Gallup, 19 March 2009
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116962/Americans-Economy-Takes-Precedence-Environment.aspx
Americans: Economy Takes Precedence Over Environment
First time majority has supported economy in 25 years of asking question
by Frank Newport
PRINCETON, NJ — For the first time in Gallup’s 25-year history of asking Americans about the trade-off between environmental protection and economic growth, a majority of Americans say economic growth should be given the priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent.
Gallup first asked Americans about this trade-off in 1984, at which time over 60% chose the environmental option. Support for the environment was particularly high in 1990-1991, and in the late 1990s and 2000, when the dot-com boom perhaps made economic growth more of a foregone conclusion.
The percentage of Americans choosing the environment slipped below 50% in 2003 and 2004, but was still higher than the percentage choosing the economy. Sentiments have moved up and down over the last several years, but this year, the percentage of Americans choosing the environment fell all the way to 42%, while the percentage choosing the economy jumped to 51%.
The reason for this shift in priorities almost certainly has to do with the current economic recession. The findings reflect many recent Gallup results showing how primary the economy is in Americans’ minds, and help document the fact of life that in times of economic stress, the public can be persuaded to put off or ignore environmental concerns if need be in order to rejuvenate the economy.
h/t to Benny Peiser
FULL STORY at http://www.gallup.com/poll/116962/Americans-Economy-Takes-Precedence-Environment.aspx
Gallup serves to confirm George Will was right (in a number of respects). Recall, he wrote:
“Because of today’s economy, another law — call it the Law of Clarifying Calamities — is being (redundantly) confirmed. On graphs tracking public opinion, two lines are moving in tandem and inversely. The sharply rising line charts public concern about the economy, the plunging line follows concern about the environment. A recent Pew Research Center poll asked which of 20 issues should be the government’s top priorities. Climate change ranked 20th.”
Well I think both are important. It’s just that as with all polls the question is loaded. Certainly if you were to ask me if I thought the economy should take priority over carbon trading, my answer would be a resounding yes – even assuming a robust economy, that route is suicide. I think that most people on this blog care about the environment,but we can only fully concentrate on that once we have eradicated the CO2/greenhouse gas obsession.
We’ve a long way to go.
Not to say that correlation equals causation but the inflection points around 2004 in this curve are matched in the graph of people who think that global warming is exaggerated.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/11/gallup-poll-new-high-41-of-americans-now-say-global-warming-is-exaggerated/
There may be a positive feedback loop here. Fear about the economy makes people critically examine global warming alarmism, which causes fear about the economy being needlessly harmed in the name of the environment. Rinse and repeat.
Off topic but I saw on the weather channel where hybrid vehicle cales are down but they blame it on lowering gas prices.I wook at a local ford dealership and the prices of the hybrid is around 3 to 5 thousand dollars more than the gas .The fact our climate is entering A cooling cycle and the fact global warming is nothing more than cycles to begin with ,and the over price of the vehicle,are the reasons why ther vehicles don’t sell.
This is just more reenforcement that the governing elite knows what’s best for us because we are obviously not smart enough to see the big picture. -SARC OFF
Broadly speaking, in human social and material development, we always need every stage that the whole thing is built on.
Although we have an information revolution, we still need industry.
Although we had an industrial revolution, we still need agriculture.
Even agriculture is built up on top of earlier more fundamental stages to do with human safety and bonding.
If ideas about making the world greener start by including and working with these existing stages of systems, then those ideas can work to improve those systems, gradually, without breaking them.
If on the other hand green’s ideas ignore these things, then their ideas tend to become more about “stopping” and “halting” and calling everything “unsustainable”.
You’ll notice that each of those new stages, agrarian to industrial to informational, brought something genuinely new to the world, and was built on top of the previous stage. I think in ordinary life we all know this. You can’t eat a piece of information, or eat a piece of machinery.
If green ideas are to be healthy for the world, they need to work with the existing systems and perhaps bring something genuinely new on top of what exists.
I’m sure that if horses had been deemed too polluting for some reason, and everyone decided to stop riding horses, the human world would have barely sustained itself at the agrarian stage. Of course some greens might think that would have been a good thing…
A third of our resources went to feeding, raising, and housing horses. The combustion enging was one of the best things for the environment in a long time.
I fear that Americans are seeing the light too late. Cap and trade is already entrenched.
Given the previous Pew poll done at the first of the year the Gallup results are not surprising.
http://penoflight.com/climatebuzz/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/485-1.gif
The results also seem to echo many of the current public and governmental priorities in Europe.
I also think both are important.
Choosing between a future based on coal, gas and oil on one side and new nuclear / wind/ sun / wave technologies is not a difficult choice.
Why do we want to keep on giving our money to non-democratic regimes around the world in exchange for energy?
And choosing is not the only option. Investments in renewable tech will, and must, pay off.
But lying about why we need to change – And why we absolutely need to change right now – is not the road forward.
We will not only loose faith in the politicians (if they had ever earned it :-)) but also loose faith in science.
And science is what gave us, the west, the yellow jersey in the first place…
We have to be able to trust science, when the going really gets tough…Sometime in the future.
The question seems to be seeking a pro-environment answer. There is only a risk of curbing economic growth, but the environment suffers.
Nevertheless, people vote their wallets. Hey, I’m all for protecting the environment as much as possible, but there are many safeguards already in place.
To answer the rephrased question – I think growth in economic activity should be given priority even at the risk of curbing environmental protections.
“I fear that Americans are seeing the light too late. Cap and trade is already entrenched.”
We’ll see about that, once Americans do see the light. If the greenshirts try to stand in their way, they’ll only discredit themselves (and their allies) further.
This Gallup poll is a prime example of “false alternatives.” On one hand, excessive government-mandated protection of the environment does, indeed, have a direct and negative impact on economic growth. HOWEVER, the false alternative is that reducing government-mandated environmental regulations to assist economic growth will cause a negative impact to the environment. This assumption is false. In a free society, over short-terms and small local geographic areas, this will sometimes be true. But the free market works these things out over the medium to longer-term, and, in fact, DRIVES IMPROVEMENTS to environmental protection technology as economic growth continues!
As one example, America has absolutely the best technology and processes for extracting fossil fuels from the Earth. However, the current self-proclaimed environmentalists have used politics, academia, media, and law to virtually stop free Americans from using our own natural resources. What this does is force the demand for these resources to be obtained from other places in the world where the technology and processes for extracting them is much worse – thereby CAUSING the unintended (I hope) consequence of MORE harm to the environment!
We need to BE collectively more vigilant in watching for false alternatives when they are presented to us, and challenging them openly. And we also need to challenge our leaders to think-through environmental policies by understanding the unintended consequences of every law and regulation they consider enacting.
I, too, care about the environment. In order for the Amazon Jungle to heal itself of Man’s depredations it needs CO2.
Since the Carbon Footprint of Al Gore, James Hansen and HRH Prince Charles has been truly massive, may I nominate them for a “Friends of the Biosphere” Gold Star
One might suspect the Economy/Ecology debate to be two sides of the same coin.
Cold, Wet, and Hungry can change an opinion in short order. Any two of those variables can impact the politics. Unfortunatly, the politicos are usually way back on the power curve when it comes to providing solutions.
For my part, “Give Me Heat”. I’ll deal with the other two.
With the economic meltdown currently picking up speed, by the end of the year only the real radicals are going to care if a tiny amount of CO2 is going to burn up the Earth. There will no longer be unlimited amounts of other peoples money for the government and the greenies to tax and spend on their pet projects.
There may also be an issue of diminishing returns. Where before environmental protection and environmental safety meant tangilbe improvements to quality of life (reduced smog, clean water, etc.), now it increasingly means reducing your quality of life for an intangible future benefit to “Mother Earth.”
Also, contrary to what is alluded to above, the poll does not suggest Americans think current environmental regulations should be lifted to promote economic growth.
Mockery: http://www.seablogger.com/?p=13099
Friday, 20 Mar 09, politics
James Hansen thinks “the democratic process isn’t working” — because it is working, and his viewpoint has failed to persuade a majority. Now he will rationalize his way to thuggery — people’s democracy, one might call it, to be administered ultimately by the commissars of a People’s Republic, where the views of James Hansen will be accorded proper respect.
Expect a similar evolution among the more passionate advocates of Barack Obama.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/obama_wants_you_to_pledge_loya.html When their Messiah is blocked by bickering in his own party, they will announce the failure of democracy, then they will try to destroy democracy in order to save it. When the O-bots come to your door, mock them as modern day missionaries for Gaia-worshipping freaks. They hate religion, and the accusation will drive them nuts.
If we mock them, they will fail. They have no real sense of humor or proportion. Did you hear Obama’s quip about the “special Olympics?” That’s liberal humor — sneering at the disadvantaged. If a conservative said such a thing, imagine the outcry! But liberals mean well, we are told, and they prove it by spending other people’s money, so they get a free pass.
Mock the buffoons, Hansen and Gore; mock the popinjay, Barack Obama. Laugh; don’t weep. This too will pass.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/18/nasa-climate-change-james-hansen
[REPLY – As this is an inherently political thread, and as it isn’t directed personally, I will allow this. But please don’t push it any further. Part of democracy is the right to be wrong. ~ Evan]
Nothing like a dose of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to clarify objectives…
FWIW, I too think this is a false choice. You can have both. Why folks (often green fanatics and sometimes business bullies) don’t see this is puzzling.
Prudent greens (which I’ve taken to calling “olives” which I call myself) “get it” that we need smart industry and responsible business leaders know they live on the same planet and will be sucking the same exhaust…
On the issue of energy (and the need to get more, green or otherwise) I’ve summarized the choices at:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/there-is-no-energy-shortage/
which I would summarize as “Don’t panic! We have all you want!”
Too bad the poll doesn’t identify participants by IQ. If they were placed on an IQ bell curve, the believers in Global Warming would be clustered in a fearful group somewhere on the left side.
The only Global Warming believers on the right side of an IQ bell curve are the ones clever enough to manipulate and frighten the simpler souls.
They are engaged in a “Complex Fraud”. If Dante is right, such souls are in grave danger of eternal perdition.
Hard as it is to pray for professonal liars, we should try.
There’s a great book from the fifties that is very relevant today, Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. Fanatical members of these movements are nasty, overbearing types who join to vent their nastiness and to compensate for their flaws as individuals. Here’s the link to the Amazon source.
http://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements-Perennial/dp/0060505915/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237572334&sr=1-2
Here’s a snippet from one of the reader-reviewers:
“Hoffer’s beginning notion is that “people with a sense of fulfillment think the world is good while the frustrated blame the world for their failures. Therefore a mass movement’s appeal is not to those intent on bolstering and advancing a cherished self, but to those who crave to be rid of an unwanted self. He continues by saying that the true believer “cannot be convinced, only converted”. This basic tenet of the story is about human nature and its susceptibility to totalitarianism both secular and sectarian. To wit, he writes that “all mass movements strive to impose a fact proof screen between the faithful and the realities of the world.”
Roger Knights (10:14:42) : Excellent quote!. It means, then, that we will not be able to convert them, as far as we do not profess any particular “faith” against climate change but just the humble arguments of reason.
Rich people care about the environment. Poor people don’t. People are discovering that enviromentalism is a luxury.
If you want to help the environment, first make everybody rich.
Hybrid vehicles are a great example of ‘feel good’ environmentalism, not ‘do good’ environmentalism. How much energy does it take to mine the ore for the batteries, ship it to a refinery, ship the metal to the battery factory, make the battery and ship that to the car factory?
And what do you do with the batteries afterward? They are toxic waste.
BTW: I understand that Toyota loses money on every hybrid they sell.
Bill, I’ll take you to a Mensa meeting sometime. I can’t find any correlation between IQ and intelligence! There seem to be more lefties and liberals (at least among the Mensans I’ve met) than conservatives or libertarians.