The new Gallup survey is out on Americans attitudes towards global warming. It speaks for itself. Here are the highlights . . .
- Eighty percent of Americans say they understand the issue of global warming, a percentage that is up significantly from 16 years ago, when only 53% said they understood the issue.
- Slightly less than half of Americans in 1997 said the effects of global warming had already begun to happen. That number has risen, particularly in the past two years, to the point where today 61% say the effects have already begun to happen at this point in time. About one out of four Americans, however, continue to say the effects of global warming will not happen in their lifetimes, if ever.
- There has also been an uptick in the percentage of Americans who say global warming will pose a serious threat to them in their lifetimes, from 25% in 1997 to 40% today. Even with this increase over the last 11 years, the fact remains that still less than a majority of Americans, at this point, believe global warming will pose a serious threat to them in their lifetimes.
- The fact that a majority of Americans don’t believe global warming will pose a threat to them in their lifetimes makes it perhaps less surprising to find that significantly less than a majority of Americans say they worry a great deal about it. In fact, worry about global warming is low on a list of 12 environmental problems that Gallup asks about in the Environment surveys.
Last if we had any remaining doubts, the concluding results from the survey:
Some of these results are no surprise and reflects similar findings from a recent Nielsen Online survey. People relate more to concrete elements that they can see and feel such as water, air, soil, and the trees, and also their personal health. They are concerned about their environment, but global warming is seen as a global, distant, threat with little relevance to their personal lives. What shocked me however, was the dichotomy between, on one hand people’s claimed understanding of the global warming threat, and on the other hand their lack of concern and sense of urgency. This tells me people do not really understand.
I don’t even understand the difference between CO and CO2
All in all, I think there’s lots of worry about environmental issues, and also lots of support for actions. This must even been seen in the light that most Americans probably think they’ll “lose” because of some actions, which I think they won’t.
Lots of people are willing to pay a price. Now who’s gonna tell me they won’t have to pay a price?
Nothing in these poll results seem very surprising to me. Long before global warming becomes a serious problem, I think other problems are going to emerge that are much more serious–energy shortages and food shortages come to mind immediately.
One question I like to ask folks when I get a chance is this: When do you think crude oil production in the U.S. will reach a peak? Most will put it sometime in the future, some will put it far into the future, but few will note that it peaked in 1970.
With gas prices now hovering close to $4.00 a gallon in California, and at least $3.50 nationally, people are paying more attention to this, not as a good plan to slow global warming, which it will help do as we use less gasoline, but because we have developed a lifestyle that is completely dependent on automobiles.
Americans use nearly 25 percent of the world’s petroleum, though we comprise slightly less than 5 percent of the world’s population–a measure of how privileged we really are. Last year American per capita daily oil consumption was around .068 barrels per day. Total world oil production averaged about 84.6 million barrels per day, of which Americans consumed almost 21 million barrels.
IF the world were to consume oil at the American rate, then we would need to increase world oil production from its current rate to around 457 million barrels per day. But oil producers are struggling mightily to increase world production right now to 90 million barrels per day, so forget about anything much beyond that.
World peak oil production is now close at hand. Though many believe that we will quickly find another source of power to keep the Hummers humming, it is not likely in the short run. As Vaclav Smil noted, “Today there is no readily available non-fossil energy source that is large enough to be exploited on the requisite scale.”
In other words the rest of the world simply cannot approach our rate of oil consumption without throwing the global economy into chaos. As we struggle to increase our own imports, other consuming nations are struggling to increase theirs as well–China, India, and others want to be more like us.
But today signs are everywhere that we’ve approached the limit to our system of petroleum production and consumption, and something has to give. So far we’ve been willing to fight wars over petroleum (though never admitting it), willing to make “friends” with characters we don’t really like, and, most recently, willing to convert food to fuel for our SUVs and our car-dependent way of life.
As a result, food prices everywhere are rising rapidly, crude oil prices are approaching $120 per barrel, and Americans should be very worried–not about global warming but about the possibility that the era of cheap oil, upon which we’ve built our lifestyle, may be rapidly coming to a close. As Fatih Birol warned in a recent article, “We are on the brink of a new energy order. Over the next few decades, our reserves of oil will start to run out and it is imperative that governments in both producing and consuming nations prepare now for that time. We should not cling to curde down to the last drop–we should leave oil before it leaves us.” If only American politicians and other leaders understood this, then we would be much better off. As Dana Visalli wrote recently, “Humans appear to be programmed by their genes to see the world as it isn’t.” A good example of this is our failure to see that the world’s store of crude oil is finite.
Wow. Eighty percent of people today say they “understand” global warming, and 53% claimed understanding even 16 years ago?!
So much for self-reported understanding.
Also, the categorization of global warming as (“merely”) an “environmental” problem is problematic in many ways.
Of course, part of how humans deal with issues (the degree varying among humans) has to do with whether the problem is viewed as insurmountable, or a threat, or an opportunity, or so forth. Just FYI, as a bit of good news, I saw on the news this morning that GE Chairman and CEO Jeff Immelt is saying that the shift to clean/green will be a big source of jobs and economic growth. The more people who connect the “global warming problem” dot with the “job growth” dot, the more the public will get on board. (Of course, this doesn’t mean that there won’t be costs or that some sacrifices, and habit changes, won’t be needed.)
Also, clearly, there is a MAJOR need for better communication of the issue (and solutions) to the public. There are ways to tell the “story” that will help greater numbers of people “see” and “get it”. Also, there are places that small (but important) aspects of the picture can be conveyed in accessible and understandable bits. For example, on Starbucks cups? On McDonalds containers? In schools (in a program that gives materials to students for sharing with their parents)? As far as I can tell, society has barely even scratched the surface of the many ways to convey parts of the story to the public. I’m MOST disappointed in the media.
I hope that people are approaching Starbucks, McDonalds, and etc. with simple but effective messages for their cups and packages. If not, someone should. Maybe the modern-day version of Thomas Paine will be the person who writes the best, most accessible, and most compelling global warming tidbits for Starbucks coffee cups?
Thanks for the great post, Marguerite. Happy Earth Day!
Oil and Gary’s Post
Thanks for the great post Gary.
Yes, for a variety of reasons, we need to transition (quickly) from oil and coal.
To anyone interested in understanding some aspects of the oil problem a bit more, as related specifically to global warming, and to anyone interested in understanding ExxonMobil, I’ve made a series of posts recently on the New York Times’s blog, Dot Earth. (I’d repeat them here except that they would clog things up.)
If you are interested, go to the Dot Earth thread titled “Looking Forward, an Energy Scramble or a Blueprint?” and look at posts 11, 22, 60, 61, 68, 72, and 75 within that thread. Those posts include some basic information about oil and its carbon dioxide consequences as well as some basic and revealing information about ExxonMobil itself. For example, if you can read those posts and still choose to buy gasoline from ExxonMobil, you are a much more forgiving person than I am.
But, if you visit Dot Earth, don’t forget to come back here, where things have a much more positive and personal feel and focus on solutions.
Happy Earth Day.
Jeff, Gary, I am glad the two are talking to each other, as I believe your two brains together can accomplish a lot.
Gary, I agree with you that global warming should not be the focus of communication at this point. Instead much more immediate, and yet related problems such as the ones you mention should be pushed into the collective consciousness. It has actually started. Oil, energy, food, these are concepts people listen to.
Don’t forget the “green-collar jobs” of Van Jones.
Good piece on this:
http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2008/04/urban_areas_climate_change_com.php
Yes, that can be potentially – if it is executed well, which is a big if in my mind – a piece of that huge puzzle.
Look at it this way: 30-40% of people think it’s a serious problem and that drastic action is needed now.
That’s about the proportion of the total voting public it takes to elect a President.
So I’d be taking hope from this, not despair. Less than 30-40% of Americans oppose boobies and profanity on tv, yet they get their way. Why? Because they make a big noise about it, write lots of letters.
So the problem is not that it’s “only” 30-40% of Americans who feel this way, the problem is that they feel it but don’t do anything about it. It’s motivation. They need a drill sergeant on their arses.
Kiashu (#9): Good point. To a degree, I agree. Hhmmmm. That’s worth thinking about. Perhaps in the (sometimes) frustration, one tends to overlook the idea that 30-40% of the people already feel strongly about the issue, at least according to this poll. So, a big part of the solution is to “connect” better with each other and to actually get out and do stuff. Like you say, there’s a need for “drill sergeants”, probably at all levels.
Kiashu and Jeff,
The people who claim to be willing to take “drastic” action has remained virtually unchanged between 1996 and 2008, not an encouraging sign.
A key here is having a clue what “drastic” might mean to those who use it. My three-decades or so of experience with environmental problems and university students has suggested, at least to me, that “drastic” seldom means anything close to what the dictionary might say.
For example, Americans have long been unwilling to pay higher gas prices and taxes, even though long ago we should have instituted such a tax. What gas price would these folks consider “drastic?” My guess is that lots of them are already screaming about $4.00 gas, but most Europeans are paying at least 50% more per gallon already. One result is that alternate transportation systems are much better in most of Europe, and most European cities are much more pleasant to walk in than most American ones. Can you imagine Paris without its broad sidewalks, crowded sidewalk cafes, and walkways along the Seine? Americans don’t even want to get out of their cars nowadays to buy a cup of coffee!
As I suggested somewhere else, incentives and disincentives need to be changed in order to get more Americans to move in the right direction, namely toward a reduced-carbon lifestyle. Less driving, smaller cars, better public transit, and smaller, more energy-efficient homes would move us a long way without harming our quality of life at all. To me none of these changes is “drastic,” but my guess is that Hummer drivers and McMansion dwellers would not agree.
So far higher gas prices in the U.S. have done little to change people’s driving habits–gas consumption, last I saw, was down less than 1 %, and the summer driving season lies ahead. However, if prices stay high, or move higher, then I think Americans will have to respond. At that point smaller cars, smaller homes closer to jobs, and better transit systems may look better to lots of folks. Some recent evidence suggests that folks who are house-shopping are already turning their backs on suburbs that are too far out.
Those willing to make drastic adjustments should cheer the higher gas prices that we have today and hope they go only higher in the future. Is that cheering I hear in the background?
Here is what I think. Kyle and Gary, I think you are both holding two very valuable sides of the same coin. The 34% that say that they are willing, we should work with and see how we can best help them. That is a start, the beginning of the spool unraveling, and thanks Kyle for reminding us. As you pointed Gary, people are pretty reasonable when exposed to the right stimulus.
I am an optimist, and I believe in the human capacity to change. I have years of psychotherapy with hurting people to draw from, and testify that it is indeed possible. People just need to be nudged – see earlier post about recent release of book ‘Nudge’ – . Much in this blog is about nudging strategies.
Sure, “drastic” for one guy might just mean eating one less burger a week or something lame like that.
The point is that it’s a foot in the door. You don’t need to have the entire populace passionately engaged in things to make things happen. Rather few Bolsheviks made the October Revolution. Rather few Americans ended segregation. Changes both bad and good don’t require unanimity, just a few people pushing along.
The thing is again the wedge effect. Once you get it in the right groove and start tapping, surprisingly little force splits the wood. So we’ve got people saying, “we need drastic change”. That’s the split in the wood.
Consider the erosion of civil liberties across the West. First we accepted detention of foreigners without charge or trial in camps on islands outside the country – Australia did it first with refugees, then the US did it next with people grabbed randomly across the world. Next we accepted detention of our own citizens without charge or trial. Then wiretapping of the whole country. And so on.
It works with bad shit, and it works with good stuff, too. Once Americans accepted that you ought not to be able to own another human being as property, it wasn’t very hard to accept they ought to be able to vote, and live where they wanted to. It was slow and there were a lot of places holding out, but there it was.
So having about a third of the people accepting we need drastic change, that’s quite a split in the log. You ought to be able to get a solid wedge in there.
Agree Kyle. Let us focus on what we’ve got and work from there. I am very thankful for the Gallup survey, as it provides some very important clues as to where to go next.
On Earth Day, I bought a new car.
The good news is that, since my old car had been running for a good 6 months with the “Check engine” light on, I’m probably fouling the air less than I was the day before.
[…] lamarguerite Another recent Gallup survey completes and confirms what we already know from the other Gallup survey and other […]