When compared to other issues (I had been planning to use a different article, but Tom Nelson linked to a better one)
(NORC) A newly released international study reveals that the issue of climate change is not a priority for people in the United States and around the world.
The surveys showed that when asked to rank priority worries, people were five times more likely to point to the economy over the environment. Additionally, when asked about climate change, people identified the issue as more of a national problem than a personal concern.
Coordinated surveys, conducted by the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) in 33 countries from 1993 through 2010, “are the first and only surveys that put long-term attitudes toward environmental issues in general and global climate change in particular in an international perspective,†said Tom W. Smith, Director of the General Social Survey, a project of the independent research organization NORC at the University of Chicago, and author of a paper that summarizes the surveys.
The economy ranked highest in concern in 15 countries, followed by health care in eight, education in six, poverty in two, and terrorism and crime in one country each. Immigration and the environment did not make the top of the list in any country over the 17-year period; in the United States, the economy ranked as the highest concern, while concern for the environment ranked sixth.
In terms of national averages, the order of concern was the economy (25 percent); health care (22.2) education (15.6); poverty (11.6); crime (8.6) environment (4.7), immigration (4.1) and terrorism (2.6), the surveys showed. Terrorism’s low ranking was notable in light of the widespread attention the issue has received since 2001, though it topped the list of concerns in Turkey.
And when you dig into the “environment” category
Air pollution ranked first in 13 countries, followed by climate change, which was the top concern in 10 countries. In another question, the surveys asked people which environmental problem they considered most personally dangerous and found that in only three countries was climate change listed as the most dangerous environmental problem, trailing nuclear power plants and industrial air pollution.
“One reason for the relatively low ranking of climate change is that people often believed it did not directly affect them. Climate change is seen more as a country-level problem than as a personal problem,†Smith said. “While 14.6 percent cited it as the most important environmental issue for their country, only 9 percent rated it first for themselves.â€
Color me shocked that people who care about “climate change” for the country aren’t too concerned with their own behaviors. They always want Someone Else to pay the piper.
To be fair, “let someone else pay for it,” or Homer Simpson’s “can’t someone ELSE do it?” is a pretty popular view, unfortunately.
I think the real reason the “Global Warming/Climate Change” movement isn’t getting any traction is threefold;
Firstly, and most recently, their head mouthpiece, Al Gore, just demonstrated how he clearly doesn’t believe the rhetoric. From his lifestyle to his sale of Current TV to Al-Jazheera, he’s demonstrated that his actions and his words are rather far apart.
Secondly, the economy IS more important. Where is the common sense in scuttling the economy (nevermind that Obama is doing that anyway) when it is already faltering? Maybe, if we were living high off the hog just prior to the dotcom crash, we might be convinced to seriously fund alternatives. That, and the fact that oil companies and the like ARE researching “cleaner” energy, because whomever can make it work will be rick beyond the dreams of avarice!
Thirdly, and most personally, personal experience shows how many times the “Climate Change” crew has moved the goalposts since at LEAST the 1970’s. I was born in 1971 — so I remember how we were headed into a new Ice Age if we didn’t act! Then it was the ozone layer, and how we would all bake from reflected heat. Now, anything from a spring shower to a blizzard (that paled in comparison to the Blizzard of 1978 here in the Northeast) is somehow related to “Climate Change.”
And none of those reasons even reflect the unwillingness and inability of the scientists to actually PROVE that any such thing exists!
And letting someone else pay for it (although those people ARE paying for it, they’re just too ignorant or stupid to see it) is the American Way — certainly since Obama was elected.
well certainly the immediate effects of both nukes and industrial pollution far out way those of climate change. But we the Japanese and the europeans have all stopped building nukes and seem to be controlling air pollution also.
well certainly the immediate effects of both nukes and industrial pollution far out way those of climate change. But we the Japanese and the europeans have all stopped building nukes and seem to be controlling air pollution also.
And look what has happened in those countries john. With higher energy prices, companies are leaving Germany. People in England are stealing and burning wood which is much more polluting than nukes.
The bottom line is that people of your ilk are against clean, abundant energy and have to rely on artificial means to compete within the market. That artificial competition hurts companies, consumers and ultimately, the economy.
But you don’t care about that.
So john, why do you hate clean, abundant energy for the masses? Why do you want people to lose their jobs and pay more for energy?
(yawn)
You need new material, gity. (Not that I’m optimistic that it will be any less boring than your current trite material, you retard.)