Get smarter, faster. Subscribe to our daily newsletter.
75% of Americans now believe humans fuel climate change
Two recent polls underscore Americans' shifting attitudes on climate change.
- The polls were conducted by CBS News and The Washington Post with the Kaiser Family Foundation.
- Both indicate that more Americans believe humans cause climate change, with roughly half saying it's a "crisis."
- It's unclear what exactly is changing Americans' opinions on climate change, but young people seem to play a significant part in the shift.
A strong majority of Americans believe humans are fueling climate change, with roughly half of respondents saying action is urgently needed, according to two recent polls.
The results come from a CBS News Poll, which was released as part of Covering Climate Now, and another unrelated poll conducted by The Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). The CBS poll found that, among Americans:
- About 70 percent believe human activity contributes "a lot" or "some" to climate change.
- About 56 percent believe humans should act on climate change "right now."
- About 48 percent believe humans can "slow, but not stop" climate change.
- About 64 percent agreed climate change is a "serious problem/crisis."
- About 91 percent believe the earth is experiencing climate change in some way.
The Washington Post-Kaiser poll indicated that, among Americans:
- About 80 percent say human activity is fueling climate change.
- About 40 percent say climate change is a "crisis," which is "up from less than a quarter five years ago," The Post reported.
- About 40 percent say action to combat climate change must come in the next decade to avoid the worst consequences.
- About 12 percent believe it's too late to avoid the disasters of climate change.
On the whole, the results suggest that an increasing share of Americans are recognizing climate change as a real and salient problem.
"Americans are finally beginning [to wake] up to the existential threat that the climate emergency poses to our society," said Margaret Klein Salamon, a clinical psychologist and founder of the Climate Mobilization Project. "This is huge progress for our movement – and it's young people that have been primarily responsible for that."
What explains Americans' changing attitudes on climate change? Whether it's rising temperatures, melting in the Arctic, extreme weather events, increased media coverage, President Donald Trump's rhetoric on climate change, or other factors entirely, is hard to say. But the results do suggest that young people have something to do with the shift.
The Post-Kaiser poll, for example, shows that American teenagers and young adults are particularly worried about the future of climate change, with 56 percent saying climate change makes them afraid, and about 70 percent believing that climate change will "cause a moderate or great deal of harm to people in their generation,"
Still, The Post-Kaiser poll showed that, like adults, many young Americans don't quite understand what's causing climate change or how to fix it. What's more, only about 1 in 4 young Americans say they've taken action on global warming, through, for example, recycling, reducing time in cars and using less plastic.
According to both polls, Republicans are less likely than Democrats to believe humans are fueling climate change. However, younger Republicans were significantly more likely to believe humans contribute to climate change, and also more likely to call it a "crisis." The CBS poll found that:
- About 50 percent of Republicans under age 45 said climate change is a "crisis/serious problem," compared to 26 percent of those over age 45.
- About 67 percent of Republicans under age 45 said humans contribute to climate change, compared to 45 percent of those over age 45.
- About 67 percent of Republicans under age 45 agreed everyone has a personal responsibility to mitigate climate change, compared to 38 percent of those over age 45.
That many Americans still think there's a lack of consensus among scientists as to whether humans cause climate change is major problem, Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, told The Guardian.
"This remains a vitally important misunderstanding – if you believe global warming is just a natural cycle, you're unlikely to support policies intended to reduce carbon pollution, like regulations and taxes," Leiserowitz said. "These results also again confirm a longstanding problem, which is that many Americans still believe scientists themselves are uncertain whether human-caused global warming is happening.
"Our own and others' research has repeatedly found that this is a critical misunderstanding, promoted by the fossil fuel industry for decades, in order to sow doubt, increase public uncertainty and thus keep people stuck in the status quo, in a 'wait and see' mode."
What is human dignity? Here's a primer, told through 200 years of great essays, lectures, and novels.
- Human dignity means that each of our lives have an unimpeachable value simply because we are human, and therefore we are deserving of a baseline level of respect.
- That baseline requires more than the absence of violence, discrimination, and authoritarianism. It means giving individuals the freedom to pursue their own happiness and purpose.
- We look at incredible writings from the last 200 years that illustrate the push for human dignity in regards to slavery, equality, communism, free speech and education.
The inherent worth of all human beings<p>Human dignity is the inherent worth of each individual human being. Recognizing human dignity means respecting human beings' special value—value that sets us apart from other animals; value that is intrinsic and cannot be lost.</p> <p>Liberalism—the broad political philosophy that organizes society around liberty, justice, and equality—is rooted in the idea of human dignity. Liberalism assumes each of our lives, plans, and preferences have some unimpeachable value, not because of any objective evaluation or contribution to a greater good, but simply because they belong to a human being. We are human, and therefore deserving of a baseline level of respect. </p> <p>Because so many of us take human dignity for granted—just a fact of our humanness—it's usually only when someone's dignity is ignored or violated that we feel compelled to talk about it. </p> <p>But human dignity means more than the absence of violence, discrimination, and authoritarianism. It means giving individuals the freedom to pursue their own happiness and purpose—a freedom that can be hampered by restrictive social institutions or the tyranny of the majority. The liberal ideal of the good society is not just peaceful but also pluralistic: It is a society in which we respect others' right to think and live differently than we do.</p>
From the 19th century to today<p>With <a href="https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?year_start=1800&year_end=2019&content=human+dignity&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Chuman%20dignity%3B%2Cc0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google Books Ngram Viewer</a>, we can chart mentions of human dignity from 1800-2019.</p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDg0ODU0My9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1MTUwMzE4MX0.bu0D_0uQuyNLyJjfRESNhu7twkJ5nxu8pQtfa1w3hZs/img.png?width=980" id="7ef38" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9974c7bef3812fcb36858f325889e3c6" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
American novelist, writer, playwright, poet, essayist and civil rights activist James Baldwin at his home in Saint-Paul-de-Vence, southern France, on November 6, 1979.
Credit: Ralph Gatti/AFP via Getty Images
The future of dignity<p>Around the world, people are still working toward the full and equal recognition of human dignity. Every year, new speeches and writings help us understand what dignity is—not only what it looks like when dignity is violated but also what it looks like when dignity is honored. In his posthumous essay, Congressman Lewis wrote, "When historians pick up their pens to write the story of the 21st century, let them say that it was your generation who laid down the heavy burdens of hate at last and that peace finally triumphed over violence, aggression and war."</p> <p>The more we talk about human dignity, the better we understand it. And the sooner we can make progress toward a shared vision of peace, freedom, and mutual respect for all. </p>
With just a few strategical tweaks, the Nazis could have won one of World War II's most decisive battles.
- The Battle of Britain is widely recognized as one of the most significant battles that occurred during World War II. It marked the first major victory of the Allied forces and shifted the tide of the war.
- Historians, however, have long debated the deciding factor in the British victory and German defeat.
- A new mathematical model took into account numerous alternative tactics that the German's could have made and found that just two tweaks stood between them and victory over Britain.
Two strategic blunders<p>Now, historians and mathematicians from York St. John University have collaborated to produce <a href="http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~nm15/bootstrapBoB%20AAMS.docx" target="_blank">a statistical model (docx download)</a> capable of calculating what the likely outcomes of the Battle of Britain would have been had the circumstances been different. </p><p>Would the German war effort have fared better had they not bombed Britain at all? What if Hitler had begun his bombing campaign earlier, even by just a few weeks? What if they had focused their targets on RAF airfields for the entire course of the battle? Using a statistical technique called weighted bootstrapping, the researchers studied these and other alternatives.</p><p>"The weighted bootstrap technique allowed us to model alternative campaigns in which the Luftwaffe prolongs or contracts the different phases of the battle and varies its targets," said co-author Dr. Jaime Wood in a <a href="https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2020/research/mathematicians-battle-britain-what-if-scenarios/" target="_blank">statement</a>. Based on the different strategic decisions that the German forces could have made, the researchers' model enabled them to predict the likelihood that the events of a given day of fighting would or would not occur.</p><p>"The Luftwaffe would only have been able to make the necessary bases in France available to launch an air attack on Britain in June at the earliest, so our alternative campaign brings forward the air campaign by three weeks," continued Wood. "We tested the impact of this and the other counterfactuals by varying the probabilities with which we choose individual days."</p><p>Ultimately, two strategic tweaks shifted the odds significantly towards the Germans' favor. Had the German forces started their campaign earlier in the year and had they consistently targeted RAF airfields, an Allied victory would have been extremely unlikely.</p><p>Say the odds of a British victory in the real-world Battle of Britain stood at 50-50 (there's no real way of knowing what the actual odds are, so we'll just have to select an arbitrary figure). If this were the case, changing the start date of the campaign and focusing only on airfields would have reduced British chances at victory to just 10 percent. Even if a British victory stood at 98 percent, these changes would have cut them down to just 34 percent.</p>
A tool for understanding history<p>This technique, said co-author Niall Mackay, "demonstrates just how finely-balanced the outcomes of some of the biggest moments of history were. Even when we use the actual days' events of the battle, make a small change of timing or emphasis to the arrangement of those days and things might have turned out very differently."</p><p>The researchers also claimed that their technique could be applied to other uncertain historical events. "Weighted bootstrapping can provide a natural and intuitive tool for historians to investigate unrealized possibilities, informing historical controversies and debates," said Mackay.</p><p>Using this technique, researchers can evaluate other what-ifs and gain insight into how differently influential events could have turned out if only the slightest things had changed. For now, at least, we can all be thankful that Hitler underestimated Britain's grit.</p>
A new study shows our planet is much closer to the supermassive black hole at the galaxy's center than previously estimated.
Arrows on this map show position and velocity data for the 224 objects utilized to model the Milky Way Galaxy. The solid black lines point to the positions of the spiral arms of the Galaxy. Colors reflect groups of objects that are part of the same arm, while the background is a simulation image.
Apple sold its first iPod in 2001, and six years later it introduced the iPhone, which ushered in a new era of personal technology.