Do Surveys This Week Show More Signs of Climate Fatigue?
Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Communication Studies, Public Policy, and Urban Affairs at Northeastern University. Nisbet studies the role of communication and advocacy in policymaking and public affairs, focusing on debates over over climate change, energy, and sustainability. Among awards and recognition, Nisbet has been a Visiting Shorenstein Fellow on Press, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, a Health Policy Investigator at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and a Google Science Communication Fellow. In 2011, the editors at the journal Nature recommended Nisbet's research as “essential reading for anyone with a passing interest in the climate change debate,” and the New Republic highlighted his work as a “fascinating dissection of the shortcomings of climate activism."
Two surveys released this week provide more information on how public opinion may or may not be shifting relative to climate change and energy. I provide some highlights and quick context below on fears over a growing "climate fatigue."
Pew: Global Warming and Energy Wane as Perceived Priorities
Earlier this week, timed to tonight's State of the Union address, Pew released its annual survey of perceived policy priorities for the President and Congress. As has been the case the past few years, global warming ranked last among the more than 20 issues polled with only 28% of Americans rating the issue as a "top priority." As Pew reports:
The percentage that now says addressing global warming should be a top priority has fallen 10 points from 2007, when 38% considered it a top priority. Such a low ranking is driven in part by indifference among Republicans: just 11% consider global warming a top priority, compared with 43% of Democrats and 25% of independents. Protecting the environment fares somewhat better than dealing with global warming on the public's list of priorities, though it still falls on the lower half of the list overall. Some 44% say that protecting the environment should be a top priority for Obama and Congress, little changed from 2009.
Perhaps even more significantly, the Pew survey indicated a sharp drop in the perceived priority of "dealing with the U.S. energy problem" with 49% of Americans rating this issue as a top priority, down 11 points from 60% in 2009. Energy now rests at about the level of perceived priority as was the case in the years 2004 and 2005.
Over the past year, the perceived priority of energy has ebbed among Republicans (51% in 2009 down to 43% in 2010), Democrats (66% to 56%) and Independents (61% to 45%) alike.
As I wrote in an article at the journal Environment earlier this year, the perceived priority of climate and energy policy--and the opinion intensity felt by the public on these interconnected issues--matters significantly to policy action. In the context of two wars and an economic crisis, absent a shift in the polls and a surge in input from a diversity of constituents, it is unlikely that a strong majority in Congress will accept the political risks needed to pass meaningful policy actions. Past research shows that opinion intensity and perceived personal importance of an issue is one of the strongest predictors of political participation i.e. contacting elected officials, writing or calling in to news organizations, attending local meetings, and other forms of political activity and civic voice.
More importantly than pressure on elected officials, democratic principles are at stake. Policies to address climate change and energy will bear directly on the future of Americans, impacting their pocketbooks, lifestyles, and local communities. These decisions are therefore too significant to leave to just elected officials and experts; citizens need to be actively involved and engaged.
Yale/GMU: Despite Fatigue, Scientists Still Dominate Public Trust
Anthony Leiserowitz and Ed Maibach were also in the field earlier this month and have released the first look at some of the very detailed questions they asked about climate change in a nationally representative survey. Their survey offers a direct comparison to multiple questions that they first asked in 2008.
According to the findings, in 2010, fewer Americans are sure that global warming is happening, that scientists agree on the issue, are worried about global warming, or think that it will effect them personally.
Specific to perceived priority and opinion intensity, just 20% of Americans feel that climate change is either extremely important (5%) or very important (15%) to them personally, down from a combined 32% in 2008.
Americans, however, still overwhelmingly trust scientists for information about climate change, despite the furor over ClimateGate the past few months and voiced fears that public trust might be damaged.
When asked "how much do you trust or distrust the following as sources of information about climate change," 74% of Americans trust scientists either strongly (22%) or somewhat (52%). Though this combined figure is down slightly from 83% in 2008, on the trust index, scientists still outrank every other societal group or individual queried with only TV metereologists and President Obama coming close at 56% and 51% respectively.
As I wrote last week, despite a dominant narrative on the part of many liberal commentators that blames an "unscientific America" and a prevailing "anti-scientific" public for societal inaction on climate change, these survey findings are consistent with a body of research and surveys that show a relatively unchanging public trust, admiration, and deference to science and scientists.
On climate change, scientists and their organizations have almost unequaled communication capital, part of the problem is using that communication capital wisely and effectively--partnering with other societal leaders to promote greater public engagement and trust across society.
How a cataclysm worse than what killed the dinosaurs destroyed 90 percent of all life on Earth.
While the demise of the dinosaurs gets more attention as far as mass extinctions go, an even more disastrous event called "the Great Dying” or the “End-Permian Extinction” happened on Earth prior to that. Now scientists discovered how this cataclysm, which took place about 250 million years ago, managed to kill off more than 90 percent of all life on the planet.
A new study discovers the “liking gap” — the difference between how we view others we’re meeting for the first time, and the way we think they’re seeing us.
We tend to be defensive socially. When we meet new people, we’re often concerned with how we’re coming off. Our anxiety causes us to be so concerned with the impression we’re creating that we fail to notice that the same is true of the other person as well. A new study led by Erica J. Boothby, published on September 5 in Psychological Science, reveals how people tend to like us more in first encounters than we’d ever suspect.
Using advanced laser technology, scientists at NASA will track global changes in ice with greater accuracy.
Leaving from Vandenberg Air Force base in California this coming Saturday, at 8:46 a.m. ET, the Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite-2 — or, the "ICESat-2" — is perched atop a United Launch Alliance Delta II rocket, and when it assumes its orbit, it will study ice layers at Earth's poles, using its only payload, the Advance Topographic Laser Altimeter System (ATLAS).
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.