Public Cool on Warming
| Thu Jan. 22, 2009 8:16 AM PST
PUBLIC COOL ON WARMING....Via Andrew Revkin, the latest Pew poll on priorities contains grim news for those of us who think we're rapidly destroying out planet: the public couldn't care less. Global warming, once again, ranks as the lowest priority from a list of 20, and the more general category of "protecting the environment" fell 15 percentage points from last year.
And as if that's not bad enough, Revkin also points to a new Rasmussen poll, which finds that 44% of U.S. voters don't believe humans are the cause of global warming, compared to only 41% who do. That's even worse than last year's results.
It's not surprising that public concern with the economy has risen recently, but over the past two years, as scientists and politicians have both been running around with their hair on fire, the public at large has become less concerned with global warming. Two years ago 38% thought it was an important domestic priority; today only 30% think so.
More later on the implications. But we really have some PR work to do here. Whatever it is we're doing now, it isn't working.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
When you're being evicted from your house and fired from your job, it's difficult to worry about the plight of polar bears.
Getting folks to focus on warming amidst their economic troubles requires leadership from the very top.
And, until now, there has been none.
This is neither surprising nor alarming. Faced with an immediate economic crisis, the general public is focused on the problems directly in front of them. Climate change problems need a long-term approach; another name for that is Leadership.
If anyone is tempted to think we can simply put off thinking about climate change because the public isn't thinking much about it, I'll just note that the current economic catastrophe happened because those in charge refused to pay attention to the long term and instead tried to please short-term interests by blowing up a bubble. When climate change starts to bite hard (and it will, especially if it's unaddressed) then it won't be any sort of excuse to say that doing something about it back when it needed to be done wasn't popular.
1) Energy and global warming are the same issue.
2) The sort of thinking around debt (and in the US the trade deficit) that got us all into this mess is _the_same_ set of errors in thinking that leads to environmental problems, energy problems, and global warming.
3) On (2), ditto the middle east.
These "crises" all result from shifting today's wants, needs, and problems onto tommorow's shoulders. It is no coincidence that they, and an economic collapse, are all on the burner at the same time.
"Sooner or later, the day comes when you can't hide from the things that you've done anymore."
Humans always react to the short term, and never to the long term.
That is why humans inevitably create a crisis and then react to it, over and over and over again.
PR all you want but personally I'm getting really tired of PR and marketing, even when it is for a 'good cause.'
See me as a bad person, I don't care, the thing is we will run out of oil, we will have global climate change, and we will adapt to that like we always do.
I hope that this doesn't deter the "progressive community" and liberals from demanding the enactment of costly and unworkable governmental "solutions" to this non-existent problem.
Really, for the good of the planet you must force the American people to accept whatever draconian solutions that will "stop climate change" (As if such a thing were possible).
You're our last hope, Obi Wan.
See you in 2010. LOL
It's not rocket science--appeal to the national security and economic benefits of pursuing clean, cheap energy.
The number of people who really give a shit about the environment--absent clear evidence like rivers burning and clouds of brown shit hanging over cities--is just not high enough to pass the required policies.
But if you tell them that we can stop buying oil from Chavez and stop giving a fuck about the Middle East, the fraction of people who will listen grows considerably.
What you're doing wrong is touting doomsday scenarios predicted by questionable computer models, and sending the message that the only possible fixes are radical and painful, rather than focusing on empirical facts and modest improvements. It makes you sound hysterical. Rather than doing your best to crucify Lomborg, you should take some cues from his approach. The public would be far more receptive. Sorry.
The Canuck gets it right--stop talking about "global warming" and start talking about energy.
Global warming couldn't be more abstract, vague, and theoretical. Energy problems are something we've been talking about since Jimmy Carter told us to put on a sweater in 1979. We all know and believe this is a huge problem that won't solve itself. Instead of trying to convince people there's a brand new problem that demands basically the same solution, why not solve the problem we know we have, and ALSO solve the global warming problem?
Seriously, this is so dumb.
I want to be clear on this - when people talk about carbon caps and taxes and all that what they are really saying is that people need to die. Make no mistake about that. We must be clear on this.
Now someone's gonna say 'No, we just mean the fatcats give up their mansions' but that will not be enough. Sure, things need to be more equitable but that will enable more people to be born, for awhile, and inevitably we will get to the place where people simply must die. It will be the poor, as it always has been, but they are still people.
We can 'leadership' all we want, and PR (aka lie) all we want, and pretend nobody really has to die, but as we've seen, anything based on lies will simply fail in the long run.
I choose not to be a liar. I choose to grasp the nettle and not shy from the truth. I am sick to death of lies.
Tripp writes: I want to be clear on this - when people talk about carbon caps and taxes and all that what they are really saying is that people need to die.
It sounds to me that you are saying that people will die, one way or the other. Right?
Tripp, you're an idiot. Do you think you're going to die without your SUV or big house?
We're running out of oil and NG, mostly as a result of first world consumption. Without a shift to another energy basis, depleted reserves and skyrocketing prices will result in more expensive fertilizers, and yes, then people will die. They'll also fight wars over the last of it. Carbon taxes and caps might boost prices by 50%. Depletion can boost them by 500%.
Who can afford to lead the charge into developing other sources of energy, and gaining the experience in large-scale use to lower their cost? It's not the poor. It's rich first worlders. If we can't afford it, nobody can.
Daryl,
Yes, that is what I am saying. By my estimate the carrying capacity of the earth with renewables is about 3 Billion.
What we really are deciding, whether we admit it or not, is who will die.
Now, if we have an incredible breakthrough, a miracle, then my number is false, and I am currently working like the devil to try to help develop a breakthrough, but in all honesty this really would be a miracle, and I'm not holding my breath.
Winston >"...It's very hard to get people worked up about global warming in the middle of a very cold winter . . . ."
Yes, exactly. And since it is actually a climate change/shift, irrespective of what is driving it, that phrasing needs to be used in public discussion etc. The dialog needs to shift away from the fear to the reality. *sigh* Not that I think that is going to occur in the near future.
TW Andrews >"...appeal to the national security and economic benefits of pursuing clean, cheap energy...."
Absolutely. Tie the current fear & hysteria mind set to the solution, not ignorant behaviors that are bound to make things worse. Chicounsel is a prime example of the selfish pride of ignorance that is our main road block.
"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know." - M. King Hubbert
thersites,
Certainly we should try to allow as many people as possible to live, although that argument is a really old one and there are two sides to it. My personal moral code is that the strong should protect the weak, and empower them to make them strong as well.
But that is my personal code. I wish we could have an open debate on the fact that we are facing the decision of who dies, and to a little degree how many, and we aren't even discussing who has the right to make that decision.
It is the strong who will make that decision, because it is the strong who have the power, and I'll do all I can to try to convince the strong to adopt my moral code.
I just wish this discussion was open and happening today, but sadly I think I've always been ahead of most people in seeing what is happening and in my opinion people are just not ready for that discussion at this time.
Bruce,
Here's the pessimistic view: If the world's rich (and, as poor as you might feel, you are rich compared to most people, since the median annual income worldwide is only about $5000) decrease their consumption by 30%, that improvement will just be offset by increased consumption by the world's poor. Their consumption can be expected to increase for two reasons: (1) As they work to increase their standard of living, they'll be consuming more fossil fuels, and (2) the population of the world is still growing (even if the growth rate is dropping).
Tripp>By my estimate the carrying capacity of the earth with renewables is about 3 Billion.
And this is based on....?
Anyways, let's say you're correct: If a system is maintained beyond its carrying capacity, the result is an eventual crash. The longer you attempt to maintain that state, the harder the crash when it comes. The higher you maintain consmption, the faster the crash approaches.
So - your preferred path is better, uh, how?
At our current technology level and application yes - we're clearly beyond the planet's carrying capacity, with the possible exception of massive use of fission reactors. That option in the hands of typical human governance, at the scale required, is not wise.
So what do we do?
Option A: Keep the party going at full volume until we fall on our collective faces, probably within about 10-30 years.
Option B: Crash effort at saving ourselves, lead by the developed world, in turn lead by the USA. It was stupid to paint ourselves into this corner, but massive R&D investment still gives us a chance. A single breakthrough in nanotech-solar could do it. A mix of stop-gap efforts could at least stretch the plateau, giving us more time.
Also, a modest comparison, given that you started with a number, here's annual energy consumption per household:
USA 330 GJ
Japan 170 GJ
India 22 GJ
Basic human metabolic level: 2.5 GJ
So, you seem to believe "people" will die because...? Think hard about what you're saying.
source
Submitted by Arachnae (not verified) on Thu Jan. 22, 2009 9:04 AM PST.
44% of U.S. voters don't believe humans are the cause of global warming, compared to only 41% who do.
This is what happens when the anti-warming faction has control of the largest megaphone in the world. I'd be interested to know how many people now believe evolution is a 'hoax' versus twenty years ago.
WRT priorities - it's the Tragedy of the Commons. People individually working to their short-term best interests undermine the common good. This is why there are governments - because you can't expect a solution to common problems to simply emerge from individual actions.
Maybe we'll catch a break and run out of fossil fuels BEFORE the environmental tipping point (if it's not already too late).
Daryl:
No, reduction of consumption in the first world by itself won't do it. That's not the point.
The point is leadership. We cut the path.
So if we don't change, there is no way they will. They will follow us down the destructive path, in far larger numbers, and nothing will stop them but global collapse.
We have the ability in R&D, the control, and the money (relatively). It is our responsibility, and in our best interests.
First off we stop calling it global warming and call it what it is--climate change. We acknowledge that it may not be man made but man is contributing to it. And since the economy trumps all, we need to wrap this solution into the solution to the economy (which I think Obama is going to do).
Lastly, I have not seen the actual survey questions, but energy, environment and global warming are all very closely related--so maybe the results of this survey are not as dire as you think.
Submitted by Nicholas Beaudrot (not verified) on Thu Jan. 22, 2009 9:11 AM PST.
The Rassmussen poll is almost certainly incredibly biased in its wording. Their issue polling has a history of having just terrible Republican bias.
That said, historically when the economy sucks people care a lot less about the environment.
No mystery as to the poll results; for the past eight years climate change has been shoved into a corner, scientists muzzled, research quashed, and the entire topic reduced to political calculus: Global warming = lefty hysteria, and you don't want to be a lefty, now do you?
If there were ever an issue that required a non-partisan evaluation, this is it. We'll see what happens with grownups in charge.
I used to be a pessimist like Tripp. I was convinced that the world was coming to an end. Why not, billions living in poverty hoping to become an energy hog like me. How many coal fired power plants and 19th century style industries could the world take anyway. Then I watched a third world villager pull his cell phone out of his shirt pocket. It hit me, the billions in the third world don't have to replicate the path first worlders have taken to obtain great wealth. With modern technology they can jump over all those coal fired power plants and the addiction to gasoline.
The talking point on right-wing radio is apparently that the cold snap has revealed the bankruptcy of the global warming scientist/crackpots. I think it's worth noting that Republicans apparently read polls, too, and have decided to make their stand against the Obama administration on the issue of global warming, as in The Democrats are going to use the pretend problem of global warming as an excuse institute socialism/pork barrel giveaway politics. You know, like the Bush administration used a faux Iraqi WMD threat to create a corporatist security state run amok. Since opposing global warming is now a core political platform, we can expect the full panoply of bs, cherrypicking, and outright dishonesty in an effort to frame the issue to the Democrats' disadvantage. My personal feeling is that, given the year to year variability of weather patterns and the right's eagerness to exploit this uncertainty, a generational campaign against global warming is a non-starter until most of the Gulf Coast is permanently underwater i.e. it's too late. President Obama would probably have better luck couching his energy policy in terms of energy independence and new economy jobs.
The problem with a poll like this is that you can wrap up the following categories into one energy solution:
Energy
Environment
Global Warming
Trade Policy
You could even wrap in concerns over the Economy and Terrorism into the mix since we wouldnt be funding terrorist sponsors and 'green jobs' would be a stimulus to our economy.
I am actually amazed that it polls as well as it does.
Please read the "Death of Environmentalism" for not only a compelling description of why global warming narratives a la Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth fail to be politically useful, but also how we might addresses the underlying problem--unsustainable consumption-- through less eco-centered, but more cogent narratives and issue frames.
chicounsel's blithering idiocy is expected from a mental slave of Rush Limbaugh and merits only a yawn at its mechanical predictability.
Tripp's alarmist hysteria is more deserving of comment:
"I want to be clear on this - when people talk about carbon caps and taxes and all that what they are really saying is that people need to die. Make no mistake about that. We must be clear on this."
Well, first of all let's be clear on this: each and every one of us WILL die. Every single one of the nearly seven billion human beings living today WILL die. Make no mistake about that.
But as I understand it you are not simply confronting the universal truth of our mortality.
Rather, you are claiming that rapidly phasing out the use of fossil fuels -- which is what's required to avoid catastrophic anthropogenic global warming and consequent climate change, which will certainly cause the premature deaths of hundreds of millions of people during this century if we allow it to continue -- that rapidly phasing out the use of fossil fuels will itself lead to inordinate human mortality.
Well, let's see. Multiple studies have found that the offshore wind energy resources of the northeastern USA alone are sufficient to provide all the electricity the entire country uses. And that the onshore wind energy resources of a handful of midwestern states alone are sufficient to provide all the electricity the entire country uses. And that the solar energy resources of the USA's southwestern deserts alone are sufficient to provide all the electricity the entire country uses. And that most of the electricity used in the USA can be produced locally with distributed photovoltaics.
In short, the USA has vast commercially exploitable wind and solar energy resources that are sufficient to provide several times as much electricity as the entire country uses, enough for all current uses PLUS electrification of ground transport, with today's technology -- mainstream technology that is already being rapidly deployed, right now, today.
And the same is true all over the world: we can harvest more than enough abundant, ubiquitous, limitless, FREE wind and solar energy to support an advanced technological civilization and a comfortable, prosperous life for everyone.
The obstacles to doing this are not technical nor are they economic. The only real obstacle is the entrenched political power of the monstrously wealthy fossil fuel corporations, who are determined to delay the transition to the new energy technologies of the 21st century in order to protect the trillions of dollars in profits they expect to reap from continuing business-as-usual, ever-increasing consumption of fossil fuels until supplies run out.
And the fossil fuel corporations encourage this delay with two key propaganda themes, both of which are flat out lies: first, that anthropogenic global warming isn't happening (see dittohead chicounsel above), and second, that "renewable energy can't do the job and if we switch to renewables we will all die starving and shivering in the dark".
And it's this second lie that you appear to have been bamboozled by.
One reason that the American public is not as concerned about global warming as they should be, is that they have been systematically deceived about the scientific reality of anthropogenic global warming and consequent climate change by the corporate-owned media, who for decades have insisted on "fair and balanced" coverage of the lies of ExxonMobil-funded frauds and the crackpot theories of a handful of cranks.
A good example is the recent CNN program in which Lou Dobbs featured several climate change denialists who basically proclaimed that because it is still cold during winter, global warming is not occurring. This kind of stupidity is what the American people have been spoon-fed for years. It's no wonder -- and no accident -- that they don't see global warming as an important concern.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough on 01/22/09 at 11:56 AM Respond
Bruce,
Here's the pessimistic view: If the world's rich (and, as poor as you might feel, you are rich compared to most people, since the median annual income worldwide is only about $5000) decrease their consumption by 30%, that improvement will just be offset by increased consumption by the world's poor. Their consumption can be expected to increase for two reasons: (1) As they work to increase their standard of living, they'll be consuming more fossil fuels, and (2) the population of the world is still growing (even if the growth rate is dropping).
Ahh, methinks you've discovered the work of William Stanley Jevons - any increase in productivity will be met not by a decrease in consumption, but instead an increase in production. Of course, in this case the production is the use of fossil fuels (which is almost the opposite of what Jevon's was getting at), but I think the wisdom still applies.
Submitted by serial catowner (not verified) on Thu Jan. 22, 2009 11:21 AM PST.
For my entire lifetime the US has sponsored dictators abroad, overthrown democracies, and bankrupted third-world countries with financial scams.
Now we claim that 'they' are poor under-developed nations that can't take a democratic path to development.
But the fact is they can just skip the waste we've exhibited in the US for the past 50 years. They don't need to build freeways, they don't need to buy cars, they don't need to buy their water in bottles and their crackers in individual plastic gift-wrapped packs.
And we in turn could just knock it off and get serious about saving the world for our oh-so-precious children. The trillion we will eventually have paid for the Iraq War would have probably paid for the solar and wind power we need.
People like 'Tripp', acting like some old alcoholic whining and sobbing in his beer about how he's gonna die and might as well stay drunk until he does- that makes me sick. Grow up, 'Tripp'.
There are no technical barriers to solving the AGW problem, just the political and social barriers erected by American elites who have grown rich and stayed rich by force-feeding the American chickens a diet of crap. If we don't become leaders in building the solutions (and incidentally turn a tidy profit) it will be because we're wimps, not because the problem is too big.
serial catowner wrote: "If we don't become leaders in building the solutions (and incidentally turn a tidy profit) it will be because we're wimps, not because the problem is too big."
And I would add that if we -- the USA -- don't become a leader in building the solutions, then someone else will.
China is expected to become the world's largest exporter of wind turbines in 2009. The Chinese photovoltaic industry is also growing rapidly.
These technologies -- wind turbines, photovoltaics, concentrating solar thermal -- will be the engines that drive the new industrial revolution of the 21st century.
That new industrial revolution WILL happen -- it is in fact already happening. Solar and wind generated electricity are the fastest and second fastest growing energy sources in the world, and both are growing at double-digit annual rates.
The question for the USA is, will we be building and exporting wind turbines? Or will we be buying them from China?
If you look at the progressive energy policy set for on the DLC website, you will see that a sane energy policy makes perfect sense for this country (and the world) without reference to global warming.
I'm a leftist. I'm a skeptic. But the right thing to do doesn't change no matter who is right or wrong on climate change. Increase investment in alternative energy. Modernise the grid. Increase gas tax and hypothecate the revenues for improvements in public transport. Institute a carbon tax (with some exceptions, especially small business) and use the revenues for increasing energy efficiencies of homes and public buildings. And quit slagging off people of good will just because they don't agree with you. Please. Last time I commented here it took about 30 seconds before I was insulted 30 times by people (including some whose names I see in this thread) making ignorant assumptions about my habits, predilections, education and awareness of this issue. Let's see what happens this time...
Submitted by Robert Merkel (not verified) on Thu Jan. 22, 2009 12:37 PM PST.
For those of you who've read this thread and think that "energy independence" is going to be the selling point for doing something about greenhouse emissions, I think you're kidding yourself.
Because if you want energy independence, the easiest way to fix that is expand the usage of the filthiest fuel there is - coal.
I wish it weren't, but it is.
In any case, energy independence is a crock. Even if the US was a net oil exporter, it would be a globally traded commodity and what OPEC does would still radically change the price.
About the only way the oil importers can cut OPEC's influence is come to a global agreement to raise gas taxes. The net effect (aside from cutting usage, a very good thing) would be that the end-user price wouldn't change very much, but more money would end up in the pockets of importing countries' treasuries, and less of it in Saudi Arabia's pockets.
Tom Fuller wrote: "I'm a leftist."
That's nice. But since the reality of global warming is a scientific issue and not a political issue, it is also irrelevant.
Tom Fuller wrote: "I'm a skeptic."
Does that mean that you are skeptical of the bogus, fraudulent, pseudoscientific, global warming denialist bunk that ExxonMobil-funded frauds and self-deluded cranks throw around?
Because it is really hilarious that so many people who style themselves as "skeptics" are laughably unskeptical when it comes to swallowing that crap hook, line and sinker.
Robert Merkel wrote: "Because if you want energy independence, the easiest way to fix that is expand the usage of the filthiest fuel there is - coal."
On the contrary, it would be easier to expand the use of wind turbines, concentrating solar thermal power plants and photovoltaics. It is at least as "easy" to build up that infrastructure as it is to build more coal-fired power plants.
Plus, you have the advantage that once the wind and solar infrastructure is built, the "fuel" is ABUNDANT AND FREE, FOREVER ... unlike coal, which would be depleted faster than most people think, if we started burning a lot more of it.
Moreover, a wind and solar energy infrastructure is by nature more distributed, and thus more resilient and efficient, and more democratic since ownership of the means of "producing" energy will be more widely distributed to small businesses, farms, communities, municipal utilities, and home owners.
Of course, ending our reliance on scarce, expensive fuels (coal, oil, gas and uranium) in favor of harvesting free energy, and putting energy generation in the hands of the people instead of the hands of the fossil fuel corporations, are considered by some to be bugs rather than features. Which is why they have been doing everything in their power for the last 50 years to delay that transition as long as possible.
What's with the concern over terrorism anyway?
I have to think it's at best some symptom
of Republican neurosis/insecurity, perhaps similar to fear of flying.
(eg fear of situations one has very little actual practical control over)
Iirc, London was losing 1500-2000 folks a night during
the London blitz(es), and they managed to keep a stiff upper lip about it
unlike the post 9/11 USA ...
A carbon tax can steer away from coal. The price per kwh is falling for solar now and has been for decades--it needs a bit of subsidising still, but it's almost there. There are a lot of other exciting possibilities out there, and we should explore them all. But keep the focus on energy policy. Most of us are tired and bored of you pseudo-scientists making pronouncements on either side of the climate change argument. The honest scientists on both sides have the decency to caveat their comments and acknowledge the level of uncertainty surrounding climate change.
Sigh.
It always gets to this point. Name calling and exaggeration of what I say.
I am saying that we will build smart and do the right thing and the best case scenario is still a lower human population than we have right now.
I am not predicting doomsday. I wish people would stop putting words in my mouth.
My hope is that humanity has enough collective sense of global community that we realize we are on lifeboat Earth and we are all in this together.
SecularAnimist and I disagree on the amount of sustainable, usable energy we will have in the future, that is all. I am not hysterical, I am completely sober and serious about this.
Sheesh people, get a grip.
Get a hold of yourselves.
And I agree with Tom - there are possibilities and there is hope. I simply temper my hope with engineering rationality.
I'd say that graph is a pretty good representation of the de facto importance that YOU give global warming, at least based on a topic breakdown of your postings. If you (not me), think it's among the very most important issues (and you'd be right), you should prima facie be writing about it a lot more.
So: how's about it?
Submitted by Maynard Handley (not verified) on Thu Jan. 22, 2009 2:55 PM PST.
"They don't need to build freeways, they don't need to buy cars, they don't need to buy their water in bottles and their crackers in individual plastic gift-wrapped packs."
OMG. So much stupidity in so few words.
(a) So what is your solution to the poor guy who thinks "Gee, it would be nice to be able to get around at my convenience like an American"? Tell them they can't have cars? Tell them to use Priuses or some other super expensive solution? Tell them to use hydrogen or electricity or some other magic fairy juice that non-scientists seem to imagine can be created in limitless quantities? Tell them to use public transit --- because public transit still requires roads and railways, still uses energy, and it is a less desirable solution in that it offers the individual less flexibility.
(b) Do you honestly believe that bottled water and individually-wrapped crackers are a serious part of the world's energy budget? And if not, why raise the issue? Are you interested in SOLVING THE FSCKING PROBLEM, or in making a moral statement about who is saved in the eyes of your god and who is damned?
What do you imagine the end-game here to be? Do you accept a world where China and India get to Japan level's of individual freedom (in terms of consumption, ease of transport and so on) or not? And where do you imagine the resources come from if they do get there?
Tripp is 100% correct. The facts, without making a moral judgement, are:
(a) there aren't enough resources for all the people living now to live a South Korean style of life, let alone a US level
(b) people WANT to live a US level of life. Telling them they are living under a false consciousness, that what they really want to do is live like peasants, is insulting, stupid, and pointless.
(c) when push comes to shove, the US (and pretty much every other population) will choose maintaining their good life over stopping the deaths of the poor elsewhere. Don't claim otherwise unless you have some damn good evidence, because everything, from Rwanda to Gaza to the freaking poll Kevin is discussing in this post prove my point, not yours.
(d) there are no magic solutions to solve the problem being suppressed by evil corporations. Yes, wind is a good partial solution. Yes efficiency and conservation are good ideas in and of themselves. But all of these add up to minor improvements, they don't add up to what is needed.
There WAS in fact, a perfectly fine solution to all this. Instead of a world of 9 billion people, most living like animals, we could have a world of half a billion people living like kings. But those of us warning of the long-term consequences of over-population 40 years ago were sneered at, and now it's too late. And all the while, as the disasters pile up, each one will be blamed on something other than population because, god forbid that any of you actually admit that you are at fault. Much easier to whine about bottled water and plastic wrapped crackers than to crunch the numbers and see how many, *vastly * more, resources your kid(s) correspond to than such minor items.
