Poll: Many pessimistic about environment (MegaBarf Alert!)

AP on Yahoo ^ | 9/26/07 | Alan Fram - ap

[NormsRevenge]

WASHINGTON - People want their leaders to move boldly to help the environment but give them dismal grades for their actions so far, according to a poll released Wednesday that highlighted rampant pessimism on the issue.

Only about one in five voiced approval of how President Bush, Congress and U.S. businesses have been handling the environment. And while decisive majorities said they want strong public and private action, fewer than one in 10 said they had seen such steps in the past year, according to the poll by The Associated Press and Stanford University's Woods Institute for the Environment.

The survey, conducted days before Bush was convening an international climate conference in Washington, showed that though Democrats and independents were consistently more critical than Republicans, anxiety is widespread over the environment and global warming.

"I don't understand why we're letting people destroy the Earth the way we are," said Jerry Menees, 34, an independent voter and truck driver from Potosi, Mo. "It scares me what this world is coming to."

Only about a fifth think the environment is in good or excellent shape, including 39 percent of Republicans. Just over one in 10 think it is faring better than a decade ago or will improve a decade from now, while about eight in 10 say global warming is under way — views that were broadly shared across party lines.

The 84 percent who believe world temperatures are rising is virtually unchanged since Stanford and ABC News conducted a similar poll in March 2006. But while 45 percent of that group said in 2006 they were very or extremely sure, 61 percent said so in this month's survey — including most Democrats and independents and a sizable 39 percent of Republicans.

On the other hand, of the 14 percent who said global temperatures are probably not rising, nearly half say they are very or extremely sure — up from the roughly one-third who felt that strongly last year.

"I don't understand how they can say there is global warming or man causes it when it's a natural cycle of the planet," said Russell Marshall, 34, a student from Enid, Okla., and a Republican. "It's like the planet cleanses itself from time to time by changing temperature."

In some of the starkest partisan differences, Democrats and independents strongly disapprove of Bush's performance on the environment, while Republicans approve by 50 percent to 18 percent. Republicans were also likelier to think Bush and business have caused little harm.

Yet even among the GOP and conservatives, those saying they want Bush, Congress, business or the public to take strong action far outweighed those who said they prefer that little or nothing be done. Nearly six in ten Republicans said there would be serious problems if global warming is not addressed, and more of them said the environment is worse than a decade ago — and will be even worse 10 years from now — than saw improvements.

"I just don't see anything being really aggressively done," said Sonia Alfonso, 50, an interpreter in Greenacres, Fla., and a longtime Republican who is unhappy with Bush and other leaders.

Even so, this year's poll showed slightly smaller numbers of people favoring strong action on the environment than last year, especially among Republicans.

The poll was conducted before this week's meeting of world leaders at the U.N. designed to spark momentum for international talks in December on further limiting emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that cause global warming.

Bush, who has opposed mandatory emissions cuts embraced by 175 other countries in the 1997 Kyoto treaty, is holding his own meetings this week with top officials from countries that are major producers of planet-heating gases.

Under Bush, the U.S. has refused to ratify the Kyoto pact. Arguing that binding caps would hurt the U.S. economy, he prefers long-term voluntary goals and clean energy research.

The survey also comes as the Democratic-led Congress moves slowly on the matter.

A House-passed bill would require most utilities to generate at least 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources like the wind, while the Senate has voted to require Detroit to produce more fuel-efficient autos. Lawmakers must approve a compromise before sending it to Bush.

"I'd like to see the Democrats stand up to Bush, put him on the hot seat," said Sam Butler, 53, a writer from Brooklyn, N.Y., among the nearly two-thirds of Democrats unhappy with Congress' actions. "Congress has to start pushing through alternatives, they've got to start cutting back on oil consumption."

This year has seen growing pressure on the U.S. to act, including a U.N. report concluding that man is almost certainly causing global warming; an Oscar for former Vice President Al Gore's film on rising temperatures, "An Inconvenient Truth"; and a Supreme Court ruling that the government can regulate gases heating the planet.

The survey involved telephone interviews with 1,001 adults from Sept. 21 to 23, and was conducted for the AP and Stanford by Ipsos, the polling company. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

___

AP Director of Surveys Trevor Tompson, AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius and AP writer John Heilprin contributed to this report.

[NormsRevenge]

Ipsos: http://www.ap-ipsosresults.com

Stanford University: http://woods.stanford.edu/docs/surveys/GW_200709_AP_survey.pdf

[NormsRevenge]

Jerry Menees, a 34-year-old truck driver, poses for a portrait Wednesday, Sept. 26, 2007, outside his house in Potosi, Mo. According to a poll by The Associated Press and Stanford University's Woods Institute for the Environment, released Wednesday Americans want their leaders to move boldly to help the environment, but give them dismal grades for their actions so far. 'I don't understand why we're letting people destroy the Earth the way we are,' said Menees, an independent voter. 'It scares me what this world is coming to.' (AP Photo/Whitney Curtis)

[Jaysun]

This kind of nonsense crap wouldn’t matter but I often see people in Congress hold up newspaper articles as arguments for or against something.

[Archon of the East]

Somebody please tell me just what is actually wrong with the environment? And why does every environmental problem require a political solution and a subsequent tax. Oops I just answered my own question.

[george76]

[Popocatapetl]

It’s surprising that nobody has pointed out the obvious about improving the environment. That is, everybody wants a nicer place to live, that’s a given. It is how you go about doing that where all the controversy exists.

A simple rule for environmental improvement should be: if political power needs to change hands, or government needs more power or control to improve the environment, then the environment is not the issue; it is just an excuse to take power and money from somebody and give it to somebody else.

Most really good changes to the environment just need a limited number of people doing a few things. They DON’T need the attention of the public as a whole. They DON’T need enormous amounts of money. They DON’T take decades or hundreds of years to fix. And MOST OF ALL, they DON’T need for political power to change hands, OR for government to become more powerful.

This means that there are two kinds of people who are activists about the environment. Scientists who use science to make small changes that improve things. And politicals, who want to *use* environmentalism to get more power, control, and money.

The former group are often sensible and logical. The latter group are so obsessed with power, control and money that they should never have any of them.

[L98Fiero]

This is just an AP hit-piece.

[Libertarian444]

[BookmanTheJanitor]

Jerry Menees, a 34-year-old truck driver

Gee...they didn't ask the truck driver what he thought about the 50 cent gas tax proposed by the Democrats? Surprising. (sarcasm)

[JennysCool]

“Many” are usually pretty dumb.

As are the “Some” in the media’s other favorite ploy, “Some Say...”

[JennysCool]

Actually, there’s another group — the farmers and ranchers who actually work the land. It is in their best interest to keep it in great shape, and thus they are the hands-on experts.

No ivory towers on the range.

[Publius6961]

Poll: Many pessimistic about environment (MegaBarf Alert!)

"Many" is a meandering ignorant busybody, with lots of opinions and no real knowledge to back up anything.

The easiest job in the world (next to destroying what others have built) is to criticize.

It requires no effort, no creativity, nothing. Zippo. Nada.

The progressives and environmentalists and the demagogues are perfectly suited to the task.

Just saying.

[saganite]

The brainwashing has worked. It’s going to be a long slide into darkness if we can’t get people to wake up to the truth.

[FlingWingFlyer]

I think Jerry could give us a headstart on stopping the destruction by parking his diesel-guzzling, pollution-belching truck. It would probably cut down on the dust in the air also. I’ll bet that’s something the poser doesn’t want to hear.

[I still care]

The left amazes me. They’ve scared everyone to death, and now there’s no way to fix it except wreck the economy doing it.

The democrats hate Bush and want power so much they’ve painted themselves into all these corners. And when it comes down to it, they can’t do what they’ve promised, whether it’s Iraq or the environment, without destroying the economy. And they don’t really want that.

[biscuit jane]

G76 — cute pic ! VERRY funny !!

Hey does that little critter work for Green Peace ??

[SuziQ]

With the constant negative media drumbeat about the environment, what else do they expect folks to say?

[Popocatapetl]

Actually, US farmers long ago realized they had to be cutting edge on technology to succeed. Unfortunately, the family farm business model has been massacred by corporate farming, with economy of scale in their advantage. Management is often Dilbert-style, with corporate desk jockeys making “field” decisions based on spreadsheets.

The mega-farm approach would have collapsed a long time ago except for continual technological advances that save them from horrible mistakes. But there’s a problem with relying on future technologies to cover your rear from your current mistakes.

The outlook is not entirely gloomy, though, as there have been some amazing advances that should keep the system moving ahead for many decades at least.

A huge shot in the arm has come with the invention of a new class of water purifier incorporating nanotechnology, which can generate high volumes with only 1/4th of the energy of typical reverse osmosis. This is promising vast amounts of fresh water all over the world, to everyone’s benefit, and the reduction of salinization contamination for many square miles of farmland currently polluted.

[dfwgator]

Maybe if Jerry ate a salad once in awhile that would also help the environment.