Share

Climate Change a Distant Problem for Americans

by: Hervé Kempf  |  Le Monde

photo
Climate change attitude researcher Anthony Leiserowitz: "The first image that comes to people's mind is the melting of the glaciers, the break-up of the ice caps. But few of us live on the shores of the Arctic or Antarctic oceans. Therefore, climate change is a distant problem." (Photo: ChrisGoldNY/ Flickr)

What do Americans think about climate change? The success of Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," may have allowed us to imagine this phenomenon had become a major concern. However, at the same time, the strength of "climate skeptics" and of the opposition to the proposed climate change law in Congress show that the question is far from settled.

A team of sociologists has been studying American attitudes on the subject for several years. Their final report, entitled, "Global Warming's Six Americas 2009", was published in May. The study, piloted by Yale University's Anthony Leiserowitz, is based on an in-depth questionnaire submitted to 2,189 citizens at the end of 2008.

"Not in the USA"

One of the first lessons is that, although climate change has entered the collective consciousness, it remains a distant concern: "The first image that comes to people's mind is the melting of the glaciers, the break-up of the ice caps," says Anthony Leiserowitz, in his Yale University office. "But few of us live on the shores of the Arctic or Antarctic oceans. Therefore, climate change is a distant problem. Certainly, 71% of people believe it is happening, 55% believe its cause is human, and three quarters of the population consider it a serious threat. But it remains a low priority, behind the economy, education, health care, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and terrorism. In fact, most Americans believe that climate change is a problem distant in time - it will manifest itself in several decades - and, most especially, in space - it will have consequences for other people and in other places, but not in the United States."

Another observation: The American public is far from monolithic. The study allows six families to be distinguished: the "alarmists," very worried and changing their own behavior (18 percent of the people surveyed); the "concerned" (33 percent), convinced of the problem, but who do not get personally involved; the "cautious" (19 percent); the "disengaged" (12 percent); the "unconvinced" (11 percent), who, to varying degrees, recognize the problem, but are uninformed and involve themselves little; and the "skeptics" (7 percent), who deny climate change.

One of the study's lessons is that positioning on this range of attitudes corresponds neither to a demographic parameter (woman, man, young, old, Black, Hispanic etc.) nor even to a political one (Republican or Democrat). On the other hand, an important factor for membership in one of these families is the person's basic value system and, in particular, their position with respect to the idea of equality: "Those who are the most equalitarian are the most concerned about climate change," observes Anthony Leiserowitz. "Conversely, the more individualistic a person is, the less they care about it."

---------

Translation: Truthout French Language Editor Leslie Thatcher.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

What? How can 75% of the

What? How can 75% of the population believe it's a serious threat if only 71% of the population believes it's happening at all?

Cancer and other serious

Cancer and other serious health risks touch nearly every family in the U.S., as does the seriousness of the economic situation. These issues provoke change, even when people don't want to change or think about anything serious. That carbon became a central word in our challenge strikes me as unfortunate. Carbon is nebulous and ubiquitous, and life is based on it, so it's not got a souped up scare value. Mercury, on the other hand, has some native scare value, and mercury is an issue with fossil fuels. You can show some pretty grotesque results of mercury contamination. U.S. subcultures have a ghoulish appetite for, well, ghoulishness, vampires, zombies, and all that.

75% believe it is a serious

75% believe it is a serious threat 71% believe it is occurring 55% believe it is human caused so 4% believe it is a threat but that it is not yet happening it's too late anyway with the way our leaders lag behind as followers

In other words, the American

In other words, the American news media has done the job they were paid to do. I'm sure if it were profitable to make people believe the Earth was flat, the fact that it's actually round would become "controversial" as well. I have a novel idea: How about, instead of telling us what a number of people ALREADY believe, what if the news media were to take on the role of informing people what the scientific facts are, whether or not certain individuals choose to believe it?

Well for one, Yale has all

Well for one, Yale has all the attributes to involve all 2189 respondents ("CITIZEN") on campus. Mr. Anthony Leiserowitz's world is indeed small as most academics are. They only 'think' big. Should Mr. Anthony Leiserowitz venture out into the real world he would find that outside of 'America' most have a concern. What concerns most outside of 'America' is that America does not have any appreciation for anything other than the "Almighty Dollar" which is ripping through all other societies. 300 million destroying Planet Earth that has 6000 million or more. Great.

Individualistic people think

Individualistic people think for themselves, rather than believing what Al Gore tells them is true. It's no wonder individualistic people don't believe in the climate change scare.

so many heads buried in the

so many heads buried in the sand! so many butts exposed in the air!

Individualists my foot.

Individualists my foot. These bozos believe every lie that falls from the lips of any philandering fool with "pastor" in front of his name, not to mention the whole Dick Armey of Republican thieves,con artists, murderers, and sex fiends. The only individual thinking they do is when their heads are shoved securely into the sand and they can neither hear nor see the world around them. At these moments they can be faintly heard subvocalising their mantra, "lalalalalalala"

Global warming is being used

Global warming is being used as a very useful tool for the United Nations to be reconfigured into something resembling a global government, as hidden within the upcoming Copenhagen Agreement (Annex 1 Para 38). A global government (or governance) would require a reason to unite mankind, and various world-threatening environmental issues (including global warming) would "fit the bill" and result in mankind being portrayed as its own enemy, according to "The First Global Revolution" (p.75) published in 1991 by the Club of Rome, environmental advisors to the United Nations. (All findable via Google, naturally.) Hence the great rush to "save the planet" and to establish supporting regions like the EU, AU, ASEAN, NAFTA/NAU etc.

".... Another observation:

".... Another observation: The American public is far from monolithic....." Perhaps not so monolithic as it relates to attitudes on climate change. However very monolithic as it relates to dogmatic religious and capitalistic attitudes. Environmental views are a by-product of religious and economic beliefs and attitudes. You will find that both the left (progressives) and the right (conservatives), exist on a horizontal plane as it relates to the economic and religious components of their genetically induced mechanism for self-preservation and self interest. Thus, the fidelity of denial of climate change, is far more receptive to the dogmatically inclined receptors of "Americanism". We must stop viewing the issue of sustainability and climate change as good or evil and we must stop viewing the planet as a servile entity, a slave that we can dominate and beat into submission. If we don't criminalize the battering of the planet and coerce the ignorance that allows this battering into submission, by whatever means are necessary, we will risk the loss of our species on this planet. The survival of our species on this planet can not be achieved through democratic means. We are simply not going to be allowed the time to build consensus and vote for solutions to this problem. We can either step up to the plate "right now" and reclaim, conserve and preserve the damage we have done to this planet by whatever means are necessary, persuade the receptive, coerce the ignorant and eliminate the recalcitrant, or we can leave it to the wisdom of our natural environment to eliminate our entire species in the same fashion that we eliminate viruses that endanger our species. Best regards, Econolicious

It is beyond sad that so

It is beyond sad that so many people in this country have fallen for, or at least been confused by, the propaganda from the fossil fuel industry in partnership with the far-right. If this was just another debate like the one between scientists and creationists, it would be sad. But this issue is so crucial for our survival that it is way beyond tragic. If more people had even the most basic understanding of science they could see through the flawed logic and pseudo-science of the deniers. The dumbing-down of our educational system under the Republicans has worked too well. The people who believe the lies and propagate them most fervently usually have no respect for or understanding of science. But unfortunately they and the propaganda campaign they follow are effective enough to put doubts in the minds of many other people who don’t understand the scientific process well enough to see through their faulty arguments. You would think our political leaders would be smarter than this, but most Republicans and conservative Democrats are worse than the public as a whole when it comes to science. Even the other Democrats have not yet been able to grasp how serious and urgent global warming already is. If they did, they would explain the situation to the nation and actually LEAD. But instead, they treat it as just another political issue, where the main goal is to get something passed, and anything is seen as better than nothing. They don’t understand that in this situation, not enough is just as bad as nothing at all. There is a point of no return in the global warming process, and if we pass that point, we have lost the fight, no matter how much good we have done in other areas.

The AGW Theory Is Finished.

The AGW Theory Is Finished. The number and stature of scientists - from a range of relevant disciplines - who have now officially registered their total skepticism of the CO2 theory, is overwhelming. The only question is whether the globalists will manage to rush Copenhagen through before a cold winter makes it too difficult to shove this BS down our throats. So why hasn't the media reported on these proclamations? It is because AGW is not science - it is today's official religion and dogma and must not be debated. Have you read voices like this: "UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions, challenged the IPCC’s climate claims. “Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!” Japar told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 7, 2009. " To get the real scoop, visit icecap.us

Having the public actually

Having the public actually skilled in critical thinking, inductive logic, scientific method and discourse could prove quite awkward. If they possessed the skill set necessary to sort through the spin foisted by the petrochemical lobby they would also have the ability to sort through American mythology. They might start to read history, employ institutional analysis rather than conspiracy theory and perceive their lack of real choice. That could lead to popular movements rather than false political participation, and that would lead to real change. Awkward indeed.

If "individualistic" people

If "individualistic" people really thought for themselves, they would study the science (not the webpages' talking points), and they would discover that it hangs together pretty well: global warming climate change and real and are due to CO2. The fact that it takes time to take effect, and that it occurs around the globe, means that "individualistic" people who don't look beyond the impact on their own bodies don't have any concern. But don't worry, there will be impacts that "matter" soon enough: - Coral reefs will die => serious decline in fish populations - Flooding in Bangladesh and other tropical coastal regions => refugees flooding the world, including the U.S. - Water shortages in India and China, leading to even more demand from these growing countries => more competition with the U.S. for all sorts of resources "Individualistic" people don't believe in the climate-change scare because they have no imagination. Unfortunately, reality doesn't share that lack. Hang on for the ride!

individualist vs

individualist vs collectivist is the conflict here. Hyperindividualists are selfish; among my students they're the one's who say about just about everything: 'why should I care; it doesn't affect ME'. These are the folks ruining the climate and robbing the treasury--good old American capitalist individualists.

"To get the real scoop"

"To get the real scoop" visit sourcewatch to review icecap :p http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Icecap. To sort the spin get an education or develop the skills to sort it yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking Its so easy to misrepresent data, cherry pick it, ignore real trends. To employ the words of a real scientific skeptic. Freeman Dyson regards the term "global warming" as a misnomer when taken literally, pointing out that warming will not occur uniformly throughout the world, but will instead be subject to regional variations:“ As a result of the burning of coal and oil, the driving of cars, and other human activities, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at a rate of about half a percent per year. … The physical effects of carbon dioxide are seen in changes of rainfall, cloudiness, wind strength, and temperature, which are customarily lumped together in the misleading phrase "global warming." This phrase is misleading because the warming caused by the greenhouse effect of increased carbon dioxide is not evenly distributed. In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on the transport of heat by radiation is less important, because it is outweighed by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor. The effect of carbon dioxide is more important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. The warming mainly occurs where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading, because the global average is only a fraction of a degree while the local warming at high latitudes is much larger." Do not allow yourself to have legitimate scientific skepticism misrepresented for more than it is by some spin doctor, recognize that a complex system will store additional energy in many ways, phase change (latent heat), chemical imbalance (ocean acidfication), kinetic energy (weather anomalies) and uneven temperature gain.

It might also be pertinent

It might also be pertinent to add Steven M. Japar's primary affiliation: Ford Motor Co, Research Staff, Dearborn, Mich retired. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports//tar/vol4/index.php?idp=203 and that the quote is some 14 years old regarding climatic modeling from that period As well as Environmental "Political" Science Major's source for that quote, Inhofe's Minority Report. The Center for Inquiry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Inquiry Office of Public Policy undertook an assessment of the 687 people listed as “dissenting scientists” in the January 2009 version of the ‘Inhofe list’. Their conclusions: * Slightly fewer than 10 percent could be identified as climate scientists. * Approximately 15 percent published in the recognizable refereed literature on subjects related to climate science. * Approximately 80 percent clearly had no refereed publication record on climate science at all. * Approximately 4 percent appeared to favor the current IPCC-2007 consensus and should not have been on the list. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/opp/news/senate_minority_report_on_global_warming_not_credible/ http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Data_Set_for_web_viewing.pdf you won't find Japar listed in that pdf as he has just been added for the 2009 update, unsourced of course. Few documents have ever displayed such blatant political propaganda Inhofe's Minority Report, but with unlimited money to burn its possible to misrepresent and remove context for all sorts of information.

It is striking and sad that

It is striking and sad that so many believe it is happening and a serious threat, and yet so few (18%) are changing their own behavior. Are we so convinced that we are powerless?