Articles by Anna Fahey

Political parties may be divided on the issue of climate, but Americans agree on solutions

On the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency has authority to regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant (some called it a strong rebuke of the Bush administration's policies), George W. Bush saw fit to ramp up his language on the issue of global warming (hint: the new key word is "serious"):

The decision (of) the Supreme Court we take very seriously. It's the new law of the land. I've taken this issue very seriously. I have said that it is a serious problem. I recognize that man is contributing to greenhouse gases.

But, despite this outpouring of concern, the Prez kept to old-school thinking, arguing that "anything that happens cannot hurt economic growth." (Clearly, nobody gave him any of the the reports on the enormous costs that we will likely bear as a result of climate changes, or for that matter, the compelling memos that have been circulating about the economic opportunities the climate challenge presents to those with a touch of "American ingenuity.")

The American public, on the other hand, appears more ready than Bush to embrace new thinking when it comes to solutions. Republicans and Democrats alike broadly embrace actions to curb emissions.

Based on a March telephone survey of 1,009 American adults, ages 18 and older, Gallup reports that an overwhelming majority supports stronger government restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. And, majorities, regardless of political persuasion, say we should spend more tax money to develop alternative sources of fuel and energy.

Global warming is a hot potato

Last week I reported on the wide and growing partisan divide in U.S. public opinion over global warming: self-identified Democrats are 39 percentage points more likely than their Republican counterparts to rate climate change a serious problem.

But what puzzled me most was the 13-point drop in concern among Republicans since 1999. Call me naïve, but with all the scientific evidence that's been piling up on the issue -- accompanied by increasing media attention -- I guess I expected slow (though perhaps reluctant) increases in concern all across the political spectrum. Years of rising global temperatures, melting sea ice, and solidifying scientific consensus ought to have converted at least some honest skeptics, right?

A big report released last week by Pew, charting two decades of American political values and core attitudes, provides some clues about what's going on.

Typical Republicans, circa 1999, haven't necessarily found their belief in global warming shaken over the years. Instead, for whatever combination of reasons, people who believe in global warming are drifting away from the Party.

On climate, U.S. attitudes are split along partisan lines

Since it came out about a year ago, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore's climate change documentary, seems to have pushed the issue into mainstream consciousness.

Millions saw the movie itself -- but they were largely true believers anyway. Perhaps more importantly, Gore's Academy Award has earned him a wider audience among the potentially undecided: 39.9 million TV viewers tuned in for the Academy Awards themselves, plus 49 million saw Gore on Oprah. Heck, combined, that's more than the total number of people who voted for George W. Bush in 2006! It's almost as good as being on American Idol.

But, how much effect has this media blitz had on attitudes among Americans?

Sadly, it's not as dramatic as you may think.

Bill McKibben questions thinking as usual when it comes to climate.

The old thinking, as author and thinker Bill McKibben explains in today's LA Times, goes like this: bigger is always better, growth is good no matter what, and a booming stock market is the ultimate measure of our success.

McKibben illustrates the kind of lopsided priorities that naturally flow when we're ruled by the bottom line, pointing to a scarcely-reported White House report that said the U.S. would be pumping out almost 20 percent more greenhouse gases in 2020 than we did in 2000, our contribution to climate change going steadily up -- against all warnings to the contrary.

That's a pretty stunning piece of information -- a hundred times more important than, say, the jittery Dow Jones industrial average that garnered a hundred times the attention. How is it even possible? How, faced with the largest crisis humans have yet created for themselves, have we simply continued with business as usual?

New thinking, by contrast, might go something like this: measure what matters.