Pew Survey Finds 32% of US Public Views Climate Change as Important Priority for Congress
19 May 2010
While majorities of the US public view taking action on jobs (81%) and energy policy (67%) as important priorities for Congress, only 32% say it is very important for Congress to address climate change in the coming months, according to the Pew Research/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll.
The results on climate change, including 47% of Democrats, 29% of independents and 17% of Republicans, are consistent with earlier Pew polling that shows the public putting a relatively low priority on addressing climate change.
Other findings of the survey include:
81% say it is very important for Congress to address the job situation over the coming months, reflecting consistent concern among the public about the economy’s large job losses. There is no significant difference across party lines.
67% say it is very important for Congress to address the nation’s energy needs, including 75% of Democrats, 64% of independents and 61% of Republicans.
59% say that addressing immigration policy is very important, with Republicans 20 points more likely to say this than Democrats (69% vs. 49%).
13% say Congress is doing an excellent or good job, while 38% say it is doing only fair and 44% rate Congress’s job performance as poor. These ratings are largely unchanged from mid-March, when 17% said Congress was doing an excellent or good job.
Republicans and independents give Congress equally negative job ratings. Majorities of Republicans (57%) and independents (55%) say Congress does a poor job.
Just 10% say they have a lot of confidence that the government in Washington will make progress over the next year on the most important issues facing the country; 32% say they have some confidence, 31% say not much, and 25% say no confidence at all.
Separately, the National Research Council issued a set of three reports on climate change emphasizing why the US should act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop a national strategy to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change. (Earlier post.)
.
Thankfully 68% of the US public are not mind-numbed Globalwarmists! Religion has NO place in "science."
Now lets get to work on energy independence and clean, viable (read - not always subsidized in order to stay in business), energy sources.
.
Posted by: The Goracle | 19 May 2010 at 01:13 PM
32% Globalwarmists among the US population is 32% too many.
Posted by: Mannstein | 19 May 2010 at 02:06 PM
Thankfully 68% of the US public are not mind-numbed Globalwarmists! Religion has NO place in "science."
Science has no place in America;
http://www.darrenbarefoot.com/archives/2004/11/45-of-americans-are-creationists.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
When 45-50% of the US public views evolution as a scam it is not surprising 68% of US public views action on climate change as unimportant.
Posted by: ai_vin | 19 May 2010 at 02:58 PM
ai_win may have put his finger on the main underlying reason driving the first two comments.
Posted by: HarveyD | 19 May 2010 at 05:42 PM
.
When 45-50% of the US public views evolution as a scam it is not surprising 32% of them view the Globalwarmist religion as factual.
Yes, keep religion out of science!
.
Posted by: The Goracle | 19 May 2010 at 06:31 PM
Of course, the Goratroll has the association exactly backwards; it's the gullible creatonuts who are largely AGW-denialists.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 19 May 2010 at 07:07 PM
The problem is with AGW is there's too much talk on the problem and not enough about the solution - this being sustainable energy security and both are frequently discussed as separate entities. Both however are linked, energy being the most important link and deserves most attention. This is because energy security is a primary concern whether climate change is man made or not - this almost makes climate change a distraction because it has been turned from a push factor, to a 'hot' (pardon the pun) topic which has lked just to never ending arguments - a waste of time, when better efforts can into real issues where there is more common ground - energy being one, green cars the other etc.
Posted by: Scott | 20 May 2010 at 12:15 AM
I'm thankful Goracle left Al Gore out of the argument and said something intelligent: "Now lets get to work on energy independence and clean, viable (read - not always subsidized in order to stay in business), energy sources"
...
Let's focus on what we can all agree on.
Posted by: danm | 20 May 2010 at 05:33 AM
To me less imported oil and coal use are the issues and slowing global warming may be a side benefit. It is not often that you can get two benefits with one effort.
Posted by: SJC | 20 May 2010 at 07:30 AM
@Scott and danm
While I agree that energy security/independence and climate change SHOULD go hand in hand the problem is it doesn't have to.
Far too often I've seen those arguments used to simply blow smoke into the AGW issue. I've watched AGW debates shifted to "peak oil" and answered with "coal-to-liquids" or shifted to "terrorist funding" and answered with "Canadian tarsands." Mark my words; as soon as we let the denialists move the debate into "energy security/independence" territory we will be hearing chants of "drill baby drill" again.
Posted by: ai_vin | 20 May 2010 at 07:35 AM
ai_vin,
you mean, "spill baby spill".
d
Posted by: danm | 20 May 2010 at 09:04 AM
Yeah well, after a full month of news from the Gulf I didn't feel I needed to point that out but yes, it's only a matter of time until the one leads to the other.
Posted by: ai_vin | 20 May 2010 at 09:22 AM
Climate change was what is known as "high concept" in the entertainment biz. That is, an idea big enough to motivate vast swaths of humanity to certain directed actions.
Trouble has been the foundation the concept was built upon. What we see here, today is something of a better foundation - constructed on need to end foreign oil imports, grow new energy jobs, strengthen energy security (i.e. de-centralize)and electrify transportation.
ai_vin knows that the BP disaster will likely result in new prohibitions on offshore drilling - nullifying his argument for "drill baby drill." In fact things are poised nicely for the new energy paradigm which will even address the shrinking percentage of climate changers. Dare we say there appears to be a consensus here at GCC??
Posted by: sulleny | 20 May 2010 at 10:54 AM
We will find ways to change our oil and coal addiction to clean electricity addiction. That will fix GHG and oil import problems within 10 to 20 years.
Posted by: HarveyD | 20 May 2010 at 11:16 AM
If only that were true sulleny, if only that were true. And the sad part is you just proved me right. You said "constructed on need to end foreign oil imports" meaning you don't have a problem with domestic oil sources. The BP disaster may or may not result in new prohibitions on offshore drilling in the Gulf(I'm not holding my breath on that one, and even if it did Americas are well know to short attention spans and could reverse those prohibitions as soon as they get the next Repub into the Whitehouse.) but, given your thirst for oil you'll just look for it elsewhere; like the tarsands, coal to oil or the Arctic Ocean.
By all means, let's "grow new energy jobs, strengthen energy security (i.e. de-centralize)and electrify transportation" but if we don't keep the denialists at bay and face the fact of climate change we'll have only solved part of the problem and made the other part worst.
Posted by: ai_vin | 20 May 2010 at 12:17 PM
Rush and Beck were right all along: Americans *are* ignorant and stupid. We're screwed.
Posted by: richard schumacher | 21 May 2010 at 07:40 AM
Rush and Beck COUNTED on their viewers being ignorant and stupid.
Posted by: ai_vin | 21 May 2010 at 08:03 AM
Rush and Beck are entertainers as are Hansen and Al Gore. All thirst for "viewers" as their fear/counter-fear dramas are what makes them wealthy.
And no, the reduction in oil imports will NOT be replaced by domestic oil since there is little domestic oil left. Electrification will phase out oil and gas leaving the major consumer of liquid fuels - jet aircraft. A prime market for biofuels. And even this demand will resolve when the anti-grav geeks emerge from behind the curtain;)
Posted by: sulleny | 21 May 2010 at 09:23 AM
there is little domestic oil left...Electrification will phase out oil and gas
Ah but sulleny I've already pointed out there's a lot of oil in Canada in the tarsands and the Arctic Ocean. And if you're not mindful of climate change electrification of transport could lead to more coal use, which America still has a lot of. Like I said, 'you'll have only solved part of the problem and made the other part worst.'
Posted by: ai_vin | 21 May 2010 at 10:56 AM
ai... you're right about the Canadian oil. Thing is it's messy, ugly and expensive enviro and economically. As is coal. Of course you've been reading my prompts for distributed energy for a while now. CHP systems built as Residential Power Units can eliminate the need for ANY new fossil fueled power plants and lower the demand on coal. (don't we all quietly like RPUs??)
Plug In America publishes the following stats on electrification energy demands:
Today's batteries can take EVs 300 miles on a single charge.
Battery Electric Vehicles (EVs) are by far the most efficient motorized vehicles in the world and use 3-4 times LESS energy than hydrogen fuel cell cars.
Enough excess generating capacity exists at night in the U.S. to charge 180 million EVs without adding any new capacity (no new coal or nuclear power plants). Source US. Department of Energy.
We will never fight a war over electricity.
EVs powered by the US electrical grid are cleaner than gas, E85, biodiesel & fuel cells.
Half of EV owners surveyed use solar energy to power their houses and cars.
EVs by the millions could be built today.
Plug-in cars capable of 50 miles per day would meet the needs of 80% of the American driving public. Source: U.S. Department of Transportation.
Posted by: sulleny | 21 May 2010 at 03:42 PM
Yes "Enough excess generating capacity exists at night in the U.S. to charge 180 million EVs without adding any new capacity" but now add in the rest of the cars in America, then electrify the railroads to move interstate freight (and people), and E-trucks for local cargo.
Posted by: ai_vin | 21 May 2010 at 09:32 PM
Well, goodness, if you add all of that, you'll need extra generating capacity... over the 20 years it'll take you to build it.
I think we could manage.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 21 May 2010 at 10:14 PM
Yes but let's not confuse terms here. sulleny is talking about generating capacity while I'm talking about fuel use. You have capacity to spare and time to build more but you'll still have to burn more coal to keep the power plants working to meet demand.
Posted by: ai_vin | 22 May 2010 at 12:07 AM
"You have capacity to spare and time to build more but you'll still have to burn more coal to keep the power plants working to meet demand."
This sentence contradicts itself. We burn the same (or less as coal -> NG continues) provided we charge at night.
Posted by: sulleny | 22 May 2010 at 09:38 AM
Only up to a point. For some power generators the utility will burn some fuel at night even if there is no demand: For example, when coal is used to boil water to make steam you do not want to let the boiler cool down overnight but otherwise it makes no sense to burn fuel when you don't need power. You don't leadfoot your car's gas peddle when you're just sitting at a redlight do you?
It's the same for a power plant. For the most part the amount of fuel that is put in is proportional to the amount of electricity you want out.
Posted by: ai_vin | 22 May 2010 at 11:21 AM