Google Search

Showing posts with label climate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Survey Finds Most Republicans Seek Action on Climate Change

It’s time for that national “listening tour” on energy and climate, President Obama. Some evidence comes in a new survey from the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University (seen via Tom Yulsman on Facebook). Here’s an excerpt from the news release:

In a recent survey of Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents conducted by the Center for Climate Change Communication (4C) at George Mason University, a majority of respondents (62 percent) said they feel America should take steps to address climate change. More than three out of four survey respondents (77 percent) said the United States should use more renewable energy sources, and of those, most believe that this change should begin immediately.

The national survey, conducted in January 2013, asked more than 700 people who self-identified as Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents about energy and climate change.

“Over the past few years, our surveys have shown that a growing number of Republicans want to see Congress do more to address climate change,” said Mason professor Edward Maibach, director of 4C. “In this survey, we asked a broader set of questions to see if we could better understand how Republicans, and Independents who have a tendency to vote Republican, think about America’s energy and climate change situation.”

The reason a listening tour is the next step, and not a pre-packaged batch of legislation or other steps, is to build on the common ground across a wide range of Americans on energy thrift, innovation and fair play (meaning policies that distort the playing field, with mandated corn ethanol production and tax breaks for fossil fuel companies prime examples).

This might even lead to a new sense of mission in this country, something that’s been lacking since the cold war and space race.

In Mother Jones, Chris Mooney has an interesting spin on the survey, noting that the way global warming was framed probably had an impact on the level of buy-in on the questions.

It’s been clear for years that there are ways around the familiar partisan roadblocks on climate-smart energy policies. In 2009, the “Six Americas” survey by the same George Mason researchers and counterparts at Yale revealed this clearly. I distilled those findings into three slides here.

Here’s a bit more on the survey from the George Mason Web site:

This short report is based on a January 2013 national survey of Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents. We found that they prefer clean energy as the basis of America’s energy future and say the benefits of clean energy, such as energy independence (66%) saving resources for our children and grandchildren (57%), and providing a better life for our children and grandchildren (56%) outweigh the costs, such as more government regulation (42%) or higher energy prices (31%).

By a margin of 2 to 1, respondents say America should take action to reduce our fossil fuel use. Also, only one third of respondents agree with the Republican Party’s position on climate change, while about half agree with the party’s position on how to meet America’s energy needs.

You can download the report here: A National Survey of Republicans and Republican-Leaning Independents on Energy and Climate Change.


View the original article here

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

On Our Radar: Lugar, the G.O.P. and Climate Change

Senator Richard G. Lugar on Tuesday as voters headed into polling places.Associated PressSenator Richard G. Lugar on Tuesday as voters headed into polling places.

Richard G. Lugar, the longtime Indiana senator defeated in a primary by a candidate who dismisses global warming as “junk science,” says that most of his fellow Republicans “cannot admit to any nuance in policy on climate change.” [The Hill]

From refining to transport, a report explores Koch Industries’ long-term investment in the development of Canadian oil sands. [InsideClimate]

The European Space Agency declares Envisat, a satellite that collected valuable data on the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, ice sheets and land masses for 10 years, to be officially dead. Controllers had been trying to regain contact with the satellite since it went silent on April 8. [Spaceflight Now]

A federal judge will hear arguments on Friday in Washington on a lawsuit filed against the federal government by five teenagers who want greenhouse gas emissions reduced to safeguard their future. [The Atlantic]

Britain’s environment minister urges citizens to confront people who they notice littering in public places. [The Telegraph]

Vaclav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic, condemns the billboard campaign in which the Heartland Institute likened those who believe in global warming to the Unabomber. He says he still plans to deliver the keynote address this month at a Heartland conference in Chicago, however. [The Guardian]


View the original article here

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Irresponsible Romney: 'We Don't Know What's Causing Climate Change' (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | The problem with politicians is that for far too many of them, science is subject to convenience. Take for example the words of former Massachusetts governor and the most likely GOP nominee for the 2012 presidential election.

According to the Huffington Post, Mitt Romney told a group of supporters at the Consol Energy Center in Pittsburgh: "My view is that we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us. My view with regards to energy policy is pretty straightforward: I want us to become energy secure and independent of the oil cartels."

Sometimes when I read a quote from a politician, I literally spit expletives at my computer screen. The fact is we do know what's causing climate change. To say otherwise is a blatant lie, aimed at a constituency that thinks absolutes can be fudged.

I will give you that Al Gore's plea to save the snows of Kilimanjaro is a bit weak. I've never been to Kilimanjaro, and if I ever go, I doubt the snow will be my favorite part of the experience. Gore appealed to outdoorsy people, but my idea of roughing it is a hotel where room service shuts down at 8 p.m. So for the climate change skeptics who say that Kilimanjaro's snow and the plight of polar bears is no big deal, let me just say this: Earth is the only planet we know how to live on.

If the scientists are wrong, we're out a few trillion dollars, but friends, if they're right, that's the ballgame. Oh, Earth will be fine. George Carlin was right. Earth will shake off our existence like a minor head cold. But I'm sort of fond of humanity. Climate change is happening now. It's threatening our existence now. Scientists aren't political, but politicians aren't immune from science. Neither are the rest of us. Mitt Romney is irresponsible. He should apologize and drop out. We deserve better.


View the original article here

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

GOP presidential hopefuls dance around climate change (The Christian Science Monitor)

There was a time when Republicans were at the forefront of efforts to investigate – maybe even do something about – the impact of human activity on global climate.

John McCain was an early and persistent supporter of cap-and-trade efforts to reduce the greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide) associated with climate change. So was Newt Gingrich, who went on to make a YouTube video ad – with then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, no less – where he said, “Our country must take action to address climate change.”

Now, Republican presidential hopefuls seem to be racing in the opposite direction – disavowing their past support for policy measures on climate – even any sense that there’s a problem to be addressed.

MONITOR QUIZ: Weekly news quiz for June 13-17, 2011

As Governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty signed a state greenhouse gas law limiting emissions, led a regional climate partnership with Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and he supported cap-and-trade. Since then, he’s flip-flopped.

At the Conservative Political Action Committee conference in Washington earlier this year he made his mea culpa.

“Have I changed my position? Yes," Pawlenty said. "But I'm not going to be cute about it, hem and haw, be dippy and dancy about it. Just saying yeah, it was a mistake. It was stupid. It was wrong."

Former US Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R) of New York, a strong supporter of the environment, says he has "never been so disappointed in all my life in the pretenders to the throne from my party."

"Not one of them is being forthright in dealing with climate science," he told the Associated Press recently. "They are either trying to finesse it, or change previous positions to accommodate the far right. They are denying something that is as plain as the nose on your face."

To liberal critics, the answer is obvious: The influence of climate change denialists financially supported by the billionaire Koch brothers (David and Charles) and others tied to the oil industry.

Whether or not that’s true, there’s no denying that climate change (and environmental issues generally) carry less political weight than they did in recent years.

While a majority (52 percent, according to Gallup) still believes climate change is caused by human activities as opposed to natural causes (43 percent), that’s down from a high of 61 percent in 2007. Similarly, the number of Americans who believe the impacts of global warming already are being felt has dropped to fewer than half.

“Americans are clearly less concerned about global warming and its effects than they were a few years ago,” Gallup’s Jeffrey M. Jones reported in March. “The reasons for the decline in concern are not obvious, though the economic downturn could be a factor…. environmental concerns tend to take a back seat to economic matters when the economy is in poor shape.”

It’s also a clearly partisan issue. Much higher percentages of Republicans (i.e., conservatives) now say the issue has been overblown in the media (67 percent), and they’re much less likely to connect increases in temperature to human activities. Just 31 percent worry about it at all, less than half the rate for Democrats.

Thus, the shift in overall public attitude is largely driven by the growing influence of politically conservative thought, especially the tea party. That, in turn, drives the actions and assertions of presidential hopefuls facing a gantlet of party conservatives in next year’s primary elections and caucuses.

Presumed front-runner Mitt Romney’s tack has been interesting.

He has not given it the full genuflect that Pawlenty and Gingrich did.

(Campaigning in Manchester, New Hampshire, in late May, Gingrich, the former cap-and-trader, suggested that climate change is "the newest excuse to take control of lives" by "left-wing intellectuals." Campaigning at a house party, Gingrich was asked about “the climate/global warming problem.” He went off on a long professorial toot in which he pointed out that as an “amateur paleontologist” he observed that “It was substantially warmer in the age of dinosaurs when there were no cars, at least not that we’ve been able to find, and no factories.”)

Romney was more direct.

"I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that," he told a crowd at a town hall meeting in Manchester. "It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."

It was an “aha!” moment for ideological purists. “Bye, bye nomination” declared Rush Limbaugh, who says global warming is “one of the most preposterous hoaxes in the history of the planet.”

As the headline on one Huffington Post piece put it: “Mitt Romney Attacked For Being Reasonable About Climate Change”

Still, it’s not that Romney’s position differs at all from majority Republicans in the House, where cap-and-trade is dead and there’s unlikely to be any legislation addressing climate change.

Romney did get a shout-out from Al Gore.

“Good for Mitt Romney," Gore blogged. "While other Republicans are running from the truth, he is sticking to his guns in the face of the anti-science wing of the Republican Party."

Which was a little like President Obama praising Romney for the Massachusetts model on health care.

MONITOR QUIZ: Weekly news quiz for June 13-17, 2011


View the original article here