Do Americans Care about Climate Change?

With the economy in tatters and stock indices dropping faster than the president's (already) dismal approval ratings, it was hardly surprising to see the candidates ratchet down their rhetoric on the Iraq war, climate change and other issues in favor of more tough talk on lavish CEO pay and the federal bailout. As with all major aspects of the campaign, the decision was principally driven by the polls -- with most showing the economy topping a long list of voter concerns.

In light of the current trends (and recent polling history), I had expected to see climate change, and, more broadly, the environment, suffer among voters -- especially those who support John McCain. (To give you an idea of the ideological divide, a recent Newsweek poll found that Republican voters are twice as likely to be concerned about abortion, guns and marriage than about energy.) Indeed, many Republicans in Congress are now loudly disparaging Democratic efforts to implement a cap-and-trade program, arguing that such a system would further stall the economy's recovery and needlessly hurt down-and-out businesses.

Yet, putting aside the predictable partisan rhetoric and gimmickry, even I was surprised by the results of the just released American Climate Values Survey (ACSV), which found that only 18 percent of Americans "strongly believe" that is real, man-made and potentially harmful. Though there was a clear partisan divide -- 54 percent of Republicans believed it was real, versus 90 percent of Democrats (a finding that echoed the eye-opening results of an article in Environment Magazine examining the partisan split on climate change) -- the results were still stunning in their scale, suggesting that scientists and environmentalists, regardless of the financial crisis, still have much work to do.

Not surprisingly, the principal reason why most Americans don't consider climate change a top priority is that they do not see climate action as being personally relevant to their everyday lives. Those who have tried to convince their dubious peers of the urgency of tackling climate change -- as I have, on several (failed) occasions -- by citing the threats to coral reefs or Arctic ice caps probably received either a blank stare or, at best, sympathetic nod. As much as scientists would like to believe that Americans deem climate change a threat because of its global ecological implications, the truth is that most don't -- not necessarily because they could care less about the health of the planet, but because they care more about the health of their loved ones or their ever-diminishing paychecks.

One reason why I have been heartened by the candidates' rhetoric on climate and energy during the recent debates is that they have consciously sought to wrap the issue of climate change around their economic agendas -- touting their proposals' ability to both reduce energy prices and create millions of new jobs. Barack Obama has been on the forefront on this issue, proposing an ambitious 10-year $150 billion plan to invest in clean energy technologies and infrastructure to create millions of new green-collar jobs; McCain, for his part, has been far less ambitious (and detailed), going so far as to only promote the job-creation prospects of his offshore drilling and 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 policies. Obama's cap-and-trade program, though seen by many businesses and legislators as a potential economic buzzkill (because of the costs it would impose on more polluting industries), could actually stimulate consumer spending, and thus the broader economy, by returning the auction revenues as monthly dividend payments.

Eric Pooley of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government cleverly called this approach the "Trojan horse" approach to climate policy -- "a climate policy hidden inside an energy-and-economic policy" -- in a recent column for The Big Money. While he stresses the need to keep the focus on the climate crisis -- downplaying it would mean "squandering the moral message -- our duty to future generations - that has galvanized so many," he says -- he says Obama's move is a smart campaign tactic and one that is necessary for him to win over the votes of those Americans who view any green talk with suspicion. As he puts it:

So, the task is not to somehow disguise the climate crisis or the declining cap on emissions needed to deal with it, but to propel them forward with a message about the economic benefits of climate action. Since climate, energy, and the economy are intertwined, any climate bill will have a profound effect on the economy, and it just makes sense to embrace it.

If the results of a new estimate on the future effects of climate change are anything to go by (and they're not pretty), then we will soon be experiencing the realities of a warming world first-hand -- no matter what actions we take to mitigate our emissions. That is why it is more important than ever that we depoliticize the issue of climate change and make it clear to the voters that tackling it will produce immediate and long-term economic and national benefits.

Follow Jeremy Jacquot on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jejacquot

Comments

[Stephen308]

The sky is falling, man made global warming a disaster religion is probably harmful because many of us see it as the left pushing a "man made disaster" in order to institute their socialist agenda and take nearly complete control of our lives.

The sun gets hot, the sun gets cold. Glaciers come and glaciers disappear. Mini ice ages come and go. Watch out, the sun activity is at an all time low and if the earths furnace is chilling down and we go into a series of severe winters and maybe even shortened growing seasons....."man made global warming worse" will be gone with the wind and Gore will look like a clown.

Best to just go after pollution without all the drama and arrogance.

[carrieanna]

Climate change is not why I'm a greenie.

Ha, it's actually due to my Christian faith and the meaning I took away from the creation story of Genesis that I see it as man's duty to take care of our land, water and animals. And on top of that, I do belive in capitalism and am generally stymied when big business *doesn't* get involved in promoting new energy options. Because what do people want to buy? NEW. What does a long-term company do when their market is saturated? Expand their product line or buy up competitors. I remember thinking Xerox was revolutionary when they went from being a company selling copy machines to a document management company. Oil has such limited long-growth options. And I won't even go into the whole thing about protecting US interests by investing in energy resources that we own and control within our own borders...or the fact that if we invested in unveristy research for new energies we could own that technology and profit from selling it to other nations.

I've thought the Green Movement could attract more pro-business and the Christian right-wingers if they promoted alternative energy without touting climate change as the raison d'etre.

[Nimbo]

The saving grace of the Wall Street meltdown is that it has eclipsed the tripe pumped out by that idiot Hansen. So now we can worry about real issues like Collateral Debt Obligations & Black Scholes derivatives models instead of forcing constants & GISS Model E.