Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com
SPONSORED BY
Full Post
Posted Friday, September 19, 2008 2:36 PM

GOP vs. Dems: The Climate Chasm

Sharon Begley

Hard to believe, but Republicans once took the lead in environmental protection and conservation: Richard Nixon proposed the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and signed the law establishing it in 1970. George Bush (#41) signed an important extension of the Clean Air Act in 1990 and made the U.S. a signatory to the international treaty that paved the way for the Kyoto Treaty on climate change. Theodore Roosevelt pioneered the creation of the country’s national parks.

 

Then there is today.

Advertisement

 

In an eye-opening essay in Environment magazine, two scholars examine the partisan divide on the leading environmental issue of the day, global warming. Sociologists Riley E. Dunlap of Oklahoma State University and Aaron M. McCright of Michigan State University trace this to the Reagan administration’s calling environmental regulations a burden on the economy and to the anti-environmental bent of the Republicans who took control of Congress (led by Newt Gingrich) in 1994. But a partisan divide that was originally most apparent among “political elites, such as members of Congress, who tend to be more ideologically polarized than the general public,” has now spread, the authors write. As recently as the mid-1990s Democratic voters supported increased spending on environmental protection at rates only 10 percent higher than self-identified Republicans, but that gap is now a chasm.

 

To wit:

  • 76% of Democrats believe global warming is already happening; 42 percent of Republicans do, according to a Gallup poll. (In 1997, nearly identical percentages of Republicans and Democrats—48 and 52 percent, respectively—said they thought global warming was already happening.)
  • Does the press exaggerate the seriousness of global warming? 17% of Democrats say yes; 59% of Republicans do—a gap of 42 points.
  • Do most scientists who study climate change agree that it is empirically established? 75% of Dems say yes, compared to 54% of Republicans.
  • Is that warming natural or caused by human activities? 72% of Dems say it’s the latter, but only 40% of Republicans do.
  • Will global warming pose a serious threat during our lifetime? 49% of Dems say yes, vs. 26% of Republicans.


Perhaps these gaps are yet another reflection of political polarization, write Dunlap and McCright, including the movement of those who hold one or another belief about climate change to the party that embodies that view, something called “party sorting.”

Interestingly, John McCain has for years taken a position closer to the Democrats, sponsoring legislation (never passed) to control emissions of carbon dioxide. On this issue, write the authors, McCain’s “positions are much closer to Obama’s than they are to almost all of his Republican congressional colleagues. Both McCain and Obama support a mandatory cap on carbon emissions and a high percentage emissions reductions target by 2050 (though Obama’s target is higher). . . . If McCain becomes the next U.S. president, his views on climate change may lead to a shift in the views of some Republicans, but probably not those who have bought into the staunch skepticism of current party elites.” Unless, of course, he defers to his running mate’s interesting views on climate (Sarah Palin does not believe the changes already underway are caused by human activities that add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere) and other scientific issues.

You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: karidrgn (October 17, 2008 at 4:57 PM)

Well, Scottar - what will you do when we can no longer find oil or what we can find is more expensive than alternative energies?  That's one of the reasons the US is so cosy with dictators over in the middle east and the real reason why we went to war in the Gulf twice now.  Counting all the known oil reserves in US territory - even the stuff in ANWAR and ALL the off shore we have only 3% of the worlds oil reserves.  We USE %25 of the worlds oil.  It's not just a matter of climate, it's a matter of national security and the continuation of our way of life.  Like the polar bear or other creatures, we will have to adapt or die.  Or do something about it.  Denver is a better place to live because we heeded environmentalists and cleaned up our air.  The world will be a better place to live when we take better care of it.  Or I guess you don't care about that or the future of human life on earth  cause gw could make us extinct like it did to 98% of life on earth after the pre-cambrian era.  You only care about making $$$$.


Posted By: Scottar (September 27, 2008 at 12:41 AM)

For 10 years I have been researching the phenomenon of global warming. One good source reference is http://adognamedkyoto.blogspot.com. Although it is a bolg, the info collected has good substantiated references. It also has good links to other valid sites about the true nature of global warming.

Global Warming has suddenly morphed into Climate Change. I guess greenies got a brand new bag. But what really ires me is that the mantra of global warming has been use to equivocate to the small human contribution that people automatically associate AGW directly with GW or CC. This is a form of brain washing and entrapment for those who dispel that man caused emissions are overall driving GW. Proponents use excerpted and hyped science to make the human contribution bigger than it actually is. Anyone who disagrees is automatically labeled as in denial of the global warming event and demonized.

The IPCC has used a flawed peer review process to make it appear that the 2,500 scientists that they have gather reports from have supported the IPCC's panel conclusions on GW and AGW. They have cleverly exaggerated AGW by clever structuring of their reports..

The Democrats, who comprise more of the liberal extremist and social activists, have embraced the hysteria of global warming to further their social agendas though controls on energy and taxes and pollution. It's easy to fool the ignorant with deceptive, alarmists claims like Al Gore is doing. The current economic fiasco is mostly the result of Democrats pushing relaxed credit ratings to allow people to buy homes and other stuff that under the old guidlines they couldn't have. In 1999, under the Clinton administration, legislation removed Depression-era barriers between commercial banks and investment firms and allowed the creation of financial behemoths that led to the  underwriting  of subprime mortgages. McCain tried to summit a bill to regulate the process back in 2005 but the Democrats killed it.

The same thing is happening in the climate change hysteria over CO2 emissions. Democrats are overall pushing for ineffective alternative technology that can't replace fossil fuels and nuclear. Special corporate and financial groups have developed technology to cap or sequester CO2 due to this pumping up of global warming hysteria. Since they will gain from the mandated caps and subsides they will push the AGW agenda as it is less costly then fighting it. The democrats are taking the voter for a ride down poverty lain due to this hysteria. It's all part of getting the public more dependent on their great society programs and ensuring job security.

So before you drink this feel good koolaide remember who initially pushed the liberalization of credit and loan qualifications and where it has presently led the country. The best intentions are often paved with fool's gold.


Posted By: true_patriot (September 21, 2008 at 3:52 PM)

Too bad McCain won't stick to his original positions and must appeal to the Republican base. But one then wonders what he would really do after elected, especially if he only intends to run for one term. Not knowing what he really stands for, and the possibility of no accountability is scary.