Very interesting new poll from Rasmussen that suggests a significant reversal in public opinion over the causes of global warming.
Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.
Seven percent (7%) attribute global warming to some other reason, and nine percent (9%) are unsure in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democrats blame global warming on human activity, compared to 21% percent of Republicans. Two-thirds of GOP voters (67%) see long-term planetary trends as the cause versus 23% of Democrats. Voters not affiliated with either party by eight points put the blame on planetary trends.
In July 2006, 46% of voters said global warming is caused primarily by human activities, while 35% said it is due to long-term planetary trends.
In April of last year, 47% of Americans blamed human activity versus 34% who viewed long-term planetary trends as the culprit. But the numbers have been moving in the direction of planetary trends since then.
I must put in the obligatory disclaimer here: I believe that the weight of the scientific evidence points towards human activity having an effect on climate. However, I also believe that this effect is minor and that it is likely to remain minor. Which means that I believe these 44% are wrong. But what is and isn’t true actually isn’t the case here.
The truth is that political action in a democracy depends on what people believe, not on what actually is fact. This significant reversal trend suggests that it will be much harder to justify significant costs – particularly at household level – to combat global warming.
The new Administration and Congress would therefore be wise to step away from expensive anti-energy measures and concentrate instead on improving the resiliency and adaptive capacity of those who are most vulnerable should global warming turn out to be a problem. Otherwise, they run the risk of the electorate reacting like Batman.
Paul Krugman once accused me of Gore Derangement Syndrome. In response, I suggested that he and others suffered from Gore Blindness Syndrome. Here’s another example of that at work, where a reporter manages to write an adulatory piece about our former Vice President despite said paragon having completely rebuffed him when he asked him a question. As he indicates, Gore has made a habit recently of refusing to allow any interviews. Given that he’s the undoubted leader of a worldwide political movement, one would have thought that the press might be as annoyed about this as they were when another potential Vice President didn’t appear to be giving interviews.
Anyway, perhaps the most interesting thing about the event Mr Gore was attending was his admission of failure:
Mr. Gore said that he feared that his advocacy work, spearheaded by his documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” has not done its job. “I feel, in a sense, I’ve failed badly,” he said. “Because even though there’s a greater sense of awareness, there is not anything anywhere close to an appropriate sense of urgency. This is an existential threat.”
It appears Mr Gore will not be content until we are all, every last one us, as completely dedicated to global warming mitigation as he is. Yet how is he to instill his required sense of urgency without resorting to shriller and shriller alarmism? His acolytes will almost certainly take up senior positions within the new Administration, but the nation is still likely to balk at the price tag of his solutions. The environmental movement was spending about $100 million on global warming before An Inconvenient Truth came along. With his vast resources – about $300 million, he suggested – and a probable increase in parallel efforts, plus foreign campaigns, it’s quite possible that the climate alarmists are spending half a billion dollars worldwide on the issue annually. Is it possible we’ll see that increase? And if that doesn’t work, what then? One thing’s for sure, Gore isn’t going away, except from reporters.
My colleagues will be providing some commentary on what an Obama presidency means, realistically, for global warming policy. Here, I’m going to comment on environmental policy more generally.
First, I suspect that we will see the EPA Administrator raised to cabinet rank. With this will come a more radical and assertive EPA. This should not be surprising. Even within this Administration, the EPA has been flexing its muscles. The issuance of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act was accompanied by reactions from other government departments about how terrible the rules would be, rather than going through the usual process of dealing with these difficulties internally and watering down the rule. Given that Obama has said he will want the EPA, absent Congressional action, to go ahead with its plans, this may be an indication that EPA will become an agency that, in most cases, is primus inter pares.
[click to continue…]
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 