Citizens for Global Solutions

U.S. GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT | Americans on Climate Change

PUBLIC BELIEVE CLIMATE CHANGE IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM: Strongly Support McCain-Lieberman Legislation

June 25, 2004 -- A recent poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks, funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation, found that three out of four Americans believe that climate change is a major problem, and eight of ten support the McCain-Lieberman climate change legislation currently in the Senate.

This nationwide poll, conducted by Steven Kull of the Program on International Policy Attitudes, analyzed the views of 753 Americans between June 8 and June 14, 2004. PIPA’s previous study on climate change, conducted in 1998, found that a strong majority of those polled saw the importance of taking action against climate change. Since then, however, security issues over the war on terror, war in Iraq and 9/11 have significantly overshadowed other topics of debate. This poll, therefore, aims to establish whether the change in public attention has led to a change in public opinion.

It has been several years since abrupt climate change was considered to be a major issue of policy debate in the U.S. Congress. Now, however, its importance has once again become apparent, as demonstrated by the relative success of the Senate version of S. 139, programs/glob_engage/Legislation/S.139.html"> The Climate Stewardship Act. The act, sponsored by Republican John McCain and Democrat Joseph Lieberman, proved to be more successful than previously expected - with 43 winning votes - and subsequently captured the attention of the press and brought the issue of regulating greenhouse gas emissions back to the debating table, several years after the U.S. withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocols.

In analyzing the most important aspects of the poll, it is clear that the overall view of the public about climate change is that it is important, with three out of four Americans believing that global warming is a major problem that requires action. This figure is not contested, although most people are divided on the question of how pressing the problem is and how soon action is needed. The cost of undertaking urgent action will no doubt place a higher price tag on the ways and means of going about it, whereas dealing more gradually with the problem will ensure a lower cost base.

The findings show that of those polled, 45% believe that gradual steps will be sufficient in dealing with climate change – an increase of 3% since the 1998 study – whereas 31% assert that the problem is very serious and that more urgent steps need to be taken – a decrease of 10% from the 1998 poll. Furthermore, 23% are unconvinced that global warming is a real problem at all, and argue that until we know for sure, steps that involve significant economic costs should be avoided. This figure is an increase of 8% since 1998 and these percentages overall show that during the interim period, the security conscious U.S. public does not see climate change as being as pressing an issue as it did prior to 9/11. Despite this, however, the majority of those polled believe that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is beneficial to the U.S. economy in the long-run, with eight out of ten asserting that President Bush should develop a strategy to combat this problem.

There is no doubt that the majority of Americans support the Climate Stewardship Act and its targets for large companies to reduce their emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 and 1990 levels by 2020. A massive 81% said they favored the legislation with only 16% opposed to it. It is also worth noting that this opinion represents an essentially non-partisan consensus, with 77% of Republicans, 85% of Democrats and 79% of independents in favor of the legislation. However, during his presentation, Kull noted that Republicans, who seem to prefer a realist, security conscious global strategy, are the group more likely to favor a gradual approach to the climate change issue. Democrats, on the other hand, prefer a more urgent approach.

The poll also found that overwhelming numbers of people support the idea of giving tax incentives to utility companies that sell environmentally clean energy, as well as people that purchase energy-efficient appliances. Other demands such as higher fuel efficiency standards in automobiles despite higher costs, with a target that half of all new vehicles should be hybrid electric by 2010, were made by the public. This is interesting for it demonstrates just how concerned the American people are about the potential problems arising from greenhouse gas emissions. The fact that people are prepared to pay more to guarantee more energy efficient fuel serves to emphasize just how seriously this issue is taken.

Although the Climate Stewardship Act undeniably commands a great deal of support amongst the American people, there are controversial aspects that did not garner the same level of support – notably, enabling companies to buy and sell the right to produce greenhouse gases. 77% of the U.S. public is opposed to this incentive, saying that it is counterproductive for some companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, only to credit the leftover allowance to another entity.

The poll also looked at the issue of greenhouse gas emissions from developing countries. Although 22% said such countries should be made to cut their emissions and 42% said they should primarily be made to minimize their emissions rather than directly cut back, the middle ground - comprising 33% of those polled – supported the argument that developing countries should not be made to cut back their emissions until countries in the developed world had led the way. This can be seen as a fundamental requirement for developed countries to set a precedent and an example. Certainly, for the U.S., which produces the third largest greenhouse gas emissions per capita between Australia and Canada, this is an extremely important and potentially influential goal.

The debate about Climate change is currently enjoying a prime place in the popular focus of the U.S., and the release of Hollywood blockbuster “The Day After Tomorrow” has come at a good time to lend credibility to the argument. Not only will the medium of film no doubt appeal to certain groups who may not fully understand the concept of global warming, some commentators have suggested that this will help to sensitize the public to such issues. It is no secret that climate change has had a troubled past in U.S. politics, in terms of being taken seriously. In 1997, the U.S played an active role in helping to draft the Kyoto Protocol and was heavily engaged in negotiating the protocol and overseeing the inclusion of a market system in emission allowances. Despite this, the Senate rejected the treaty 98-0, and the Bush administration put an end to U.S. involvement in the negotiations. The McCain-Lieberman legislation currently on the debating table, if passed, would lay the domestic foundations for U.S. integration into global efforts to control climate change.

+ TAKE ACTION