We have often discussed the disconnect of the two major parties with their bases. For Democrats, it is the disgraceful record on civil liberties left by Democratic leadership, including President Obama. For Republicans, it is often the environment. Polls show a high number of Republican voters are in favor of environmental laws that are routinely undermined by GOP leaders. Now a new Pew poll shows that roughly half of Republicans say there is “solid evidence” of global warming — a remarkable jump of 37 percent jump from 2009.
The numbers are still higher in the population at large: 67 percent of all Americans and 48 percent of Republicans. However, the high numbers of Republicans accepting the science is not reflected in their party leadership or platform. The party appears captured by the most extreme elements of its members, including highly antagonistic business and lobby interest in the environmental field.
While many GOP leaders continue to deny the very notion of global warming like Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) , others are moving to a new position: it may be real but we may not be the cause or have any real power to change it. That was the view articulated recently by Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) in debate with his congressional challenger Ami Bera (D):
LUNGREN: There is no doubt that there is global change, climate change. The question is who causes it and is it caused predominantly by human activity. It seems to me we ought to take reasonable steps but not steps that so put us in a disadvantageous situation economically that we will have less jobs. There’s those that cry about their concern for jobs and then support the very things that would absolutely destroy jobs. We have an example of that in the current administration that I believe is supported by my opponent to try and basically ruin the coal industry in the United States, losing us tens of thousands of jobs instead of pursuing the cleanest technology in the area of coal. […]
MODERATOR: So you’re suggesting the global warming change may not be caused by manmade sources?
LUNGREN: No, my suggestion is we don’t know to what extent it is and to what extent moves we would take on our own in the United States would have an effect. At the same time I believe it makes good common sense to try and reduce carbon emissions where possible, as I’ve done in the U.S. capitol.
That approach is more nuanced and perhaps more dangerous. It shields the politicians from any responsibility to act while allowing global warming to get worse with the potential for catastrophic impacts around the world.
Notably, this study means that more Republicans believe in global warming than evolution. Some 58% of polled Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years.
Source: US News
MikeS, LA smog has improved dramatically over the past 3 decades thanks to sensible laws and regulations on auto emmisions and fuel formulation. The improvement is quite visible and that helps keep people willing to pay more for autos and gas in Ca. Although the $5.45/gallon of late is pushing the envelope.
http://www.istockanalyst.com/finance/story/6092148/alpha-natural-resources-inc-anr-and-coal-stocks-are-voting-for-mitt-romney Coal stocks are voting for Romney, cough cough.
Blind, You’re apparently a paper tiger. I have given observations, lectures from geologists, books, etc. You have just given up, albeit haughtily. Dredd knows his stuff.
“Saving our environment is not an issue of politics, it is one of existence.”
That about sums it up.
BF,
A present well deserved for a good turn . . .
No thanks, Nick. My time will be spent better somewhere else.
With statements like “We obviously disagree on what steps should or should not be taken.” I have to question your integrity and ability to not apply your own biases to others.
I haven’t stated a single step that should or should not be taken in this thread or any other, so again you have chosen to assign your own misconceptions to me. Why you would jump to these conclusions is a mystery that I’m not interested in unraveling.
===========
Darren,
Great points. I think that’s a good summary of why it’s so difficult to even begin a productive dialogue. Entrenched, hard-line positions are difficult to overcome. When politics become ideologies and ideologies become cultural dogma the opportunity for effective, societal course correction is often lost.
Thanks for the laughs, JT. A particularly ripe subject.
mahtso, You asked the 5 trillion dollar question.
Darren, Bravo
Dredd, We agree, I don’t accept hyperbole no matter the ideology or intention.
Blind, How would I know what you know and what you don’t know, I’m not Kreskin. There was nothing in your previous comment that indicated what you believed vis a vis climate change over the milleniums. Now I know, and we agree. We obviously disagree on what steps should or should not be taken. It’s simply curious to me that the people who espouse science regarding the climate have set up a religous model w/ beliefs, taboos, a God, etc. You were nice enough to ridicule my” academic and vacation history.” Why not wow me all w/ your credentials. Tell us about your expertise, your experience, etc. Then maybe we can discuss further.
Dredd’s comment on mass extinction is instructive. Accepting it as true, the blame goes to humans, but not necessarily man-made global warming. The, dare I call it hyperbole related to global warming is interfering with efforts to solve other problems.
That low….. I’d suspected it’d be higher…..
The problem I see with this is what has happened to politiciize the environmental issue.
I believe the core of the problem happened about 35 or so years ago when the environmental protection movement began to become more mainstream. While I believe this had obvious merit, unfortunately for whatever reason many elements within this movement began to politicise it until it morphed into a stereotype that many average persons do not identify with. It continues to this day.
Many conservatives, who are typically reactionary against those they view as being left wing, have a mental image of an Environmentalist as a Tree Hugging Liberal. And because they do not like the politics of the left, they associate environmentalism as a political threat to them. Environmentalists view conservatives as a threat to their beliefs in the environment and attack them politically. And the conflict continues. The environmentalists tend to alienate people in the middle by being countercultural.
I had dinner a couple months ago with a candidate running for governor in our state. I pointed out to him the party could do much better with voters and more importantly the world if we strove to make environmental stewardship a party platform. I said the bickering between the two parties was polluting not only the political arena but literally the environment as well. I hoped at least to seed in him the notion that a party can be good to the natural world and not be labelled as something bad politically. He seemed to be in agreement with me. Most people I talked with later thought it was a good start but lamented there were too many others in the party who would not accept it and the idea would die.
I guess we have to all start somewhere. Protecting the environment is costly? Well, how can you run a business or an industry when the world is ruined. Not a very profitable venture I would say.
“unfortunately for whatever reason many elements within this movement began to politicise it until it morphed into a stereotype that many average persons do not identify with.”
Darren,
Your points are indeed well-taken. There are some on the Left that do not have the capacity to forge alliances with people unless those people TOTALLY agree with them. I first met the type when I was active in the “Movement” in the 60’s. Some were captive of dogma and party line such as communists and some were mainly authoritarian types egotistically in love with themselves. While political purity tests are rife on all parts of the political spectrum, the politicization performed by many in the environmentalist movement was self-destructive. Saving our environment is not an issue of politics, it is one of existence
nick spinelli 1, October 16, 2012 at 10:41 am
… I just don’t want draconian laws that halt our civilization to save a frog.
=============================================
It is just as bad to underestimate and diminish a problem as it is to use hype to exaggerate a problem.
Both are false.
The amphibians, including frogs, are headed toward becoming extinct worldwide.
Worse in some places than in others, but a worldwide concern for biologists and ecologists.
About 200 species per day (includes all species not just amphibians), which is 73,000 per year, face extinction now in this era scientists call The Sixth Mass Extinction, caused by human “civilization”:
(The Damage Cannot Be Undone?, quoting Journal Nature). There is ample evidence that we are on a path to make ourselves extinct on another front as well (The Most Dangerous Moment in Recorded History). Both the nuclear threat and the ecological threat are real enough to be considered.
Mature people can handle danger with appropriate response rather than irresponsible denial or hype.
We are currently in the process of defining ourselves in that regard in the minds our posterity.
Mike,
Absolutely it’s tied to money:
“It seems to me we ought to take reasonable steps but not steps that so put us in a disadvantageous situation economically that we will have less jobs”
“I just don’t want draconian laws that halt our civilization to save a frog.”
The timing of this piece is interesting to me because yesterday I read that there has been no warming for the last 15 years. Mr. Spinelli’s comments are on point as to why people may not believe that we face catastrophic man-made global warming (or even non-catastrophic): the climate is always changing.
In terms of people’s opinions and how much weight I can give these, I think it important to understand the basis for the opinion. How much of the anticipated warming (in say the next 100 years) is due directly to carbon emissions and how much is due to positive feedbacks in the models? How much less will that warming be if we cut carbon emissions by 10%? Or 50%?
“How much less will that warming be if we cut carbon emissions by 10%? Or 50%?”
Mahtso,
Even if it has no effect on climate change, are carbon emissions a good thing? Is the Los Angeles Smog merely a minor effect on visibility, nothing to worry about?
Nick,
Is this discussion about whether rock strata, fossil evidence, ice cores, and other evidence shows that the climate is in continual flux? I didn’t realize that you think I’m denying that climate has continuously changed over the 4+ billions years since Earth’s formation. Let me assure you that I’m aware of this fact without question, but why you’re trying to apply an argument/denial to me that I never made is baffling.
I responded to your post and its contents. Why the strawmen? This thread, as far as I can tell, is about the public’s perception. That is the theme of your first post too(with lots of unnecessary judgement and unproductive reaction IMO), so I am trying to stay with the theme of the thread(ie public perception) and discuss how the public’s perception is created and changes. Its really unclear to me what you’re going on about.
And, yes, I know what anecdotal means. Your personal accounts as evidence are the definition of anecdotal. Just because its anecdotal doesn’t mean that its untrue or that I’m claiming its untrue, but single instance personal accounts are…anecdotal. Maybe you can’t take critical review of your statements, even though you wrote “fire away”. If you don’t like me calling it what it is then stop giving us personal accounts as evidence. Surely someone that took science courses realizes this, no?
Anecdotal claims are part of the reason that climate change discussions and perceptions embody such a wide spectrum of understanding and agreements(eg. “It was cold this winter. Climate change is bunk.” or “It was hot this summer. Climate change will kill us all.”)
So, do you want to continue the discussion or would you rather keep giving us your academic and vacation histories?
Oro Lee1, October 16, 2012 at 9:05 am
IMHO I don’t think the issue is so much knowledge v. belief, but rather between warranted belief scientifically established and unwarranted belief based on faith. …. ‘Cause if something can be proven, then wherefore faith?
“For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not, none will suffice.” I think this is often the mantra of the republicans regarding many of their disbeliefs of fact..
MikeS, I’ll always answer your specific questions. I detest strip mining, having gone to college in northeast PA. and seeing the results. I want our National Parks to remain the same. I discussed this on Elaine’s Big Bird thread yesterday. In a different forum awhile back we discussed my derision for political correctness and you expressed a similar concern. You acknowleged how ludicrous and tortured pc can be, but you had trepidations about me because of the origins of the term pc, being in the conservative realm. Mike, I lay it all out there. My liberal friends and conservative fiends have equal “problems” w/ me. I have no secrets or hidden agenda. Ask me any question you like, I respect you as much as anyone else here. Although we do disagree on things..”That’s a Good Thing.” Martha Stewart