Social Commitment To Democratic Values Predict Climate Change Concern...

[Higus]

...Except in English speaking western countries, where political party affiliation matters more

https://news.gsu.edu/2018/09/20/com...edict-climate-change-concern-new-study-finds/

Study: Commitment To Democratic Values Predict Climate Change Concern
ATLANTA—Commitment to democratic values is the strongest predictor of climate change concern globally, Georgia State University faculty have found in a new study (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2018.1512261) comparing climate change attitudes across 36 countries, including the U.S.

The article, published this month in Environmental Politics, was based on an analysis of the Pew Research Center’s 2015 Global Attitudes Survey, by professor Gregory Lewis, chair of the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies’ Department of Public Management and Policy; Risa Palm, provost and senior vice president for academic affairs at Georgia State; and Bo Feng with IMPAQ International.

“The biggest surprise in this study is the strength of the Pew measure of commitment to democratic values as a predictor of climate change concern,” Lewis said. “A belief in free elections, freedom of religion, equal rights for women, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and lack of Internet censorship is nearly universal in predicting this attitude. In fact, it is the strongest predictor of climate change concern everywhere except in English-speaking Western democracies, where party identification matters more.”

Earlier research in the U.S. points to political ideology and party identification as driving opinions on climate change. The new study shows fairly similar patterns across English-speaking western democracies and, to a lesser extent, western Europe. However, these factors matter much less in most countries. Gender, age, education and religiosity also have very different impacts in the developed West than in most of the world.

“U.S. patterns differ widely from those in most countries,” Lewis said. “We found that members of the left and liberal parties worry more about the effects of climate change than members of conservative parties in Western democracies, but that’s not so in the rest of the world. Women, young people and those who are less religious express greater concern about climate change in the English-speaking Western democracies. In most of the world, however, gender differences are small, and older and more religious people express more concern.”

These disparities suggest the need for more research in other countries and stronger explanations for the patterns observed there and in the U.S.

“Climate impacts follow no national boundaries, so solutions must be global,” Lewis said. “However, most of the survey research has focused on the U.S., where political ideology and party identification drive opinion. We need to gain a clearer understanding of those who take climate change seriously versus those who doubt it exists in other countries, as well as in the U.S. This knowledge will help all policymakers address the populations most likely to support climate change mitigation efforts and develop the messaging most effective in reaching them.”

Interesting, but maybe not surprising. Anyone have take on why political affiliation has a greater effect on climate change skepticism in the US and Western Europe than other countries?

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Interesting, but maybe not surprising. Anyone have take on why political affiliation has a greater effect on climate change skepticism in the US and Western Europe than other countries?

We know why.

In the US, the right has taken concerted efforts to hide and distort climate change science for decades. And they've added it on to their knapsack of identity politics.

Believing the science that backs man-made climate change is for women, gays, liberals, and Marxists. You can't have a beer with any of these people therefore there's no climate change (or it's natural and not influenced by humans).

 

[Rygu]

I'm a conservative who believes climate change is real. It's existed for several billion years.

What I want to know, and I'm not sure if there's ever been a concrete answer for this, is to what extent, in a percentage, do we as humans accelerate it?

 

[KeepItRealist]

I believe in climate change too, it's part of history. It's the way it's been used as a weapon and for virtue signaling that has poisoned the issue. At the great expense of real and doable environmental concerns. As well as the focus entirely on the West and not Asia. To go along with the hypocrisy and absurd doomsday predictions the same climate scientists have made for decades.

 

[Higus]

I'm a conservative who believes climate change is real. It's existed for several billion years.

What I want to know, and I'm not sure if there's ever been a concrete answer for this, is to what extent, in a percentage, do we as humans accelerate it?

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans

How much warming is caused by humans?
In its 2013 fifth assessment report, the IPCC stated in its summary for policymakers that it is “extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature” from 1951 to 2010 was caused by human activity. By “extremely likely”, it meant that there was between a 95% and 100% probability that more than half of modern warming was due to humans.

This somewhat convoluted statement has been often misinterpreted as implying that the human responsibility for modern warming lies somewhere between 50% and 100%. In fact, as NASA’s Dr Gavin Schmidt has pointed out, the IPCC’s implied best guess was that humans were responsible for around 110% of observed warming (ranging from 72% to 146%), with natural factors in isolation leading to a slight cooling over the past 50 years.

Similarly, the recent US fourth national climate assessment found that between 93% to 123% of observed 1951-2010 warming was due to human activities.

These conclusions have led to some confusion as to how more than 100% of observed warming could be attributable to human activity. A human contribution of greater than 100% is possible because natural climate change associated with volcanoes and solar activity would most likely have resulted in a slight cooling over the past 50 years, offsetting some of the warming associated with human activities.

More info in the link

 

[Higus]

We know why.

In the US, the right has taken concerted efforts to hide and distort climate change science for decades. And they've added it on to their knapsack of identity politics.

Believing the science that backs man-made climate change is for women, gays, liberals, and Marxists. You can't have a beer with any of these people therefore there's no climate change (or it's natural and not influenced by humans).

It's amazing how the right has co-opted toxic masculinity against something like the environment.

The argument is something like:

P1: Liberals care about the environment
P2: Liberals are pussies
C: Denying climate change makes me a manly man

 

[panamaican]

Why is it more party affiliated in the U.S.?

Because there has been a concerted effort by the right wing (to be seen separately from the GOP) to denigrate any science that suggests that their actions/behaviors have negative consequences to others.

The same reason I'm not surprised that a commitment to democratic values in other countries predicts belief in climate change. The core concept of climate change is that we're doing something that is harming the Earth and other people. And any responsible person hearing that will say "I don't want to keep harming others so I'm okay putting some restrictions on my actions." Democratic values are predicated on the same core "group" over "individual" valuations. We're fine with laws that somewhat restrict our personal actions if it betters the community at large.

But when people stop caring about the community at large they're not going to be okay with restrictions on themselves that transfer benefits to an abstract other.

 

[nostradumbass]

Because some parties value freedoms and some value control. I don't know of many people who straight up don't think the earth is getting warmer, it's where that somehow translates to us owing the government more money that people jump ship. If it was "here's this information that you should take into account with some of the decisions you make", I think most people would be on board, but more taxes, regulations, and mandates is where they lose me. At least get one of the predictions right before you start forcing more shit on your citizens.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

We know why.

In the US, the right has taken concerted efforts to hide and distort climate change science for decades. And they've added it on to their knapsack of identity politics.

Believing the science that backs man-made climate change is for women, gays, liberals, and Marxists. You can't have a beer with any of these people therefore there's no climate change (or it's natural and not influenced by humans).

couple that with the Democrats who have sacrificed integrity for convenience time after time thereby destroying their credibility on nearly every issue and you don't have a reliable voice to counter their bullshit and you have a divided gaslit society.

 

[Higus]

Because some parties value freedoms and some value control. I don't know of many people who straight up don't think the earth is getting warmer, it's where that somehow translates to us owing the government more money that people jump ship. If it was "here's this information that you should take into account with some of the decisions you make", I think most people would be on board, but more taxes, regulations, and mandates is where they lose me. At least get one of the predictions right before you start forcing more shit on your citizens.

It's misleading to say that one party values "control" and another party values "freedom". A better explanation is that liberals value uniting for a greater common good at the expense of individual freedom whereas conservatives prefer individual freedom at the expense of achieving a greater good (Not at all how I see modern Capital-C Conservatism, but I'm feeling generous).

You say that people would be on board, but you don't think there should be any legislation to incentivize behavior in the desired direction. Is it possible for such a system to be effective? Or if you prefer, does such a system actually exist and work as intended?

 

[nostradumbass]

It's misleading to say that one party values "control" and another party values "freedom". A better explanation is that liberals value uniting for a greater common good at the expense of individual freedom whereas conservatives prefer individual freedom at the expense of achieving a greater good (Not at all how I see modern Capital-C Conservatism, but I'm feeling generous).

You say that people would be on board, but you don't think there should be any legislation to incentivize behavior in the desired direction. Is it possible for such a system to be effective? Or if you prefer, does such a system actually exist and work as intended?

Off the top of my head, smoking rates have steadily decreased from like 42% of adults to about 14% over the last 50 years from giving people information and letting them decide. American conservatives are also the most charitable group in the most charitable country, significantly more than European countries. There is a tax incentive for that, but people would rather have it be their choice than give it to the government and do it with their own money rather than forcing other people.

 

[panamaican]

Off the top of my head, smoking rates have steadily decreased from like 42% of adults to about 14% over the last 50 years from giving people information and letting them decide. American conservatives are also the most charitable group in the most charitable country, significantly more than European countries. There is a tax incentive for that, but people would rather have it be their choice than give it to the government and do it with their own money rather than forcing other people.

What? Smoking rates have declined because the government has systematically made it more expensive and more difficult to smoke. Additionally, the government, at local levels, has outright banned the practice in many public places.

The amount of government intervention involved in limiting smoking is massive. It is a far cry from simply giving people information.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

If it was "here's this information that you should take into account with some of the decisions you make", I think most people would be on board, but more taxes, regulations, and mandates is where they lose me.

The information to take into account is out there. What voluntary changes in behavior are right-wingers undertaking in order to pitch in with preserving the environment? Or maybe you mean something else by "on board"?

 

[xcvbn]

I'm a conservative who believes climate change is real. It's existed for several billion years.

What I want to know, and I'm not sure if there's ever been a concrete answer for this, is to what extent, in a percentage, do we as humans accelerate it?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clean_Room

Watch or at least read about that episode of Cosmos to get a better understanding of the massively negative effect humans can have on their envronment in a relatively short amount of time. And the massive corruption that hid the impact of lead on the environment by politicians, businessmen, and even doctors.

 

[xcvbn]

What? Smoking rates have declined because the government has systematically made it more expensive and more difficult to smoke. Additionally, the government, at local levels, has outright banned the practice in many public places.

The amount of government intervention involved in limiting smoking is massive. It is a far cry from simply giving people information.

All that good for nothing socialism rearing its ugly head to actual results

 

[nostradumbass]

What? Smoking rates have declined because the government has systematically made it more expensive and more difficult to smoke. Additionally, the government, at local levels, has outright banned the practice in many public places.

The amount of government intervention involved in limiting smoking is massive. It is a far cry from simply giving people information.

That is not why smoking rates have declined. They were declining before they did any of that. The largest tax increase was in 2009 when smoking had already gone down from 42.4% in 1965 to 20.6%. They didn't even ban it on planes until the late 90s. They're taking credit for these taxes and bans being responsible for people quitting, but people were already quitting at roughly the same numbers before that.

 

[nostradumbass]

The information to take into account is out there. What voluntary changes in behavior are right-wingers undertaking in order to pitch in with preserving the environment? Or maybe you mean something else by "on board"?

Right wingers are more environmentally conscious, certainly rural people and hunters. They consume less, fly less, pollute less, they just do it as a matter of course instead of patting themselves on the back for it. Urban left-wing strongholds are where most of the pollution happens. California has 8 of the 10 most polluted cities in the country.

 

[HomerThompson]

(to be seen separately from the GOP)

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Right wingers are more environmentally conscious, certainly rural people and hunters. They consume less, fly less, pollute less, they just do it as a matter of course instead of patting themselves on the back for it. Urban left-wing strongholds are where most of the pollution happens. California has 8 of the 10 most polluted cities in the country.

Doesn't sound like they're making any extra effort at all then. Just doing what they'd normally do and not giving a fuck because they can point to another demographic that contributes more than they do to the problem. But yeah, the left-wingers talk big talk more than they seem to walk the walk.

 

[panamaican]

That is not why smoking rates have declined. They were declining before they did any of that. The largest tax increase was in 2009 when smoking had already gone down from 42.4% in 1965 to 20.6%. They didn't even ban it on planes until the late 90s. They're taking credit for these taxes and bans being responsible for people quitting, but people were already quitting at roughly the same numbers before that.

You're mistaken. The regulations on how smoking was even being presented to the public was under the Fairness Doctrine in 1949. Nixon banned broadcast ads in 1971. The government has been waging a regulatory war on smoking since the 1950's.