Environment

Voter's Survival Kit: Seven Things You Need to Know About Climate Change

Scott Bittle — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:10:22 -0400

Climate change seems to be falling off the radar in this election campaign, which says more about the nature of the campaign than about the issue itself. Realistically, you can't deal with the country's energy needs without factoring in global warming, and the next president and Congress are going to have to cope with both.

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposals out there on climate change, but the big problem for many voters is that the debate is so complicated, both in a scientific sense and an economic one. There are so many competing claims that it's hard to keep things straight.

So, in Public Agenda's ongoing effort to sum up the debate for voters who just walked in, we've come up with seven key points to get you up to speed. Our Voter's Survival Kit on this topic, "Is it Getting Warm in Here?", goes into additional background on the issue and also lays out several different alternatives for addressing it. Remember, politicians can't be experts on everything, either, and they're often working off "options memos" and "talking points" written up by their staff. There's no reason why you shouldn't have the same advantage.

Here’s what you need to know to catch up with this argument:

"Greenhouse gases" like carbon dioxide come from the kinds of fuel we use most – namely, oil (which is mostly used for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel) and coal (almost all of which is used to produce electricity). Since people in the U.S. and around the world are burning more of these so-called fossil fuels, greenhouse emissions have also increased – they’re already 35 percent above what they were before the Industrial Revolution.

The Earth is getting warmer – global temperatures have risen a full degree Fahrenheit in the last century. And the warming trend is speeding up, with seven of the eight hottest years recorded occurring since 2001. An overwhelming majority of scientists have come to believe these two facts are connected, that human activities, especially the use of fossil fuels that give off carbon dioxide, are the major cause of this warming trend.

The potential impact is of global warming is nothing to sneeze at. A degree or two of global warming might seem minor, but it’s definitely not. Melting polar ice and glaciers cause coastal flooding in places thousands of miles away. This can devastate communities, especially in poorer countries. Crops that once thrived can fail causing economic upheaval. Miserable insects and diseases flourish in places that didn’t have them before. Many scientists also predict an increase in extreme weather -- fiercer hurricanes, tornados, and flooding, -- not to mention many more really bad summer heat waves.

We can slow down this warming trend by cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions, but the impact probably can’t be stopped or reversed. In other words, it’s a question of how much temperatures rise, not whether they rise. But the less they rise the easier it’ll be to cope.

To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we’ll need to look for alternative fuels and ways to use fossil fuels as efficiently as possible. If you get 50 miles per gallon when you drive, you’ll do less environmental damage than if you only get 20 miles per gallon. Less fuel used, fewer emissions.

It helps to focus on which fuels produce greenhouse gases and which don’t. Oil and coal, yes. Nuclear, solar and wind power, no. Natural gas, which is also a fossil fuel, does produce some greenhouse gas emissions, but it’s not nearly as damaging as the big two.

As a country, we’re also going to have to adapt to the likely impacts of climate change, including extreme weather, crop changes and new diseases. We’re also going to have to adapt to reduce greenhouse gases and get our energy from cleaner sources. The question is how, exactly, that happens.

How do we know this? Here are our sources:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007 Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers; U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Analyses of the Effects of Global Change on Human Health and Welfare and The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change Site; U.S. Energy Information Administration, Energy Basics 101

House Passes Bill on Offshore Drilling

Scott Bittle — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:30:49 -0400

A bill passed by the House last night would both expand offshore oil drilling and promote alternative energy, although whether it will actually become law seems uncertain given the upcoming congressional recess and the bitter partisanship around this issue. Multiple surveys have shown public support for more drilling (as in this June Pew survey that showed support for expanded exploration rising by 12 points in just four months).

But Public Agenda's focus group research, Putting the Pieces Together, also shows that there's a major disconnect between leaders and the public on energy. They define the problem differently and think about solutions differently.

For example, the public tends to think in terms of becoming independent of foreign oil, but most experts we interviewed don't think it's possible to become totally independent of foreign energy. They'd prefer to define the issue as achieving "energy security" from stable sources the U.S. can trust.

And there's a big question of trust here. We found many citizens had a “strongly felt perception that ‘movers and shakers’ are either actively making matters worse or are simply abdicating responsibility and leaving problems to fester,” the report says. The energy experts we interviewed were pretty harsh on leadership, too, but were also a little more nuanced, seeing the lack of leadership as driven both by the intense partisanship in the political culture and the influence of big money on decision making.

Cap-and-Trade System For Emissions Faces Major Hurdle

Jenny Choi — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:41:19 -0400

An attempt by ten Northeast states to implement a cap-and-trade system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the region has run into problems as a result of lower than expected carbon output. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI, set out in 2004 to place a total emissions cap of 188 million tons annually for more than 200 utility plants. And, as the cap-and-trade system goes, the utilities would be required to buy a permit or financial allowance to emit, thereby creating a financial incentive to keep output low.

Problem is, that 188 million ton cap is, so far, well above actual output (see nytimes.com graphic). Carbon emissions from the ten participating states decreased to a total of 164.5 millions tons in 2006 and an estimated 172.4 million tons in 2007. The drop has been attributed to everything from an increase in natural gas use to a faltering economy and mild weather. And while the decrease is certainly good news, it goes without saying that so long as output is below the cap, there is simply no demand for emission allowances -- and therefore no financial incentive to reduce emissions any further. It certainly doesn't bode well for the upcoming CO2 allowance auction at the end of this month.

Our Voter's Survival Kit on Climate Change outlines many of the problems we face as a country in dealing with the effects of climate change -- and offers some options on how to tackle the problem.

Our Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index indicates that while the public is somewhat on the fence about what the U.S. can do to combat global warming, many (61 percent in our spring edition) believe international cooperation can make a difference. Yet 58 percent give the U.S. a grade of C or worse for working with other countries to reduce global warming. And while nearly three-quarters (72 percent) of Americans worry about global warming, just 39 percent say they worry "a lot," ranking lower than many other foreign policy concerns (fuel prices, for example, or casualties in Iraq).

Voter's Survival Kit: Climate Change, So What's the Plan

David White — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:46:04 -0400

DOWNLOAD PRINT-FRIENDLY VERSION OF THIS GUIDE

There are many different ways to think about this issue. Here are outlines of three alternative plans on the best way to address the problem of climate change.

CHOICES IN BRIEF

Cut greenhouse emissions and change
our energy use as quickly as possible to prevent the worst
consequences of global warming

Adapt to the inevitable changes global
warming will cause

Use the free market to lead the way in the
search for solutions

What’s most needed now is strong government action both here and abroad to dramatically cut the production of greenhouse gases, shift to new energy sources and prevent as much of the damage global warming would otherwise cause as possible.

Given how far global warming has already advanced, and given the cost and disruption involved in shifting away from fossil fuels, the wisest course is to figure out how the United States can adapt to the tough problems climate change will inevitably cause.

The best thing we can do to address the challenges of global warming is to make sure the private sector has the information, freedom and incentives that will best allow businesses to respond to it. We can’t let bureaucracy and politics get in the way of innovation. There’s money to be made in “going green,” and with the right help creative entrepreneurs will seize the opportunity.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE CHOICES IN DETAIL

Cut greenhouse emissions and change
our energy use as quickly as possible to prevent the worst
consequences of global warming

Adapt to the inevitable changes global
warming will cause

Use the free market to lead the way in the
search for solutions

What should be done?

Increase conservation and fuel efficiency by:

Substantially raising fuel-economy standards for new cars and giving tax incentives to drivers who choose fuel-efficient hybrids and smaller cars.

Raising the gas tax to encourage people to move to more fuel-efficient cars and reduce their driving to essential travel. Use the revenues to fund research and development of alternative energy.

Enacting a “carbon tax” on industrial emissions to encourage businesses to reduce their greenhouse gases.

Passing construction codes in places that require new buildings to be more energy-efficient.

Investing in energy-saving public transportation and rebuilding the country’s rail system for commercial shipping.

Change our energy sources by:

Stop building coal-fired power plants, which put out a lot of greenhouse gases, and aggressively shift to cleaner energy sources that are already available, like natural gas and nuclear power.

Investing in research on solar, wind and other technologies that “capture” greenhouse gases from smokestacks and “store” them so that they are relatively harmless to the environment.

Take a leading role in international efforts by:

Signing the Kyoto Treaty and joining other international efforts to reduce greenhouse gases through policies that put limits on what any country can produce in the way of carbon emissions.

Providing aid to developing countries in the form of know-how and resources that help them industrialize with clean energy.

Adapt society to harsher weather conditions by:

Enacting new building codes to make our cities more weather- and flood-proof.

Providing subsidies and tax breaks to farmers to help them switch to different crops and methods that can better survive climate disruptions.

Developing new dams, seawalls and flood control systems to minimize the impact of higher water levels on cities likely to be affected.

Discourage people from living in areas that are likely to be hard-hit by floods and wildfires by:

Ending federal flood insurance, which encourages building in coastal areas.

Providing tax incentives that encourage people who live in coastal and other flood-prone areas to move to less vulnerable regions.

Giving government the power to bar development on extremely vulnerable coastland and riverbanks. These areas could be better used for parkland.

Increase federal funding for:

Scientific research into such areas as: how to develop local food crops that can adapt to harsh weather conditions, controlling tropical diseases and pests, andhigh-level monitoring systems including satellites to help track weather patterns, crop failures, pest contagions, etc.

Financial and technical aid for developing nations to adapt to these extreme conditions which are likely to be more devastating in their regions.

Cut back on regulation and red tape that might inhibit businesses from responding to new opportunities in alternative energy by:

Easing government regulations so that businesses can bring new, “green” technologies to market more quickly.

Simplifying and expediting procedures for building nuclear power plants so environmental advocacy groups can’t hold up development for years.

Granting tax incentives to power companies to upgrade their plants to use new, cleaner technology.

Creating incentives or tax breaks for businesses that “go green.”

Offering competitive “innovation” prizes for needed technology, such as ways to capture greenhouse emissions, store nuclear waste and develop better battery technology.

Arguments For This Approach

There is no time to lose. The longer we wait, the harder it will be to change. We need to start moving away from our dependence on fossil fuels as quickly as feasible.

Alternative forms of energy are the wave of the future. The U.S. will lose out environmentally and economically by clinging to the technologies of the past. Other countries have done more to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and their economies have not suffered dramatically.

This approach applies the country’s resources toward the most important issue – how to handle emergencies that will likely result from global warming.

This focuses on what we can do in our own country rather than trying to get other countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

This approach uses government to protect health and safety, not to legislate what drivers and businesses do.

Surveys of business leaders show that most recognize that there’s money to be made in“green technology.” China and India will be in the market for energy-efficient technology, so the free enterprise system will be poised to respond.

Relying on business solutions will avoid highly expensive government programs and the intrusive regulations and policies that restrict the freedom of businesses and consumers.

Science comes up with solutions, but business is really the engine that brings technological change out of the laboratory and into daily life.

Arguments Against This Approach

The U.S. has a huge investment in its highways, trucking systems, private auto travel and coal-powered electricity. It will take decades to rebuild and retool our systems.

Putting taxes on larger cars like SUVs and on gasoline will penalize people who need bigger vehicles and have to drive long distances.

Businesses will pass their higher energy costs onto customers, leading to higher costs for nearly everything.

This approach does almost nothing to curb the release of greenhouse gases, which means that climate change could get even worse. We could damage the Earth irretrievably.

The government would be telling people where they can and can’t live, not to mention what kinds of buildings they can live in. It would lead to a lot more regulation and red tape.

The free market can’t solve all our problems. After all, it was big businesses, in the form of energy and automobile companies (among others), that delayed action on the global warming issue for decades.

By the time business has a strong enough profit motive to change the way it consumes energy, it will be too late to reverse global warming and avoid its most disastrous impacts.

More and more business leaders themselves are calling for government action to require greater conservation and cleaner energy. Government action creates a level playing field so businesses that want to invest in cleaner energy won’t be at a disadvantage.

Paris Hilton? Energy Policy? Really?

Scott Bittle — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:05:43 -0400

The most frightening thing about Paris Hilton issuing a statement on energy policy is that she suggested something that, at least on the surface, might actually have public support.

For those of you who don't already have a dozen e-mails about this in your inbox, the "celebutante" was used in an ad by Republican candidate John McCain comparing Democrat Barack Obama to celebrities like Hilton and Britney Spears. Hilton, not one to let such an opportunity go by, responded with this video on Funny or Die, which includes unveiling her own energy policy: limited off-shore drilling to hold us over until new technologies kick in.

And surveys actually do show initial public backing for both more offshore oil drilling and alternative fuels and new technology. Historically, the public wants to split the difference on problems that pit energy consumption and conservation against each other.

But we're at a point now where surveys show the public supporting a lot of things to address gas prices, which is typical when people are just beginning to grapple with a problem. They're demanding action, and a lot of ideas sound promising. The public hasn't worked through the tradeoffs and contradictions of these ideas, and their thinking will probably evolve. After all, energy was off the public's radar for a long time, and they're still getting up to speed.

If Paris Hilton comes out with a plan to address education or the federal budget, we'll let you know. But we're not expecting it.

Strange Times, Indeed: A Used Car Price Higher Than Showroom New

Francie Grace — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:07:58 -0400

Painfully high gas prices are producing some unexpected phenomena. USA Today reports long waiting lists for the hybrid Prius have pushed prices for used models with about 8,000 miles on them to about $1,300 more than you'd shell out for a new one. Meanwhile in L.A., a new type of road rage has emerged – not at the gas station, as one might expect – but in the form of clashes between folks who've recently begun bicycling to work and those who are sticking with their cars. The Wall Street Journal notes Los Angeles has few bike paths and bike lanes, and bicycles are illegal on the freeways. "Cyclists have equal rights, but in fact a lot of motorists think they should get off the road." Lynne Goldsmith, manager of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority's bike program, told the Journal. "When we're used to seeing more cyclists, we will treat them better."

Many Americans are open to behavior changes when it comes to energy consumption. A new USA Today/Gallup poll found about three in ten survey participants said they'd be more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who said they'd have to change their habits to conserve energy, 54 percent said that position would not affect their choice, and 17 percent said they'd be less likely to vote for such a candidate.

Nearly 70 percent said they'd be more likely to vote for a presidential candidate for supported tax incentives to promote energy conservation. Both major party candidates have made proposals along those lines. The poll also found that energy and gas prices topped the list when voters were asked what is extremely important to them in choosing a candidate.

These results are not surprising, considering Gallup's May poll which found 78 percent of Americans who believe high gas prices are here to stay, and 54 percent who expect to pay $6 a gallon within five years. A June Gallup survey also found significant numbers who said gas prices have forced them to change their ways, 15 percent who said they cannot afford driving/commuting, and 11 percent who said gas prices have left them with little or no disposable income or have wrecked their budgets.

Worry about energy prices was also a major finding in our most recent Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index, in which 60 percent of participants said becoming less dependent on other countries for energy supplies would enhance national security "a great deal." That was also the most popular among policy options suggested for improving national security.

Supercharged Gas Prices Spark Battle Over Where To Drill For Oil

Francie Grace — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:06:16 -0400

Oil prices high enough to push inflation to a six month high, fueling one town's plan to charge speeders for the gas it costs cops to chase them, have sparked a more serious battle in Washington and in some of the nation's most tourist-friendly regions. The Associated Press reports President Bush is asking Congress to end a 27-year-old ban on offshore drilling for oil and gas along 80 percent of the nation's Outer Continental Shelf. The president also wants to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration. Supporters of the idea point to estimates suggesting that the off-limits areas contain nearly 18 billion barrels of undiscovered oil. They also say exploration won't harm the environment; opponents disagree and argue that conservation and alternative fuels are the key.

Another plan is also on the drawing board: a House bill to extend the ban through the year 2009. A Gallup survey last month found 57 percent favored allowing oil exploration in currently off-limits coastal and wilderness areas; 41 percent were opposed – an interesting contrast to March 2007, when gas prices were a bit lower and the percentages were reversed: 41 percent for expanding oil drilling and 57 percent opposed.

When survey questions ask people to choose between the environment and the economy, the results tend to shift around depending on how well the economy's doing. Right now, surveys find people feeling negative about the economy, and a March Gallup poll found 49 percent who said protecting the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth. Some 42 percent said growth should be the priority. Back in 2000, nearly two-thirds gave priority to the environment.

A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll (pdf) and a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll (pdf) this spring found the economy led the list, and the environment ranked very low, when voters pointed to issues that will affect their decision in the presidential election. For more on the environment, check out our issue guide.

The majority of Americans favor setting higher emissions and pollution standards for businesses, but most oppose ...

jwilliams — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:03:33 -0400

Given the choice, most Americans say the country should purse both energy production and conservation equally

jwilliams — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:07:23 -0400

Slight majorities choose conservation over energy production

jwilliams — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:04:22 -0400

During a lagging economy, fewer Americans say they favor protecting the environment at the risk of curbing economic growth

jwilliams — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:50:07 -0400

Nearly six in 10 Americans say protecting the environment should be a top priority for Congress in 2006, but ...

jwilliams — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:46:07 -0400

GM Rethinks SUVs, Trucks Amid Record Gas Prices and Low Sales

Jenny Choi — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:55:11 -0400

The New York Times today covers General Motors' apparent shift toward smaller engine vehicles -- and even the possibility of selling its Hummer division -- after yesterday's news that the Detroit automaker was slashing production of its SUVs and pickup trucks as a result of declining sales. The national average cost of fuel recently reached $3.98 a gallon, and the fallout could not have happened more rapidly, with car sales surpassing truck and SUV sales in just the last few months. It's the first time since 1992 that a sedan has been the country's top-selling vehicle.

Three-quarters of the public, in a recent Gallup poll, believe the continuous rise in gas prices represents a permanent change more than a temporary one. And majorities (71 percent) say they have seriously considered getting a more fuel-efficient car the next time they buy a vehicle.

Our Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index shows seven in 10 Americans say they worry "a lot" about the rise in the cost of gas and fuel, outpacing any other concern by a significant margin. That's a 16-point jump from six months ago. The public has been making a stronger connection in recent months between energy independence and national security. Nine in 10 (89 percent) say becoming less dependent on other countries for our supply of energy would enhance our security, with six in 10 saying it would help "a great deal" -- now the public's number one security strategy.

Climate Change's Thumbprint: Today & Tomorrow

Francie Grace — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:33:33 -0400

A new federal report warns that global warming will post "substantial" dangers to human health in the United States, and while the nation can adapt overall, some people will be hit harder than others. The EPA study follows an earlier review by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program that examines changes in temperature and precipitation and makes projections on how things may look and feel in the fifty states in the coming decades. Our Choicework dialogue guide, Facing the Challenge of Climate Change, lays out the choices and a starting point for engaging the public on this critical problem.

Yesterday's Power Grid A Big Hurdle For Tomorrow's Power

Francie Grace — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:20:35 -0400

As carbon emissions skyrocket and the ice cap shrinks, more is being spent on alternative fuels but the results aren't always as expected. With the power grid in dire need of expansion, wind power generators have had to cut production because the grid can't always handle the added electricity. A Gallup poll points to strong support for government investment in clean energy, but surveys have long shown that support for environmental measures varies when economic tradeoffs are factored in. For more, check out our issue guide and our climate change discussion starter.

Food, Fuel and the Public

Scott Bittle — Thu, 29 May 2008 15:32:57 -0400

Food and fuel are two basic necessities, and the rising cost of both continues to be in the news. Some experts say the two are linked, but does the public make the connection? A new United Nations report says the demand for ethanol and other "biofuels" made with food crops has helped boost food prices globally. The Food and Agriculture Organization study says food prices rose 53 percent worldwide in the first three months of this year, and some developing nations have seen rioting over the problem.

Americans are feeling the impact of higher food prices, too. Ninety percent of participants in a March Gallup survey said food prices have gone up "a lot" or "a little." A month later, 46 percent said recent food prices are causing them financial hardship; that number rose to 64 percent among Americans with income of less than $30,000 a year.

Americans are also feeling the sting of gas prices. In our Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index, fully seven in 10 Americans say they worry "a lot" about the rise in the cost of energy, a 16-point jump from six months ago. The public also has firmly linked energy and national security, and energy independence is the public's first choice as a security strategy in the index.

But so far, alternative fuels are not the first item on most Americans' personal energy agenda. In a Gallup poll last year on the most important things average Americans should do to address environmental problems, only 3 percent mentioned using more alternative fuels, as opposed to 18 percent who thought people should buy more energy efficient products. This is in line with Public Agenda's research on energy. The public tends to think about their own personal habits and consumption first when asked about energy conservation.

On the other hand, when Gallup asked people an open-ended question on what the government should do about energy, 19 percent said it should promote alternative fuels, more than any other item. More recent surveys still show support for ethanol research. In a March survey, the Pew Research Center found 57 percent favored more federal funding for ethanol research, although that was down 10 points from two years before.

But there's very little survey work on whether food and fuel are linked in the public's mind. In April 2007, a CBS News/New York Times poll asked people whether they thought ethanol was a good idea "because it is an American-made substitute for foreign oil that causes less air pollution" or a bad idea "because it drives up food prices and has less energy." At that time, 70 percent said they favored ethanol. But that was before the global controversy over food prices broke this spring, and there's little data on how that might have affected public attitudes. It's fair to say, however, that world food prices haven't received nearly as much public attention as gas prices.

Government Report Details "Profound Effects" of Climate Change

Jenny Choi — Wed, 28 May 2008 15:10:49 -0400

Climate change is already having a major effect on water and land resources, agriculture and biodiversity, according to a report released yesterday by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, which is led by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The study is a detailed scientific examination of the impact of climate change on the nation's ecosystems--including forests, farmland and wildlife--and the continuing trend in rising sea levels and changes in temperature and precipitation in the next 25 to 50 years. In related news, ExxonMobil has announced it will discontinue funding for lobby and policy groups that deny the science behind climate change.

Public Agenda's latest Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index shows 72 percent of Americans worry about global warming, with 39 percent who worry "a lot." Yet 58 percent give the U.S. a grade of C or worse for working with other countries to reduce global warming. Still, 61 percent say it's "realistic" to believe that international cooperation can reduce global warming.

As Oil Prices Soar, U.S. Military Ramps Up Use Of Alternative Fuels

Francie Grace — Wed, 21 May 2008 00:00:00 -0400

With oil prices at a record $132 a barrel, the U.S. military is ramping up on its use of alternative fuels and has for the first time proven that a jet can use synthetic fuel to break the sound barrier. "The endgame," Air Force Assistant Secretary William Anderson tells the Wall Street Journal, "is to wean the dependence on foreign oil." The military, which uses 1.5 percent of the nation's oil, is pushing contractors to boost fuel efficiency by using lighter metals in engine parts and produce hybrid-fueled armored vehicles. It's also built a solar energy array in Nevada – providing power for an Air Force base and nearby communities – and plans to build three similar facilities.

In the Spring 2008 Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index, becoming less dependent on foreign energy sources was the public's top choice as a national security strategy. Six in ten survey participants said that would do "a great deal" to make the nation more secure. The percent who said the government can do "a lot" to reduce energy dependence slid from 50 percent to 44 percent six months earlier. Only 19 percent gave the government an A or a B for its efforts this area; 77 percent said the grade should instead be a C or worse.

How Important Are Environmental Issues?

Jenny Choi — Tue, 20 May 2008 14:31:58 -0400

Americans give mixed signals on just how important protecting the environment is to them. On one hand, a large majority feels that environmental protection is a high legislative priority, with most people saying that they worry "a great deal" about pollution and sympathize with environmental concerns. On the other hand, most Americans say they are satisfied with the environment where they work and live, and recent surveys indicate that issues like education, health care, and Social Security will be more important considerations. Surveys also show a decline over the past decade in levels of public identification with the environmental movement and public support for stricter environmental laws.

Environmental Protection -- At What Price?

Jenny Choi — Tue, 20 May 2008 14:29:54 -0400

When surveys ask people to choose between the environment and the economy, answers change depending on how well the economy is doing – and many resist the choice even during prosperous times. When the economy was doing well in 2000, two-thirds of Americans said they favored protecting the environment even at the expense of economic growth. But during the sluggish times of 1992 and 2003, less than half of Americans favored giving priority to the environment. And, while most Americans say there should be stricter laws to protect the environment, only a modest majority says “people should be willing to pay higher prices” to do so. Even during the boom of the 1990s, however, most Americans said it’s not necessary to choose between protecting the environment and economic growth.