Social surveys suggest that the American public’s concern about climate change has declined dramatically since 2008. This has led to a search for explanations for this decline, and great deal of speculation that there has been a fundamental shift in public trust in climate science. We evaluate over thirty years of public opinion data about global warming and the environment, and suggest that the decline in belief about climate change is most likely driven by the economic insecurity caused by the Great Recession. Evidence from European nations further supports an economic explanation for changing public opinion. The pattern is consistent with more than forty years of public opinion about environmental policy. Popular alternative explanations for declining support – partisan politicization, biased media coverage, fluctuations in short-term weather conditions – are unable to explain the suddenness and timing of opinion trends. The implication of these findings is that the “crisis of confidence” in climate change will likely rebound after labor market conditions improve, but not until then.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.01.002

Related posts:

1. Recent trends in public perception of climate change mirror opposite of scientific confidence and media coverage
2. Understanding U.S. public support for domestic climate change policies

Global Conservation Maps

No related posts.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.12.007

Related posts:

1. Declining public concern about climate change: Can we blame the great recession?
2. Climate research and policy advice: scientific and cultural constructions of knowledge

A typical year in this country features three or four weather disasters whose costs exceed $1 billion each. But this year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has tallied a dozen such events, including wildfires in the Southwest, floods in multiple regions of the country and a deadly spring tornado season. And the agency has not finished counting. The final costs are certain to exceed $50 billion.“I’ve been a meteorologist 30 years and never seen a year that comes close to matching 2011 for the number of astounding, extreme weather events,” Jeffrey Masters, a co-founder of the popular Web site Weather Underground, said last month. “Looking back in the historical record, which goes back to the late 1800s, I can’t find anything that compares, either.”
…
Many of the individual events in 2011 do have precedents in the historical record. And the nation’s climate has featured other concentrated periods of extreme weather, including severe cold snaps in the early 20th century and devastating droughts and heat waves in the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s.
But it is unusual, if not unprecedented, for so many extremes to occur in such a short span. The calamities in 2011 included wildfires that scorched millions of acres, extreme flooding in the Upper Midwest and the Mississippi River Valley and heat waves that shattered records in many parts of the country. Abroad, massive floods inundated Australia, the Philippines and large parts of Southeast Asia.

Climate Scientists Hampered in Study of 2011 Extremes – NYTimes.com

Related posts:

1. Relative increase of record high maximum temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the U.S.
2. Future Food Insecurity with Unprecedented Seasonal Heat

Understanding fishermen’s perspectives and responses relating to climate variability is important for sustainable fisheries management. To this end, a survey of captains of commercial passenger fishing vessels (CPFVs) was conducted in San Diego. The survey demonstrates that fishermen have observed and adapted to changes in the environment and fish populations associated with climate variability. However, only 12.9% of respondents agreed that global climate change is a possibility. In order to explain fishermen’s divergent beliefs on climate change, a semiparametric discrete choice model is used to identify the potential determinants. The empirical results highlight the importance of the following factors: fishermen’s experience, observations of the phenomena that are associated with climate variability, and an interaction of fishermen’s experience and their observations.

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2011.06.001

No related posts.

Here is my comment:

As commonly understood, conservatism is tied to the notion of non-interference, which in turn comes from the highest good of total individual liberty. In the conservative’s perfect world, each of us could do as we please with minimal interference. Liberalism, in our age, is a ramped up humanism, based on the highest good of salubrious control exercised by human reason. In the liberal’s perfect world, humanity designs a society where everyone is healthy, wealthy, and wise. There is no reason why a conservative cannot be an environmentalist or a liberal, un-environmental if one realizes that an out-of-kilter environment considerably curtails individual freedoms or that even the best environmental design and control intentions can go awry.

No related posts.