say about the matter. How strange that people you would think have their journalistic ducks in a row could make such a simple error?
Thank you for the heads up, and for visiting the site. I hope you enjoy your stay.
I too used to think that terrorism was the #1 issue to be worried about. But I do agree that Global Warming could be the #1 issue pretty soon – when terrorists set off a dirty bomb in the USA. Lots of things will begin to melt at that point in time.
Here’s a new survey: 100% of me is sure I will never send any of my kids to Yale. I would prefer that they get an education.
Re 15
I’ve posted my take on Adamant, which always aims to edify, infuriate, amuse and inform :
http://adamant.typepad.com/
Fuller disclosure : I occasionally write for the WSJ myself.
I gotta make this short…my pickup has started overheating when I leave it running cuz I forget to…well never mind…back to my point. This global warming stuff seems to be ok…but seems mostly like pretending for the really bright folks to feel really important…you know give them a cause…and make the rest of us feel like we really need them. Hmmm ya think? By the way…you would think that journalists would have their ducks in a row and people with blogs and stuff like 15 would proof read. It’s “or”…not “of”.
And, 17…no one can be as boring in real life as you sound, because then they would be dead.
Phocus: wow, just wow. I don’t know what to say. Thank you so much for finding my error, I will edit it right away, and your insight into this important matter has been so enlightening that I have experienced a complete world view shift. I really can not thank you enough for your wonderful thought provoking, intelegent, and dare I say sexy point of view on this matter. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Chicken Little would be so proud!
The scribbling fearmongers of 30 years ago had lots of people believing that cooling was our great danger – now they tell us it’s heating. Well I guess they need something scary to write about. Gotta keep their phony-baloney jobs going somehow.
But I have yet to see any one of these fearmongers even come close to refuting Michael Crichton’s well-reasoned, well-researched and well-documented work on the subject. And even if I hadn’t been studying this myself since the seventies, I would trust him way more than these half-baked alarmist bozos.
To all the people who’ve succumbed to the GW neurosis, I say, don’t worry about it. Global warming will NOT destroy the planet. Old Mother Earth is easily big enough to take care of herself.
We foolish humans, however, could easily poison *ourselves* out of existence in a variety of chemical, biological, or nuclear ways.
So “give a hoot, don’t pollute”, is still good, sound advice. In all ways, we should seek to wisely minimize our use of pesticides, paints, bleaches, gasolines, antibiotics, and all the energy-sucking appliances that can be avoided.
Just don’t worry about this ‘anthropogenic global warming’ crap – there are *much* bigger forces at work here, and only delusions of grandeur would allow us puny humans to take credit for global climate change.
Have a nice, clean, natural life!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scqssVUFziM
An SUV that gets 14 mpg, like a Lincoln Navigator, will emit over 100 tons of CO2 over its lifetime. (8) A Harper’s Magazine writer took the massive Ford Excursion, the biggest of all SUVs for a test drive. During a drive around a city, the mighty Excursion was only getting 3.7 miles per gallon. It is estimated the Excursion will produce 134 tons of carbon dioxide during its lifetime.
Excellent site you have got here.. It’s difficult to find good
quality writing like yours nowadays. I truly appreciate people like you!
Take care!!
Alsso visait mmy site; games to play at home
Generally I don’t learn article on blogs, but I wish to say that this write-up very compelled
me to take a look at and do it! Your writing taste has been amazed me.
Thanks, quite nice post.
If you would like to take much from this post then you have to apply
such techniques to your won web site.
Great post! We will be linking to this particularly
great article on our site. Keep up the good writing.
First off I want to say wonderful blog! I had a quick question in which I’d like to
ask if you don’t mind. I was interested to find out how you center yourself and clear your
thoughts prior to writing. I’ve had trouble clearing my thoughts in getting my ideas out there.
I truly do enjoy writing but it just seems like the first 10 to 15 minutes are usually lost
just trying to figure out how to begin. Any recommendations or
hints? Kudos!