Nobody Cares

Here's an intriguing result lurking in American Environics' report on attitudes toward energy and global warming (PDF) -- basically, people have the right views on environmental issues, but they don't really care:

69 percent of the public, in short, is prepared to overlook disagreement about the environment and there are six issues that rate ahead of the environment in terms of the number of people who consider them redlines. Interestingly, even people who say they care about the environment don't seem to care about it all that much:

Even people who rate themselves 8s, 9s, or 10s on a scale of "are you an environmentalist" have these other issues that rate higher as redlines. The upshot of this and other data, according to the report, is that while there's public eagerness to do something about global warming, it's very tenuous, and people are rabidly opposed to anything that would increase energy costs. Since this is public opinion research, they go on to discuss a lot of ways to try to navigate that terrain, but it's hard for me to imagine any way to seriously curb carbon emissions that doesn't involve some increase in energy costs. It'd be nice, of course, if renewables just suddenly became cheaper than coal and gasoline, but then there's hardly be need for any policy.

Comments

Gay Marriage: It's very important.

Posted by Gregorio | August 21, 2007 2:13 PM

If there were a candidate that agreed with me on the other six issues then it probably wouldn't be a deal-breaker for me either. But this doesn't mean I don't care about it. It only means that in a world where choices in politicians are very limited, we choose the one that agrees with us the most on the important topics. Thus, I don't think those charts don't mean much at all.

Posted by eriks | August 21, 2007 2:19 PM

That's strange. I don't even consider myself an environmentalist, but I think global warming is the single most important issues facing us right now. It is more important than all the others on the list.

Posted by blah | August 21, 2007 2:20 PM

I don't know how you can interpret that poll. What does it mean to disagree on the environment.

I know what it means to disagree on gay marriage. You support it, you're against it, or you just don't care. Same with abortion.

The environment is a pretty broad subject. If you're an environmentalist, you'll undoubtedly vote against a Richard Pombo - who'd abolish all regulations, but where would you draw the line. If you believe we need to add a $3 tax on the price of gas to reduce consumption you disagree with a candidate who simply wants to increase CAFE standards. But would you vote against him for that?

Some issues are well argued and fall into black and white columns. Environmentalism has lots of shades of gray.

Posted by Jinchi | August 21, 2007 2:24 PM

I think these charts do mean something: Americans are overly concerned with gun ownership and illegal immigration. Those should be at the bottom of this list, in my opinion. Also their concern for social security should be replaced by a concern for health care. But even if the environment is a very important issue to you, I can imagine it not ranking at the top of this list. I don't think any one politician is going to substantially change the direction we're going on this issue and I'm still undecided personally on the best course of action. So although its an important issue, its not quite at the top of this list for me.

Posted by mpowell | August 21, 2007 2:24 PM

Gay marriage is a single issue. Abortion is a single issue. "Taxes" and "the environment" are not. That's why gay marriage and abortion top the list. There's no "gray area" in those.

I would definitely vote for someone who slightly disagreed with me about global warming (say carbon taxes versus cap-and-trade), but wouldn't vote for someone who refused to believe it existed.

I'd vote for someone who thought taxes should be 1% higher than I do, but not for someone who thought they should be 20% higher than I do.

There's no such thing as "slightly disagreeing with me" about abortion or gay marriage. You can't think that gay people should get 38% married, or that abortions are "a bit" murderous.

Posted by Andrew Edwards | August 21, 2007 2:29 PM

Jinchi beat me to it

Posted by Andrew Edwards | August 21, 2007 2:30 PM

Might this have something to do with the fact that, by and large, Democrats all agree on an environmental agenda (light, business-friendly regulations) and Republicans all agree on another (clubbing baby seals for fun and profit)? That is to say, it's not an issue the parties are fighting about, amongst themselves or even with each other, so it's not a useful issue by which to judge candidates?

Posted by dob | August 21, 2007 2:50 PM

So, contra the claims of economic populists (i.e. Thomas Frank), gay marriage and abortion really do matter to ordinary Americans.

Posted by john kerry | August 21, 2007 2:52 PM

This is precisely why I have been arguing for the wonk-o-sphere to put down the green eye-shades and forget about a carbon tax. It's political suicide. Cap and Trade is as good as you are likely to get in the next decade at least (and we've already wasted 15 years since 'Earth in the Balance.)'

Posted by AJ | August 21, 2007 3:02 PM

I would like to suggest another interpretation: A sense of futility in the face of global warming.

That's how I feel. I think global warming is unavoidable. I don't see any hope of it being altered. My view is, essentially, we are doomed. I'm that pessimistic.

Whether I vote for Edwards or Obama or Clinton does not matter a whit, when it comes to the fate of the Earth.

However, their views on abortion or taxes? That's important, and something that can actually be changed.

Between big oil, China, corporate interests and such, nothing is going to be done about global warming. So, yeah, I will vote for a candidate whose views are not the same as mine on this issue because nothing is going to change drastically enough to stop the process.

One gal's opinion.

Posted by lisa | August 21, 2007 3:03 PM

I would like to suggest another interpretation: A sense of futility in the face of global warming.

That's how I feel. I think continued global warming is unavoidable. I don't see any hope of it being altered. My view is, essentially, we are doomed. I'm that pessimistic.

Whether I vote for Edwards or Obama or Clinton does not matter a whit when it comes to the fate of the Earth. They cannot make a difference in this arena. Anything they might be able to do, in the way of passing legislation or whatever, is going to amount to just a spit in the bucket.

However, they can make a difference when it comes to issues such as abortion or taxes.

With obstacles like big oil, China, other corporate interests and people freaking out about higher energy costs, nothing is going to be done about global warming. So, yeah, I will vote for a candidate whose views are not the same as mine on this issue because nothing is going to change drastically enough to stop the process.

One gal's opinion.

Posted by lisa | August 21, 2007 3:08 PM

Whoopsie.

Bygones for the double post.

Rats.

Posted by lisa | August 21, 2007 3:09 PM

Which is why I'm 99.9999999% certain that we're going to get the worst of whatever it is that AGW can provide. If it's a sea level rise of 1 foot and more mosquitoes in the summer, we win. If it's goombye Bangladesh and the Great Plains turns to dust, we lose.

Party on, Garth.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | August 21, 2007 3:18 PM

In the long run, only the environment matters.

Posted by chris | August 21, 2007 3:31 PM

Yeah, I think the amorphousness is overwhelming for many people. I also think that our public discourse is so degraded that only issues like gay marriage can gain any kind traction. And, of course, many of my friends who profess to be concerned about global warning have a hard time doing things differently -- partly, I think, because one person's, or even hundreds of people's actions are not going to turn the tide. (Not that this is an excuse for wasting energy and other resources, but . . . ). I don't know, though; somehow I think that people would accept (with some grumbling) a certain amount of increased cost if . . . if what? If the earth opened up and swallowed up the entire Republican party? And the media? Or something.

Posted by mary | August 21, 2007 3:35 PM

These days, "the environment" means climate change. I think MY's frustration has to do with this--if scientific consensus has been reached, and the problem is as dire as everyone says it is, and the environmental community has been spreading the word non-stop, then why isn't "the environment" the kind of black and white issue among voters that abortion is?

I think it's because people know that solving it will require massive changes in the way they live--either dramatically reduced individual carbon-based energy consumption, or dramatically improved renewable energy availability and efficiency. Since the second seems to be unattainable for the near future, this means a much less convenient and enjoyable standard of living.

To date, most environmental protection efforts have required few if any quality of life sacrifices from the general public. You could still buy as many houses, appliances, cars, etc., as you could afford. But climate change solutions--real ones--will have to impose real, binding limits on personal energy consumption, limits that will be actively enforced. That's a tough sell, under any circumstances.

Posted by Claudius | August 21, 2007 3:37 PM

Global warming isn't even the most important *environmental* issue. It's not even close.

see Gallup poll:
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20070403_PoliticalReportApril2007.pdf

Posted by Chris | August 21, 2007 3:42 PM

But climate change solutions--real ones--will have to impose real, binding limits on personal energy consumption, limits that will be actively enforced. That's a tough sell, under any circumstances.

"You Can Have My SUV When The Atlantic Ocean Comes And Gets It"

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | August 21, 2007 3:44 PM

My interpretation is that Americans are fascinated by sex.

Posted by novakant | August 21, 2007 4:27 PM

I'm not sure I agree with this interpretation of the data. If "the environment" were to become a litmus-test issue like gay marriage or abortion, would that necessarily make the desired policy goals more achievable? It seems like litmus test issues are defined by their eternal and stagnant nature--nothing ever actually gets done on them.

There's political work to be done on global warming, to be sure, but I think the 2008 election represents an opportunity to build momentum. The tail can't wag the dog most of the time, but when conditions are right, campaigns can solidify and strengthen existing public opinion (which is what we have here). We haven't really had a high-level public debate on global warming yet--we should give it a chance to pan out before we pronounce emissions reductions the new third rail.

Posted by Jake H. | August 21, 2007 4:40 PM

This proves our democracy is a sham. The people are uninformed, whipped up into a frenzy over virtual non-issues, bamboozled by partisan prods and pugilistic pundits. The media chokes on the lard of large business, editors snap and journalists buckle. It is futile to try to STOP global warming- we are in the midst of it. However, we can ACT NOW to MINIMIZE our impact on the future climate. And must. It is our responsibility to the human race, if not that vague notion "THE EARTH." Pessimists and Optimists need not apply: we deal in reality here. The time has come to limit emissions and dial back our environmental impact; these goals must be achieved by ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Building consensus in a long since bought-and-sold capitalist consumer state is mere empty venting of CO2.
How then? Well, mass strikes, civil disobedience, bringing the engines of commerce to a shuddering halt. A little sacrifice now could mean a healthier earth in our lifetimes and for our children. I will not participate in but do not dissapprove of more drastic measures.

Posted by Gregorio | August 21, 2007 5:02 PM

I think this indicates a lack of faith in the ability of our political process to actually do anything about the climate change problem, and that that lack of faith is pretty much justified. I don't really care much about the environmental views of Clinton v. Obama v. Edwards, because barring a nonexistent Gore-like crusader who makes it priority #1 and spends major political (and actual) capital on it (which even Gore himself wouldn't do when he had the chance), nothing substantial is going to happen. And then there is the futility feeling mentioned too... that even if we get our house in order China and India and the rest of the developing world are already too far into the dirty-industrializing process to turn back, and there are no real viable international institutions that could force them and/or help them to go green anyway. I've pretty much accepted that it's going to happen, and we had better get thinking about mitigation and technical solutions to sequester CO2, etc. Doesn't mean that we should quit on the CO2 reduction path, but I just don't think it's likely to bear much fruit for at least the next 10-20 years, until things maybe get bad enough with both climate and peak oil to start forcing it.

Posted by J. Dunn | August 21, 2007 5:53 PM

Re: That's how I feel. I think global warming is unavoidable. I don't see any hope of it being altered. My view is, essentially, we are doomed. I'm that pessimistic.

I also believe it’s inevitable, but I donlt believe that we’re “doomed” in the same way I would if told that a giant asteroid were going to strike the Earth next week. Global warming is something we can (and will have to adapt) to. It will mean a lot of disruption, but it won’t be the end of the human race, or the Earth’s environment. That kind of scare talk belongs with panics over nuclear-terror-wielding caliphates, black helicopters, demon possession, and the like, and “environmentalists” who engage in it are really damaging the cause of doing something about the problem by making it seem hopeless.

Posted by Jonf | August 21, 2007 7:27 PM

I think a large portion of voters generally "agree" on the environment, the details are what we fight over.

Also, since Global Warming is a problem the US government can NOT solve in any way, it makes little sense to use it as a primary metric when voting. I say this because China now contributes more CO2 and other countries like India will be close or pass us in a decade or so. Even now, we contribute roughly 20% of the total CO2 emissions. If we scaled back everything to 1990 figures (the oldest ones I'm comfortable with now), it would represent a ~18% drop in pollution for us, but only 3% globally. That change will be mitigated by growth everywhere else and be eaten up in 2 years.

Also, there is little talk of simple things like nuke plants, banning non-governmental planes carrying less than X number of passengers (to hit corporate and private planes) and massively subsidizing hybrid car purchases. Some of this is because of other interests, some because the people preaching about the problem are hypocrites and some because people are more interested in using Global Warming as a tool to alter society in their image than actually solving the problem.

Posted by Skullberg | August 21, 2007 7:58 PM

lisa said:

That's how I feel. I think global warming is unavoidable. I don't see any hope of it being altered. My view is, essentially, we are doomed. I'm that pessimistic.

. . .

However, their views on abortion or taxes? That's important, and something that can actually be changed.

If you really believe we're all doomed, then how can any politician's views on abortion or taxes or any other issue for that matter, possibly be important? Isn't all that just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?

Anyway, I think everyone is reading this chart more negatively for the environmental movement that is necessarily merited. To know if the 31% number is a good thing or a bad thing we need to know what this number was, say, 5 years ago or 10 years ago. Is this number trending up or down? If it's trending up then 31% is actually fairly healthy--well unless 20% of those are hardcore wingnut anti-environmentalists.

To my thinking, "environmentalism" as broadly painted in this survey, coming in just behind gun ownership laws (31% vs. 38%) is actually not such grim news. The gun lobby is pretty darn powerful, though they have only some subset of 38% of the population (meaning some of that 38% must favor tougher gun laws) refusing to vote for candidates who don't tow the line. If you had "only" 20 or 25% of the population actually outright refusing to vote for any candidate who didn't tow the line on a single issue you'd have a gigantic political movement.

Posted by Rob Mac | August 21, 2007 8:03 PM

Deeply embarrassing.

:(

Posted by Kyle | August 21, 2007 8:24 PM

GAY MARRIAGE AND ABORTION ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES TO AMERICANS??? WHAT THE FUCK!
Those people should not be allowed to vote.

Posted by End of Democracy | August 21, 2007 9:01 PM

Gregorio and "End of Democracy": I agree, anyone who doesn't share my exact priorities for determining my vote should be prevented from voting. It really only makes sense that I am right and by definition everyone else is uninformed, unintelligent or malicious.

Skullberg

Posted by Skullberg | August 22, 2007 12:07 AM

Others have implied this but, I think, not quite said it:

Problem with this analysis is that the issues that are bigger "deal breakers" in getting a somebody's votes include dogmatists on BOTH SIDES of the question. I'm only guessing, but I'd hazard that the large percentage of that 31% on Environmental issues are ENVIRONMENTALISTS. The kooks who would vote against a politician for her/his views on the environment are few in number. Thus, we might have, I don't know, 30% of the population who WON'T SUPPORT a pro-gay marriage candidate, 20% who won't support an anti- gay marriage candidate and 25% who won't vote for an anti-environmental candidate. In other words, the way the questions are phrased is mis-leading!

Posted by Brock | August 22, 2007 2:37 AM

I know I'm a bit late to the posting, but might this not just be a measure of the current level of partisanship in our country?

"I don't are if X agrees with me or not, I'm voting Party..."

I also don't see any reference to the war in this poll, which is arguably the largest issue in our long list. Maybe this just reflects the attitude that nothing else really matters until we achieve [troop withdrawal | total control of Middle East Oil] (choose your end point), so I can disagree with my candidate on the environment, as long as he/she will [end the war | bomb Iran].

Posted by TheOaf | August 22, 2007 10:22 AM

This poll, post, and blog are poorly worded... moving along.

Posted by Gregorio | August 22, 2007 12:37 PM

I just wonder what it means about the public that people would care so much about issues that for 90% of them, will have ZERO impact on their lives (abortion, gay marriage, immigration, gun control), and relegate issues with actual personal impact to lower importance.

Posted by Bill | August 25, 2007 8:47 AM

Bill, here's a guess on your question. 90% of our national discussion of "issues" is purely for show. It's the parade of values that counts, the show of concern and outrage that is taken for discourse. This is all done with the tacit agreement by all involved that we don't really mean to do anything about any of these "issues". After all, just how long have we been chewing these old bones anyway? Genuine moral and political discourse is based on the clear understanding by those engaged in it that they themselves are affected by it and they themselves must change, either individually or together.

By the way, I note that the data was gathered two full years ago. Much public opinion has changed in these past two years, e.g., on the Iraq war. What is the data now?

Posted by Mark | August 25, 2007 11:27 PM

As many have said before, the environment is a broad topic. Many different issues in the environment occur every day and continue without being addressed. Despite the warnings that do manage to surface, the problems continue, practically unheeded. Every day the rain forest is destroyed a little more and every car someone drives gives off a little more pollution. People tend to continue, not thinking of the ultimate consequences of their actions. Because these problems are gradual and have been building for years it is easy to avoid them. Global Warming is no longer as controversial as it used to be. The media's attention, once focused on how we were all inevitably going to die due to our own idiocy has now shifted onto more controversial topics such as gay marriage, abortion, and illegal immigration. As such, we find ourselves exposed more to these issues, discussing them more, and thinking of them more. The people who were given this survey didn't have global warming at the foremost of their thinking. Plus, nowadays one simply doesn't deny the existence of global warming. This further blurs the distinction between disagreeing and agreeing with a candidate because it is not so much what they believe in as the specific actions they are going to take.

Posted by Annie | August 28, 2007 3:14 AM