Americans are less supportive of climate change action than people in other countries. This disconnect makes it unlikely the U.S. will pass meaningful policy before the next international meeting and American politicians need to assume more of a leadership role.
It is clear that worldwide support for serious action on climate change remains robust even during a global recession. A recent Globescan Survey polled over 24,000 individuals in 23 countries and found that 64% of people think climate change is a “very serious” problem, up from 44% of those polled in 1998.
Sadly, Americans ranked below the average with 45%, a decrease from 50% in 2007. This has left the scientific and environmental community confused on the next steps towards addressing climate change in the United States. Scientists find they must, once again, expend time and resources to fight climate change skepticism rather than focus on the political solutions that are desperately needed.
The gap between global and national opinion on the importance of climate action is a serious impediment towards finding a global solution. If our energy is being expelled towards convincing the average American that climate change is actually a real threat, then we have little hope of passing legislation before the next round of international negotiations.
Politics as usual in Washington does not help. Politicians have taken a bi-partisan issue and polarized it, creating a two-sided debate that halts progress and distracts from the real issue at hand. The American Clean Energy and Security Act, the first climate legislation before Congress, passed through the House with support from 82% of Democrats and barely 1% support of Republicans. This drastic divide between parties creates doubt and doesn’t help to take the necessary steps towards a future policy that would gain broad public support.
Politicians from both parties need to start making the necessary political moves towards successful climate legislation. Politics as usual will not solve the climate crises and will only add to the perception that America, the second largest global emitter, is unable to innovate and be a leader on the pressing international issues of our time.
Other countries have already taken the lead and are implementing effective policies that reduce their carbon footprint without hindering economic growth. Sweden, for example, cut its carbon emissions by 9% between 1990 and 2006 while still enjoying an economic growth of 44% in fixed prices.
If the United States allows itself to fall behind the international climate debate we will be, in the end, the losers. By allowing science to become the subject of partisan rhetoric we diminish our power abroad and narrow the window of opportunity to reverse the effects of climate change.
Tags: Carbon, Climate, international polciy, politics, politics as usual, public opinion, u.s. policy
With climate science naysayers in the U.S. and a public that does not view climate change as “very serious”, partisanship can only be overcome with credible economic and security arguments in support of a price on carbon . Countries like China, India, in Asia and in Europe, are investing heavily to be leaders in a post-carbon energy world. A price on carbon helps incentivize redirection of energy sector capital from carbon intensive energy development to renewable energy development. This, in turn, reduces our reliance on foreign oil, enabling us to increasingly repatriate our capital from countries who wish us harm to our citizens who drive our prosperity. Fiscal conservatives fearful of big government never support a price on carbon unless it is revenue neutral, offset by some sort of tax relief, such as a payroll or business tax reduction. In the end, only money and security will win the day; concerns for natural systems upon which our prosperity depends must be secondary.