Flood, KConnors, Morguefile.com

Another installment of the Yale/George Mason research project on American climate attitudes (pdf) is out. The latest report is focused on how Americans are connecting changes in weather to global warming. It’s based on a survey fielded in early April.

The takeaways of note: Even though our memories appear to be short—the recency of events affects how we answer questions about weather—there’s an upward trend when it comes to associating weird weather of many different types, from many different seasons, with climate change. Increasingly, even if respondents hadn’t experienced harmful weather first hand, somebody close to them did. They are likely to have talked about it with friends and family, and many have thought about how to be prepared for weather disasters in their own local communities.

• About six in ten Americans (58 percent) say “global warming is affecting weather in the United States.” In the West, 54 percent say this.
  

• By contrast, a mere 7 percent say global warming is not affecting the weather and only 10 percent say that global warming isn’t happening. One in four (25 percent) don’t know or
  did not answer the question.
• Many Americans believe global warming made recent extreme weather and climatic events “more severe,” specifically: 2012 as the warmest year on record in the United States (50 percent); the ongoing drought in the Midwest and the Great Plains (49 percent); Superstorm Sandy (46 percent); and Superstorm Nemo (42 percent).
• About two out of three Americans say weather in the US has been worse over the past several years, up 12 percentage points since spring 2012. By contrast, fewer Americans say weather has been getting better over the past several years—only one in ten (11 percent), down 16 points compared to a year ago.
• Many Americans (51 percent) also say weather in their local area has been worse over the past several years.
• Overall, 85 percent of Americans report that they experienced one or more types of extreme weather in the past year, most often citing extreme high winds (60 percent) and extreme heat (51 percent).
• Of those Americans who experienced extreme weather events in the past year, many say they were significantly harmed. Moreover, the number who have been harmed appears to be growing; up 5 percentage points since fall 2012 and 4 points since spring 2012. Reported harm from drought, heat and cold all increased over the prior year.
• Most Americans (80 percent) have close friends or family members (not living with them) who experienced extreme weather events in the past year, including extreme high winds (47 percent), an extreme heat wave (46 percent), an extreme snowstorm (39 percent), extreme cold temperatures (39 percent), an extreme rainstorm (37 percent), or a drought (35 percent).
• Over half of Americans (54 percent) believe it is “very” or “somewhat likely” that extreme weather will cause a natural disaster in their community in the coming year. Northeasterners (66 percent) and Southerners (57 percent) are the most likely to believe this. Notably, in the West, 59 percent feel that this is somewhat or very unlikely in their community.
• Half of Americans (51 percent) say they have put a “great deal” or “some” thought into preparing for a natural disaster. Southerners (59 percent) and Northeasterners (57 percent) are the most likely to say this.
• Americans who experienced an extreme weather event are most likely to have communicated about it person-to-person—either in person (89 percent) or on the phone (84 percent)—although some used social media, such as writing about the experience on Facebook (23 percent) or sharing a photo of the event or its aftermath using Facebook, Tumblr, or Instagram (19 percent).

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.

Photo Credit: Orin Zebest via Compfight cc

What’s the best way to make a case for a carbon pollution tax to conservative audiences? Why not speak their language?

Just listen to the outspoken conservatives who favor a tax on carbon pollution. Again and again they talk up carbon pricing with the familiar language of the market, calling for a level playing field and accountability for the true costs of energy, and touting the enormous opportunity in homegrown, free-enterprise energy solutions.

These conservatives also like the idea of swapping taxes from stuff we like—jobs, income, hard work—to something we’d be better off with less of: carbon pollution. In fact, pro-carbon tax conservatives talk about a carbon tax swap as a “golden opportunity,” an “old-fashioned, straightforward” solution, a “win-win” and a “no-brainer.” And they see a tax on carbon pollution as a good way to bolster our national security, strengthen our economy, and create “jobs, jobs, jobs.”

All that said, a carbon tax is still not a slam dunk with all conservative audiences.

Indeed, economist and former American Enterprise Institute scholar, Irwin Stelzer, sees that “Conservatives have before them a golden opportunity to accomplish several important conservative goals, but are so frightened by words like ‘tax,’… and ‘global warming,’ … that they are frozen in opposition to programs they should support.”

And, while many conservatives would prefer market instruments such as a carbon pollution tax to, say, Environmental Protection Agency regulations, most aren’t easily convinced that carbon pricing will actually be truly revenue-neutral—.

But, come on! When the “father of supply side economics,” Art Laffer, says a carbon tax would mean we “can at once clean the air, create jobs, and improve the national security of the United States—a triple play for the next American century,” and George Will (grudgingly) agrees with Al Gore that we should “tax what we burn, not what we earn,” it’s a sure sign of promising common ground.

Here’s a start at finding a common language, based on direct quotes from leading conservatives:

Making the case for carbon pollution taxes

There are growing ranks of conservative leaders—among them, prominent economists, academics, journalists, and current and former elected officials—who’ve been outspoken about their support for a carbon pollution tax. They are making the case for a carbon tax based on deep seated conservative principles. As Republican Bob Inglis puts it, “In reality, conservatives have the answer to energy and climate. It’s free enterprise and accountability.”

George Shultz.

Stability and predictability is good for business.

• “We’ve been on this roller coaster ride. This time it’s important to make it different. Every spike in the price of oil has put our economy in a recession. We want to have more diverse energy resources so our economy won’t be so vulnerable to the oil market… It’s a no-brainer.”—George Shultz, US Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan, now chair of the Hoover Institution’s Shultz-Stephenson Task Force on Energy Policy.
• “It’s a terrible injustice to the business community” that the United States hasn’t passed either a carbon tax or cap-and-trade program, since it creates energy uncertainty …  “Utilities don’t know what to invest in.”—Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former Director of the Congressional Budget Office and chief economic policy advisor for John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign.

Bob Inglis.

Recognize the Full Cost of Oil Dependence

• “What we pay at the meter and at the pump doesn’t account for the emergency room visits and lost work days triggered by coal pollution, or the blood and treasure spent protecting overseas supply lines, or the chronic and costly risk that rising temperatures pose for our communities and enterprises from forestry to fishing and farming. … Just because these costs are socialized does not mean that they magically disappear.”—Alex Bozmoski, Strategy Director for the Energy and Enterprise Initiative.
• “Many forms of energy produce side effects, like pollution, that are a cost to society. The producers don’t bear those costs; society does. There has to be a way to level the playing field and cause those forms of energy to bear their true costs. That means putting a price on carbon…if we can capitalize on these opportunities, we will have a much better energy future, from the standpoint of our national defense, our national economy, and our national environment, including our climate.”—George Shultz
• “A carbon tax would attach the national security and environmental costs to carbon-based fuels like oil, causing the market to recognize the price of these negative externalities”—Art Laffer, a professor and economist and head of the Laffer Center for Supply-side Economics, and Bob Inglis, former Republican representative from South Carolina who now serves on the board of the libertarian R Street Institute and also heads the Energy and Enterprise Initiative (E&EI), a campaign, based at George Mason University, devoted entirely to “unleash[ing] the power of free enterprise to deliver the fuels of the future.”

Eliminate market distortions

• “Get the prices right and let the competition rip. Because carbon is not priced into the cost of energy consumption—indeed, such consumption is enhanced by the variety of net subsidies accorded the oil industry—we cannot know just how competitive solar, wind and other renewable sources of energy would be in a non-distorted market, or whether they are a drag on the efficiency of the energy market.”—Irwin Stelzer, Senior Fellow and Director of Hudson Institute’s Economic Policy Studies Group (and formerly with the American Enterprise Institute).

• “[A carbon pollution tax is an] opportunity to fix a market distortion that prevents the free enterprise system from delivering the fuels of the future.”—Bob Inglis

Art Laffer.

Unleash the creativity and innovation of the market

• “By making all fuel types accountable for their costs, free enterprise will make clear the best fuels for our future. Reduce taxes on something we want more of—income—and tax something we arguably want less of—carbon pollution. It’s a win win.”—Art Laffer
• “[With a carbon tax,] we would clean the air, create wealth and jobs through a new technology boom and drastically improve our national security.”—Laffer and Inglis

Gregory Mankiw.

Tax the bad, not the good; keep it revenue-neutral

• “A good rule of thumb is that when you tax something, you get less of it. That means that taxes on hard work, saving and entrepreneurial risk-taking impede these fundamental drivers of economic growth. The alternative is to tax those things we would like to get less of. … If the tax on gasoline were higher, people would alter their behavior to drive less. … By taxing bad things more, we could tax good things less.”—Gregory Mankiw, professor and chairman of the economics department at Harvard University.
• “[A carbon tax is] a climate policy based on conservative principles … Let’s do a dollar-for-dollar tax swap that untaxes income and shifts the tax base onto pollution—tax the bad and quit taxing the good.”—Price Atkinson, Energy and Enterprise Initiative.
• “[A carbon tax] is an old fashioned, straightforward way, and it’s obvious that what you tax you get less of.”—George Shultz
• “A tax on carbon … need not swell the government’s coffers—if we pursue a second, long-held conservative objective: reducing the tax on work. It would be a relatively simple matter to arrange a dollar-for-dollar, simultaneous reduction in payroll taxes as taxes on, say, gasoline, increased. Anyone interested in jobs, jobs, jobs, should find this an attractive proposition, with growth-minded conservatives leading the applause.”—Irwin Stelzer

Naturally, there are details and even certain outcomes upon which climate hawks and pro-carbon pricing conservatives may not entirely agree—the role of government and regulations in solutions, for example. But the differences don’t negate the common ground. And it’s worth finding language that helps all of us see our shared values and goals.

Mark Feldman is a writer and communications consultant who works with environmental nonprofits, public agencies, and green businesses. As a principal of Writing Works he helps organizations and businesses communicate effectively and creatively.

Thanks to Todd Myer for his valuable feedback.

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.

Clark:

Chinese architecture student designs a 75 square foot bamboo house –– complete with kitchen, bathroom, laundry, and patio.

The benevolent geniuses over at Walk Score have just released a new tool designed to help city planners figure out whether they’re meeting their walkability goals: ChoiceMaps. In a nutshell, the tool lets you see how many people in your city can walk to schools, grocery stores, restaurants, car/bike shares, or other amenities—and dynamically generates maps of the number of different destinations that residents can choose from, using the most up to date data on the location of each amenity. Planners can use the tool to figure out whether the city is meeting walkability targets—seeing, for example, if there are “food deserts” where city residents can’t walk to a grocery store. But to me, the fascinating thing is to look at the differences among cities. In Seattle, for example, most people are within a 5 minute walk of about 5 restaurants. That’s not bad! Yet in midtown Manhattan, the figure is closer to 85 restaurants—a cornucopia of choices that only a compact urban neighborhood can provide.

For anyone interested in environmental health, here’s a can’t-miss event: an Earth Day celebration for release of Kate Davies’ new book, The Rise of the US Environmental Health Movement.  Davies teaches at Antioch University, and her book is, to my knowledge, the first-ever look at the historical roots of a growing social movement that urges North American policymakers to think about the links between environmental quality and human health. The book has its own Facebook page, and Davies will be celebrating the book’s publication on Monday, April 22 (Earth Day) in Seattle, at the iLEAP offices in the Good Shepherd Center in Wallingford. I expect that many of the city’s environmental health luminaries will be on hand to celebrate with her!

Alan:

Sometimes, people ask me how I remain hopeful, given—well—everything. The answer is that action breeds hope. No, action IS hope. And action is breaking out all over the place, as Bill McKibben relates beautifully in his new Rolling Stone piece. “After decades of scant organized response to climate change, a powerful movement is quickly emerging around the country and around the world.”

I’ve been on a John Vaillant tear. I followed his The Golden Spruce (which I sang paeans to in February) with his intriguing story of tigers and the Russian Far East—Cascadia’s distant, dark twin across the Pacific. A more menacing, charismatic, and revealing book of nonfiction I cannot recall. It reflects not just the mirror bioregion to our own but the way big, apex predators have shaped and been shaped by humans, which it casts as the planet’s single most successful scavenger species.

Most recently, touched by the bombings in Boston this week, I read Vaillant’s poignant essay on the one recorded lynching in all of Canadian history, which was perpetrated by a band of Americans who crossed into British Columbia in 1884 and hanged a Sto:lo man named Louie Sam. The tale of Louie Sam’s lynching by vile, cowardly, hate-filled men brought to mind Barry Lopez’s masterful memoir/history of racism in Oregon (pdf). In it he recounts, among other racist atrocities, the rarely discussed mass murder of Deep Creek, on the Oregon side of Hells Canyon. There, in 1887, a band of white men and boys killed in cold blood more than 30 miners of Chinese origin. As in the Sam lynching, authorities never brought any of the perpetrators to justice.

To know this place, and ultimately to redeem it, we must know our history, as hate-filled as some of it is.

Anna:

This is kind of cool. A map of North America’s different accents and linguistic styles. (via David Frum).

Rattles on steroids! What are touchscreens doing to our kids? Hanna Rosin, a correspondent for The Atlantic, digs into what research exists on toddlers and interactive media. She sums up the inner turmoil—that “reluctant zone between denying and giving”—I feel when I hand my smart phone over to my 3 year old:

By their pinched reactions, these parents illuminated for me the neurosis of our age: as technology becomes ubiquitous in our lives, American parents are becoming more, not less, wary of what it might be doing to their children. Technological competence and sophistication have not, for parents, translated into comfort and ease. They have merely created yet another sphere that parents feel they have to navigate in exactly the right way. On the one hand, parents want their children to swim expertly in the digital stream that they will have to navigate all their lives; on the other hand, they fear that too much digital media, too early, will sink them. Parents end up treating tablets like precision surgical instruments, gadgets that might perform miracles for their child’s IQ and help him win some nifty robotics competition—but only if they are used just so. Otherwise, their child could end up one of those sad, pale creatures who can’t make eye contact and has an avatar for a girlfriend.

And, finally, Hendrik Hertzberg’s New Yorker essay exploring how we wound up with the unfortunate word, “entitlements,“—for what should be called something like “social insurance”—is worth a read. Apparently we used to at least say “earned entitlements,” already one step closer to accurate. But, it’s high time for a reframe.

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.

Photo Credit: DonkeyHotey via Compfight cc

Yale and George Mason University recently asked American Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents about their views on energy and climate change.

The good news: There are ways to find common ground across political divides.

Republicans prefer clean energy as America’s energy future

A large majority of respondents (77 percent) support using clean, renewable energy in the US much more (51 percent) or somewhat more (26 percent) than it is used today. Among those who support expanded use of clean energy, 69 percent feel we should be taking action immediately.

Only 9 percent think we should use clean energy less in the future and only 8 percent think the amount we’re using now is just right.

A slight majority (52 percent) supports using fossil fuels in the US much less (21 percent) or somewhat less (31 percent) than we do today. Among those who’d like to see less fossil fuel use, the most common preference is to do it “immediately” (52 percent).

Notably, the terms that resonate most for describing energy types are “fossil fuel”—over terms like conventional energy or dirty energy—and “clean energy”—rather than terms like renewable or advanced.

Perceived benefits of clean energy outweigh the perceived costs

A majority of the respondents feel that taking steps to reduce our fossil fuel use will benefit the nation in a number of ways. The most popular benefit for this group is “freeing us from dependence on foreign oil”—66 percent. Close behind is “saving resources for our children and grandchildren to use”—57 percent, in a dead heat with “providing a better life for our children and grandchildren”—56 percent.

The numbers dropped from there. Notably, 46 percent think cutting fossil fuel use would improve people’s health. Forty-three percent felt it would “protect God’s Creation,” and 41 percent said it would create jobs and strengthen our economy. Not too shabby. Only 30 percent said it would limit climate change or improve our national security.

The good news is that none of the potential costs associated with cutting fossil fuel use were seen as likely by a majority. In fact, respondents selected more benefits than costs (51 percent of benefits were selected vs. 33 percent of costs, on average.) Smallish numbers—a quarter or fewer—of respondents believe cutting fossil fuel use would “interfere with the free market,” “harm poor people more than it helps them,” or “undermine American sovereignty.”

Respondents were asked which potential benefit is most important to them personally. Freedom from dependence on foreign oil again came out on top, this time by a much wider margin—48 percent—compared to only 14 percent for “saving resources for our children and grandchildren,” and 11 percent for providing a better life for their kids and grandchildren. Despite this drop off, the concept of providing a better life for our kids and grandkids is where we find the most common ground with more progressive audiences.

On the flip side, when asked which cost was of greatest concern to them personally, the top choice was “more government regulation” (42 percent), trailed a fair distance by “rising energy prices” (only 31 percent), and costing jobs and harming the economy (a mere 15 percent). Clearly the perceived costs elicit a less intense reaction than the potential benefits.

In light of all these costs or benefits associated with cutting fossil fuel use (and after the battery of survey questions concerning costs/benefits), by a margin of almost 2 to 1 (64 to 35 percent), conservative respondents say the US should take action to reduce our fossil fuel use.

A majority understands climate change is happening and supports a US response

A slim majority of respondents (52 percent) knows climate change is happening, while 26 percent think it isn’t, and 22 percent “don’t know.”

When presented with one of two conservative arguments saying Americans should respond to climate change, a solid majority (62 percent) agrees that “Americans absolutely should” (23 percent) or “probably should” (39 percent) take steps to address it.

One argument focused on human health and clean air and water, and also included the Ben Franklin adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure; the other emphasized the importance of accountability for the true costs of pollution in our free-enterprise system. Each fared about the same—garnering above 60 percent agreement.

Only 1/3 agrees with Republican Party positions on climate and 1/2 on energy

Only a minority of respondents (35 percent) agrees with the Republican Party’s position on climate change (a plurality “neither agrees nor disagrees”), while a slight majority (51 percent) agrees with the GOP position on meeting America’s energy needs.

Electeds are perceived as unresponsive to citizens’ views on climate

Few respondents (less than 20 percent) think people like themselves have influence over what their elected officials think or do regarding climate change. The majority (62 percent) says “I don’t think elected officials care much about what people like me think about climate change.”

So how do we talk about climate change and energy solutions across party lines? Here are some tips (these are especially powerful when used in conjunction with the winning three-part climate narrative published here recently.)

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.

Photo Credit: davidyuweb via Compfight cc

“Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.”

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said it nearly a century ago. And, “no one’s said it better since,” New Yorker staff writer and Harvard professor Jill Lepore reminds us, “and that, right there, is the problem.”

[P]oliticians don’t like to talk about taxes, except to use them the way a matador uses a red cape. Those interested in getting voters to seethe will find no means easier. Read their lips.

The persistence of anti-tax rhetoric in the US is especially strange, Lepore points out, given that “ninety percent of Americans receive direct social or economic security benefits from the federal government.” Yet we find it easier to see what we pay than what we get.

It’s a failure not only of attention but also of communication: scarcely anybody reminds us what taxes actually fund. We talk about taxes without connecting them to the countless systems and structures that make our society tick, the protections that keep us safe and secure, and the investments and infrastructure that make up the foundation of our economy—benefits we all rely on and take advantage of, every day.

Research from Public Works, formerly part of Demos Center for the Public Sector, shows that this communications failure has consequences: “Americans are only dimly aware of what government does.” Further, we tend not to connect taxes to budgets, nor budgets to the work of government that everybody depends on. Unfortunately, when our thinking about taxes is this disconnected from the things taxes pay for, a logical conclusion is a political dead end: “Everyone should pay less.”

But, while it may seem daunting, the folks at Demos believe that we can make some headway in changing the national conversation about taxes by breaking bad messaging habits and adopting more effective ones.

First, here are the bad habits to kick, according to the Public Works researchers:

• STOP reinforcing the standard negative frames (You know the ones: tax burden, tax relief, hard-earned tax dollars, taxpayers’ pockets),
• STOP reinforcing prevalent stereotypes of government waste (e.g., “we could save tax dollars if we ended huge corporate welfare payments,” and avoid trigger words like waste, inefficiency, and bureaucracy.)
• STOP triggering consumerist thinking by talking about what people “buy with their tax dollars.” Instead, activate citizen thinking by giving taxes context in the deeply held values and broadly shared benefits that they uphold,
• STOP using the analogy of household budgets to explain public budgets,
• STOP talking about tax fairness without defining fairness as shared responsibility (people have wildly varying understandings of fairness—but most of us see unfairness when those at the top who’ve benefited the most rig the system and get away without paying taxes while low- and middle-income families contribute a far greater share. “Those who’ve done well in this country have a responsibility to pay their fair share”),
• and STOP assuming facts alone will win the day—always sandwich facts about taxes in values messages.

What we can do is consistently and persistently talk about what taxes support, uphold, and make possible—and not simply with a laundry list of services, but with an emphasis on the shared values that we protect by contributing to the common good. We should talk about the role taxes play in laying the foundations of a healthy economy, providing freedom, protection, and opportunity for our families, and meeting our goals for the future.

Lepore describes taxes as a pact, the pact we make to one another to maintain and invest in the kind of communities—and country—we can be proud to live in, communities where we all have freedom and opportunities to succeed. Here’s how she describes that pact:

Taxes are what we pay for civilized society, for modernity, and for prosperity. The wealthy pay more because they have benefited more. Taxes, well laid and well spent, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and promote all our well-being. Taxes protect property and the environment; taxes make business possible. Taxes pay for roads and schools and bridges and police and teachers. Taxes pay for doctors and nursing homes and medicine. During an emergency, like an earthquake or a hurricane, taxes pay for rescue workers, shelters and services. For people whose lives are devastated by other kinds of disasters, like the disaster of poverty, taxes pay, even, for food.

This tax season, if you don’t have the chance to say all the things about taxes that Lepore does, here are some shortcuts that should become new, better habits:

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.

This is the best viral infographic of the year so far. It’s astonishing. Even if you think you know all about US wealth inequality and the 1% and the metastacizing financial sector and too big to fail and K Street and Winner-Takes-All Politics and so on and so forth, you need to watch this short video.

Some cutting and courageous election advice to British Columbians from climate hawk and Sightline friend Mark Jaccard. Shorter: Last time, he told everyone to vote Liberal to save the BC carbon tax; this time, he’s telling everyone to vote New Democrat, to stop the Pacific Gateway pipeline—which is just Keystone West.

Clark

This may be the most entertaining lecture on sustainable transportation I’ve ever seen: Nelson/Nygaard’s Jeff Tumlin discussing “Sex, Neuroscience, and Walkable Urbanism.” See especially the section starting at about 22:30, where he talks about the harm we cause ourselves by measuring transportation “success” so poorly.

In praise of procrastination. As it turns out, it often pays to wait until the last second to make a decision—especially if you use the extra time to gather and process information. But I think he takes things too far: sometimes procrastination is the worst thing you can possibly do (just ask a cancer patient who put off routine screening). So there’s wisdom in understanding what sorts of things can actually be put off without harm.

What will $30 million in transportation spending buy?  According to Bike Portland: just 1 mile of street widening, or…100 miles of sidewalks, 300 miles of buffered bike lanes, 2,000 pedestrian safety beacons, and on and on…

Eric

The long arc of human history has yielded such a diversity of cultures that it’s usually impossible to say that any one of them is truly “the most” or “the best” at anything.  Yet it’s clear to me that when Google Glass comes to market, Western civilization will be crowned the most annoying.

Matthew Yglesias delivers a well-deserved skewering to the defenders of his city’s parking mandates.

Inspired by an evening encounter with a coyote in his neighborhood, Chuck Wolfe meditates on the relationship between nature and cities.

Hugo Chavez got at least one thing right when he pointed out: “If the climate was a bank [the US] would already have saved it.”

Finally, it’s too bad I’m married because it means I missed my opportunity to deliver the greatest breakup line ever: “This may feel cold, but there’s nothing cold about well-reasoned analysis.”

Anna

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.

Photo Credit: akaporn via Compfight cc

Today Yale and George Mason released the fifth report from their latest national survey on American climate change attitudes. Overall trends are still looking good. After a sharp decline in public engagement from the fall of 2008 to January 2010, there was a gradual rebound starting in June 2010. This research shows that the rebound in public engagement has continued: “the Alarmed, Concerned, and Cautious audience segments once again comprise 70 percent of the American public, as they did in the fall of 2008.” (Go here for a Six Americas cheat sheet).

The best news is that the Six Americas has experienced a positive shift at both ends—resulting in a better looking beast, one with a bigger head and a smaller tail.

That is to say that the Alarmed (the most concerned, engaged, and ready for action on climate solutions) have grown from 10 percent of the American adult population to 16 percent. At the same time, the Dismissive (that vocal group that doesn’t think climate change is happening and tends to reject the science) have decreased in size, from 16 percent in 2010 to 8 percent in 2012.

The report focuses on perceived benefits and costs of reducing fossil fuel use, policy support, and beliefs about who has political influence. Here are some of the specifics:

What do Americans see as the top benefits and drawbacks of reducing fossil fuel use to curb global warming? 

• For five of the Six Americas, improved public health now ranks among the top three perceived benefits of the nation taking action to reduce fossil fuel use and global warming.
• Reducing our dependence on foreign oil, creating green jobs and improving the economy are also ranked among the top five benefits by all Six Americas.
• One of the least recognized benefits is improved national security, which is ranked as one of the two least likely benefits by five of the segments.  Preventing starvation and poverty worldwide were also largely unrecognized benefits, ranking within the two least likely benefits for five of the segments.
• The drawbacks most likely to be cited were increased government regulation and higher energy prices; these were the top two drawbacks for every segment. (It is worth noting that some of these, like “increased government regulation,” could be seen as a cost for some respondents and a benefit for others.)
• Whether the question was framed as “reducing global warming” or “reducing fossil fuel use,” there was little difference in respondents’ expected outcomes.
• Of the Alarmed—those most worried and most eager for solutions—a stewardship ethic was cited by two-thirds, who say action will protect God’s creation. Of the Concerned, 57 percent say this; of the Cautious, 46 percent. The Disengaged don’t see many benefits or drawbacks, and nothing with much conviction. However, they are most likely to strongly identify the protection of God’s creation as a positive, although the proportion is small at 15 percent (total is 23 percent).
• The Doubtful see costs not benefits, except that 45 percent see “reducing dependence on foreign oil” as a positive outcome.

How do Americans feel about national-level climate and energy policies?

• Majorities of four segments—the Alarmed to the Disengaged—favor a large to medium-scale effort by the US to reduce global warming, even if it has large to moderate costs. Seventy percent of the Alarmed favor a large-scale effort. Half of the Doubtful favor a small-scale effort, while 28 percent favor no response and 20 percent favor a medium or large response. Eighty-five percent of the Dismissive say we should make no effort.
• However, since 2008, the proportion of Americans that favor a large-scale effort has fallen by 7 to 11 points in the Alarmed, Concerned, Cautious, and Disengaged segments.

• Majorities of all Six Americas say the US should increase its use of renewable energy. (Even among the Dismissive, more believe we should increase our use of renewable energy—54 percent—than say we should increase our use of fossil fuels—46 percent) .

• In five of the six segments, larger proportions prefer to reduce, rather than increase fossil fuel use; only the Dismissive prefer to increase the nation’s use of fossil fuels.
• In every segment except the Dismissive, half or more favor the elimination of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, and oppose the elimination of subsidies to renewable energy companies.
• Majorities of the Alarmed, Concerned, and Cautious-–that 70 percent of the US population that’s at least somewhat concerned and savvy about climate change—say the US should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of what other nations do.
• Funding research on renewable energy, and providing tax rebates for purchases of energy-efficient vehicles and solar panels have remained popular policies among five of the Six Americas since tracking began in 2008.

What about a carbon tax?

• Among the Six Americas, support for “a candidate who supports a carbon tax” varies considerably, depending on the details of the proposal—though overall more than half say they would vote for a candidate who favors a revenue-neutral carbon tax. The most popular versions—supported by half or more of the Alarmed, Concerned, and Cautious—specify that the tax will either create more jobs in the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries; decrease pollution by encouraging companies to find less polluting alternatives; or be used to reduce the federal income tax. The least popular version proposes to use the revenue to provide a tax refund of $180, on average, to each American household.
• Majorities of the Alarmed and Concerned support a carbon tax, even if it increases household costs by an average of $180; support among the Concerned is not strong,
  however, with only 10 percent saying they strongly support the proposal. Close to half of the Disengaged support a carbon tax.
• Over half of the Doubtful, and three-quarters of the Dismissive strongly oppose the idea.

Courtesy Yale/George Mason University.

How do Americans gauge the influence they and other entities have on elected officials?

• In five of the Six Americas, majorities believe that if they work with others who share their views, they can influence their elected representatives’ decisions.
• All Six Americas, however, believe that people who share their own views on global warming have less influence than campaign contributors, fossil fuel companies, the media, etc. People who share their views are, in fact, perceived as having the least political influence by every segment.
• Five of the six segments believe that large campaign contributors have the strongest influence on elected officials.
• Four segments—the Alarmed, Concerned, Cautious and Disengaged, say that the fossil fuel industry has more influence than the renewable energy industry, while the Doubtful and Dismissive believe that renewable energy companies have more influence than fossil fuel companies.
• The Dismissive tend to believe the “liberal news media” has the strongest influence on elected officials; 50 percent say the “liberal media” affect legislators “a lot.”

What are the takeaways?

• Americans want more clean energy and less fossil fuels. We don’t favor subsidies to fossil fuel companies.

• When talking about climate solutions, we could benefit from emphasizing health benefits as well as energy independence, a stronger economy, clean energy jobs and pollution reductions.
• There’s some room in Americans’ minds for discussion of a carbon tax, especially if it’s presented the right way.
• Americans are weary of money in politics, but they retain some faith in citizens’ ability to join forces and influence policymakers. They need to hear that they aren’t alone in their views.
• And, overall, the trends are going in the right direction. We’re better off when the beast has a bigger head and smaller tail. Now we need to whip that middle into shape as well.

The report includes an Executive Summary, charts, and detailed results and can be downloaded here:  Global Warming’s Six Americas in September 2012.

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.

Photo Credit: jcarwil via Compfight cc

Americans are surveyed constantly as consumers, but very rarely are we asked about how we feel about consumption itself. Oregon pollster Tom Bowerman has set out to change that. In a 2012 paper he gives an overview of four years of public opinion research about consumption (pdf)—much of which he conducted himself or in concert with other researchers. (And he’s not messing around. Bowerman et al. at his shop, PolicyInteractive, have “fielded approximately 450 questions across nine statistical sample surveys of over 4000 respondents (regional), four opt-in internet surveys fielding 800 questions to over 2000 respondents (national), two sector specific qualitative interviews (70 interviews), and two randomly selected focus groups (12 participants each group).”)

What he’s found is consistent, strong agreement—ranging from 74 to 88 percent—that “our country would be better off if we all consume less.”

Bowerman’s research among Oregon voters found that:

• 83 percent agree that consuming less would be better for the earth,
• 75 percent think consuming less would result in more time with family and friends,
• 75 percent disagree that reducing consumption would make life less enjoyable and exciting.

These numbers jibe with national data. A 2009 study by the Center for American Progress found that 80 percent agreed (47 percent strongly) that “Americans should adopt a more sustainable lifestyle by conserving energy and consuming fewer goods.” Of the forty “values statements” measured by CAP, this one rated the highest.

That doesn’t change the fact that we’re big consumers. In the US we consume a third of the world’s resources even though we only represent about 4.5 percent of the total population—yes, we have the highest per capita consumption rate in the world. But perhaps it’s starting to wear on us.

Of course this level of consumption is bad news for our overtaxed climate. As Bowerman puts it, with household consumption credited for seventy percent of United States GDP, “the urgency of climate change policy and contributory human behaviors makes better understandings of affluent consumption attitudes and behaviors imperative.”

If there’s good news here it’s that our attitudes about consuming too much could possibly bring Americans together on solutions.  Bowerman’s research and analysis reveals that attitudes about consumption shatter the usual partisan divide around climate change:

We found that cultural sectors with low level climate change concern (political ‘right’ and religious conservatives) showed high ‘consume-less’ agreement.  Republicans shifted from 34% climate concern to 76% consumption concern; Christian conservatives shifted 45% to 67% respectively (PI November 2008, N = 400).  Sectors previously concerned with climate change such as democrats and environmentalists showed modestly higher concern about consumption than climate.

In other words, concerns about consuming too much—and interviewees most often identified fuel, energy, junk, waste, and garbage when thinking about consumption—more readily cross partisan divides than climate concern (notably some of these surveys are now a few years old and things may have changed slightly vis-à-vis climate). Bowerman notes that an advantage for consumption is that, unlike climate, it’s visible. I’d add that it’s personal and local. People feel consumption in their pocketbooks and their own kids’ material demands.

Bowerman concludes that further research is needed to understand the disconnect between broadly shared attitudes about overconsumption and behavior, in particular zeroing in on ways to narrow the gap between attitudes and behaviors among individuals who express concern about climate change but continue to maintain large carbon footprints. One potential bright spot is evidence that suggests that simply being aware that a “majority of our fellow citizens support reducing consumption encourages lower consumption as normative behavior.”

Finally, Bowerman also notes another disconnect, perhaps an even more serious one: Policymakers are consistently less supportive of efforts to reduce consumption, clinging instead to the prevailing economic model of mass-consumption and “indefinite economic growth.” He laments that on this score, even “green” lawmakers want to “have their cake and eat it too.” Still, it may be that shifts in public attitudes could leverage change when it comes to consumption. As the research suggests, it seems that many of us have simply had enough.

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.

Moyers & Company

If you haven’t yet watched Bill Moyers’ interview with research scientist and climate change communication expert Anthony Leiserowitz, I recommend doing it ASAP. (Stream it on the Bill Moyers & Company website).

Meanwhile, here are some top takeaways for climate messengers.

As you may know, Leiserowitz is director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication which has teamed up with researchers at the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication to conduct ongoing tracking polls about global warming.

They’ve identified “Six Americas”—six groups or “publics” defined by their distinct beliefs, attitudes, risk perceptions, motivations, values, policy preferences, behaviors and barriers to action on climate change—and have zeroed in on particular engagement strategies that work best for each of these audiences.

Here’s a quick Six Americas refresher:

• The Alarmed—16 percent of Americans—are eager to get on with solutions but don’t know yet what those solutions are. Only about a quarter of these Americans have been active on climate issues in the past year. Our messages about global warming should help them identify and focus their energy on the most effective actions, behaviors, and policy solutions. Remind the Alarmed that they are not alone.
• The Concerned—29 percent—know climate change is happening, human caused and serious, but they don’t necessarily see the urgency. They tend to think of it as a far-off problem, not something that will impact their community, their family or friends, or the places they love. The Concerned need to be reminded that this is happening now and that it’s local and personal—not about polar bears and “future generations” but about ourselves and our kids.
• The Cautious—25 percent—are still on the fence about global warming. They’re trying to make up their mind about whether it’s happening and, if so, whether it’s natural or human-caused. They need messages that reinforce, in clear, compelling, emotional terms, the basics of climate science and solutions.
• The Disengaged—8 percent—have heard of global warming but don’t know much about the causes, consequences, or solutions. Messages to the Disengaged should reinforce the basics and lay out the moral dimensions of climate impacts—namely that America’s least well-off families are most at risk to be harmed by climate impacts in their communities.
• The Doubtful—13 percent—don’t think it’s happening, or if they do, they think it’s natural. They don’t think there’s anything we can do about it. They’re not paying much attention. They need the basics reinforced, especially by messengers they trust (not necessarily scientists or elected officials.)
• The Dismissive—8 percent—are firmly convinced climate change is not happening, or it’s not human caused, and not serious. Many say it’s a hoax or a plot. They represent a small but mighty share of the public that’s mobilized, organized, and highly vocal about their beliefs. Our messages are not likely to move them, but it’s not worth pissing them off either. Call out the disinformation campaigns spreading doubt about climate science, but don’t launch personal attacks on the Dismissive.

Leiserowitz reminds us that whomever you’re talking to, it’s important first to listen, to try and figure out where they’re coming from. If possible, your messages should reflect their values and motivations and find some common ground.

But one point Leiserowitz makes in his conversation with Bill Moyers is that each of these Six Americas needs to hear clear, simple messages that reinforce the basics about climate change and make it personal. These should be repeated often, by respected and trusted messengers. And climate messages should offer hopefulness and confidence in readily available solutions.

Here’s where to start:

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.

Photo Credit: Pryere via Compfight cc

Lots of polling shows that Americans are good and ready for somebody to do something about climate change. But when it comes to specific policy measures, attitudes aren’t always so clear cut—especially if the policy solution features the word “tax.”

However, several recent surveys give insights into Americans’ current attitudes about carbon taxes. And support seems to be steady—and in some cases, quite high.

Depending on how survey questions are worded, support has been hovering around 50 percent—and nudging up to 60 percent on a good day. But support drops to below half when increases in energy costs are specified, or, surprisingly, when there’s mention of tax rebates or refunds.

But in the context of deficit reduction, American voters become more supportive of carbon taxes, especially when survey questions present them with stark choices between a tax on pollution and cuts to spending on government programs they like.

An either-or choice

A national survey of 1,000 voters was conducted in December 2012 by the Mellman Group and commissioned by Friends of the Earth.

When given an either-or choice, 67 percent of Americans would prefer to see the government “tax carbon dioxide pollution from big polluters such as oil, gas, and other companies” rather than cut spending “on programs like education, Social Security, Medicare and environmental protection” to solve our budget problems.

Compared with taxing carbon pollution, only 15 percent of respondents favored cutting government spending as a way of solving our budget problems. Support for a carbon tax option over cutting spending was high among Democrats (93 percent in favor) and Republicans (66 percent) alike.

Survey respondents remained favorable toward a carbon tax when arguments in support of such a measure were paired with strongly-worded statements against it, including the argument that a carbon tax represents a “new tax on every business and consumer in America” and should not be proposed at a time when the economy remains in trouble.

In fact, two pro-carbon tax statements proved similarly compelling when pitted against the anti-tax message:

• 67 percent of respondents favored a carbon tax when posed with the rebuttal that the tax would curb greenhouse gases while providing revenue.

• 64 percent favored the tax when presented with the rebuttal that it would spur clean energy investments and fund efforts to combat the effects of climate change.

Voters’ support for carbon taxes did not differ greatly based on how the revenue would be used: whether to help solve our budget problems (70 percent in favor), or to help solve our budget problems as well as fund climate and clean energy jobs programs (72 percent in favor).

Respondents were split on whether taxing oil and gas companies based on how much carbon pollution they emit to get the deficit under control would “cost American jobs”—28 percent; “not affect American jobs”—28 percent; or “create new American jobs”—25 percent.

Multiple choice

In November 2012, Slate conducted a poll (sponsored by the Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fund and conducted by YouGov) that measured support for different options to reduce the deficit using an online ranking tool. Calling it “We the People, Fix the Budget,” they asked a representative sample of 1,000 Americans to choose the options that were the “least painful.”

Respondents were given a specific deficit reduction goal: Cut at least $900 billion from the projected deficit in 2022 by choosing among 10 options for raising revenue or cutting spending that correspond to options laid out by the Congressional Budget Office.

They found that, on average, Americans “want higher taxes, cuts in government services, and military downsizing—but want to preserve Medicare and Social Security.” Notably, a carbon tax landed the 5^th spot (of 10), receiving the support of more than 56 percent of respondents. As Slate explained it, “Here we see how much context matters. People may hate the idea of a carbon tax in the abstract, but when faced with the alternatives for raising revenue, more than half of them support it.”

Just the tax, Ma’am

When survey respondents are presented with a carbon tax on its own, not paired with trade-offs in spending or cuts, support is lower.

A recent survey, the latest of the National Surveys on Energy and the Environment (NSEE) twice-annual climate surveys—in the field in September and October, 2012—found that a “narrow plurality supports establishing a tax applied to multiple fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gas levels”—a carbon tax.

The good news here, if any? The researchers note that this finding is contrary to a number of their earlier studies that found solid majority opposition to a carbon tax.

Support for the tax declined when a specific cost was attached to the policy (a 10 percent increase in energy prices). Another silver lining here? This shift is not as extensive as it was for two other, far more popular policies—renewable electricity standards and increases in vehicle fuel efficiency.

When respondents were given 6 distinct options for how to use funds generated by a carbon tax, usage of tax revenues for renewable energy research was clearly the most popular option, followed by repeal of the carbon tax itself, and then usage of funds for deficit reduction.

Other uses of the revenue proved significantly less popular, including a shift from payroll taxes which came in dead last.

The NSEE surveys are conducted by the Muhlenberg Institute of Public Opinion at Muhlenberg College and the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan.

In September 2012 the Yale Project on Climate Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that more than half of Americans said they would vote for a candidate who supports a revenue neutral carbon tax, especially if it was described as creating “more American jobs in the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries” (61 percent would support such a candidate); if it would “decrease pollution by encouraging companies to find less polluting alternatives” (58 percent), or if it was used to “pay down the national debt” (52 percent).

The numbers dropped to fewer than half for a candidate who supports a carbon tax “used to reduce the federal income tax” (47 percent support); or to give a tax “refund of $180 dollars a year to the average American household” (39 percent support).

The NSEE and the Yale and George Mason surveys test various options for spending carbon tax revenues, but don’t frame the choice to implement a carbon tax in the first place as an alternative to cutting government spending or raising other taxes.

The trends are positive here—if just slightly, but if we take these data along with the two other surveys, the lesson may be that we should give more context, framing the carbon tax not only as a solution to our deficit problem and a way to cut pollution and invest in clean energy, but also as a solution that protects us from unwanted cuts as we get our deficit under control.

Here’s a snapshot of the takeaways:

• Support for climate action is high and trending up. Across party lines, there is support for taking action to reduce global warming. A large majority of Americans say the US should make an effort to reduce global warming, even if it has economic costs. Nearly 4 out of 5 Americans now think temperatures are rising and that global warming will be a serious problem for the United States if nothing is done about it.
• Support for a carbon tax is tepid but steady. Support hovers just above 50 percent—sometimes hitting 60 percent or above depending on how survey questions are worded and what context is given.
• An either-or choice in the context of fixing the deficit increases support for a carbon tax. When faced with stark choices between a carbon tax and cuts to spending on government programs like Social Security and education, support for a carbon tax can rise to nearly 70 percent.
• Americans support spending carbon tax revenue on renewable energy and efficiency. Americans’ top choice for using revenue from a carbon tax is investment in renewable energy and efficiency (with more support when survey questions emphasize jobs). In a simple ranking (and not as a trade-off for spending cuts, for example) there is less support for using the revenue to help reduce the deficit.
• Americans are cautious about the costs of a carbon tax. Support tends to drop when specific costs are spelled out (e.g. when costs per family or percentage increases in energy costs are specified).
• Americans don’t seem to buy into tax rebates or refunds. American voters aren’t necessarily sold on tax rebates or refunds from carbon tax revenue. These options for carbon tax revenue are usually ranked at the lowest in a list of options, even when dollar amounts are specified (e.g. a hypothetical $180 refund per household.)

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.