Survey Finds 47% of American Reject Idea That They Are Selfish for Putting Economy Ahead of Global Warming
28 September 2009
A new Rasmussen Reports poll found that 47% of Americans reject the idea that they are selfish putting economic concerns ahead of the fight against global warming. The national telephone survey found that 29% of adults take the opposite view and believe Americans are being selfish for putting the economy first; 24% are not sure.
Other findings of the survey include:
53% of Investors say Americans are not being selfish by putting economic concerns first. Fifty-four percent (54%) of those employed in the private sector agree, while government workers are almost evenly divided on the question.
A plurality of Democrats (42%) say Americans are being selfish, while 68% of Republicans and 45% of adults not affiliated with either party disagree.
52% of all Americans agree with President Obama that “the danger posed by climate change cannot be denied, and our responsibility to meet it must not be deferred.” Thirty percent (30%) don’t agree with the president’s statement; 18% are not sure.
Women by a more than three-to-one margin share the president’s view, but men are narrowly divided over the statement. Among investors, 51% say Obama is right, while 38% say he’s wrong.
Seventy-four percent (74%) of Democrats and a plurality (46%) of unaffiliateds agree with the president’s comment. Fifty percent (50%) of Republicans do not.
When asked if the world is headed toward an irreversible catastrophe if the members of the United Nations fail to deal with global warming, 38% say yes, but 36% say no. Twenty-six percent (26%) aren’t sure. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Democrats say the UN must act to avoid catastrophe, while the identical number (57%) of Republicans reject that view. Unaffiliated adults are narrowly divided.
Sixty-two percent (62%) of adults say they have followed news reports about a pending UN treaty to slow global climate change, including 27% who say they have been following very closely.
I am inclined to believe that Americans are more likely in the frame of mind that economy and climate-change policies must go hand-in-hand and that it is non-sensical to believe that a happy future can preclude (or prioritize) either of them. Furthermore, i believe that climate change is an engineering and technology problem fundamentally, which of course depends on research and development which depends on private financial support which depends on consumption which depends on manufacturing, design, and distribution - i.e the Economy.
The hard-to-swallow idea in all this is that there is going to be short/mid-term 'collateral' environmental damage on the way to a happy climate- and economy- stabilized world - i.e our children and grand-children are going to see a lot more crappy conditions before things will get better - and the 'better' will be long-term and sustainable - unfortunately generations hence. Short-term pain (greed and climate disruption) for long-term future 'total economy and environmental success'. Its the only way (with some regulation) - However, if anyone can think of another way that takes into account natural human capitalism, greed, and ignorance - i'd like to hear it.
Posted by: Jer | 28 September 2009 at 08:04 AM
I'm sick of these either/or polls. Does anybody honestly believe that if we destroy the environment that our economy will function just fine?
Yes, there could be short-term pain, both environmentally and economically, but long-term, if we don't fix the environment, nothing else will matter.
Posted by: Peter9909 | 28 September 2009 at 12:19 PM
What people say they are and what they really are is often two very different things.
The acquired addiction to (over) abundance and material wealth runs deep. Anything that could potentially change the status quo (the constant run to more acquisitions) is rejected my the majority.
Could it be a side effect of the Great Depression?
Posted by: HarveyD | 28 September 2009 at 02:07 PM
Harvey d the great depression was and is still being driven by baby boomers dieing off. It was expected waaay back in the 70s and tada its effectively perminent.
That should make meeting the 2050 goals MUCH easier. Well for US that is everyone else is totaly screwed.
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 28 September 2009 at 05:03 PM