Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: GOP poll has Dold up by 7, but DCCC calls it “a joke”
Next Post: Rauner to close Stateville’s roundhouse
Posted in:
* From the Paul Simon Institute…
A majority of registered voters in Illinois believe the earth is getting warmer because of human activity rather than natural patterns, according to the latest poll from the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University Carbondale.
There are 57 percent who believe human activity causes global warming while 25 percent believe in natural causes. Only 12 percent claim there is no evidence the earth is getting warmer, while 7 percent haven’t formed an opinion.
The survey of 1000 registered voters was taken Sept. 27-Oct. 2. It has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.
Another question asked whether to prioritize environmental protection or economic growth. Sixty-four percent believe that the environment should be given priority even at the cost of economic growth, while 27 percent believe that economic growth should be prioritized.
Shiloh Deitz, a researcher at the Institute, said “Voters understand environmental issues and are willing to prioritize them.”
Among the poll’s findings:
• Opinions differ about the environment across party and ideological lines: 82 percent of liberals believe climate change is due to human activity, only 28 percent of conservatives believe the same.
• While most liberals (80 percent) would prioritize the environment over economic growth, conservatives are split with 44 percent wishing to prioritize the environment and an almost equal 43 percent who want to focus on economic growth.
• Sixty-six percent of respondents under 50 see climate change as the result of human activity, compared to 55 percent of people age 51 to 65, and 47 percent of those over 66 years.
Deitz said “there is a stark contrast of these opinions across age groups. Gen X-ers and millennials have grown up with environmental awareness campaigns and this is clear in the results,” she said. “Younger people are most likely to see climate change as a result of human activity and want to prioritize environmental preservation even at the cost of economic growth.”
Only 7 percent of millennials believe that there is no evidence the earth is getting warmer, compared to 16 percent of adults over 66. Seventy-nine percent of those under 35 would prioritize the environment, while 61 percent of those over 66 would do the same.
One trend in the data indicates the Republican Party may soon grow more environmentalist. Nearly half (49 percent) of Republicans or conservatives under age 50 believe human activity can be blamed for the earth getting warmer compared to only a quarter of those over 50. Sixty-two percent of Republicans or conservatives under 50 would prioritize the environment even at the cost of economic growth compared to only 41 percent of Republicans or conservatives over 50.
* Let’s take a look at two charts based on that last paragraph above about the age split among Republicans/conservatives…
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 9:40 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: GOP poll has Dold up by 7, but DCCC calls it “a joke”
Next Post: Rauner to close Stateville’s roundhouse
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
When has science ever been right?
Comment by Downstate GOP Faithless Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 9:45 am
SMH
Comment by Piece of Work Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 9:46 am
This poll is abstract to the point of meaningless. How much sacrifice are they willing to make before they say “ok, enough “prioritizing” of environmental protection.” Willing to drive 55 and have it strictly enforced? Give up SUV’s and go back to station wagons? Keep the thermostat no lower than 78 in the summer?
It’s like the tax debate here - most here are for higher taxes because they love the upside, but ask them how much more a Illinois median income family should be paying and they go quiet.
Comment by lake county democrat Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 9:48 am
I’m actually pretty surprised these results are this high, though I have noticed a discernible shift even among more conservative folks towards finally accepting that science is a thing
Comment by JohnnyPyleDriver Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 9:51 am
So almost 1/4 of conservatives over 50 don’t even believe the earth is getting warmer.
It must be those new darned thermometers measure the temperatures hotter
Comment by Name/Nickname/Anon Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 9:51 am
Our wasting of food (which is huge), overuse of air conditioning and heat and modern farming practices are all major contributors to pollution. My issue with the climate control policy is that it seems to skirt issues that would inconvenience voters but have real results. It only looks at policies that would benefit some select companies and benefits are not really seen until well into the future.
Comment by Patty T Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 9:59 am
“So almost 1/4 of conservatives over 50 don’t even believe the earth is getting warmer.”
Now that’s a cheap shot, they have global warming on the agenda for discussion during their meetings to discuss getting the “round earth idea” out of school text books.
Comment by Give Me A Break Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:08 am
I think the ice has been melting since the last ice age and ocean levels rising. Human activity the cause of mars warming up too?
Comment by Rabid Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:09 am
I’m pretty confused by these results. So, only 28 percent of conservatives think climate change is caused by humans, yet 44 percent of them want to prioritize environmental protection over economic growth? Those aren’t logically inconsistent positions; scientific evidence aside, it’s still possible to believe that while humans may not be causing climate change, it’s still happening, so we’re going to need to do something about it. Still, my impression has been that “I don’t believe people are causing climate change” is usually a conservative excuse to oppose policies that protect the environment possibly at the expense of economic growth. Lake County Democrat is right that the results might have been different if the poll had asked about specific policies. Still, that’s interesting. I wonder if it’s that much of the state still has a strong connection to hunting, fishing, parks, recreational use of land, etc… and so maybe this answer among conservatives is more about conservation than, say, limiting carbon emissions?
Comment by Commander Norton Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:10 am
Commander Norton, there are other environmental issues besides the hot button climate change, like drinking water, for instance.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:13 am
Wow, didn’t see that one coming. Great…great…a bit of narrative victory on this scorched battlefield.
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:14 am
==I think the ice has been melting since the last ice age and ocean levels rising.==
“Twentieth century sea level trends, however, are substantially higher that those of the last few thousand years. The current phase of accelerated sea level rise appears to have begun in the mid/late 19th century to early 20th century, based on coastal sediments from a number of localities. Twentieth century global sea level, as determined from tide gauges in coastal harbors, has been increasing by 1.7-1.8 mm/yr, apparently related to the recent climatic warming trend. Most of this rise comes from warming of the world’s oceans and melting of mountain glaciers, which have receded dramatically in many places especially during the last few decades.”
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/
==Human activity the cause of mars warming up too?==
There are no humans on mars, and there is no warming on mars. And even if there were warming on mars, different events on different planets can, and often do, have different causes
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm
Comment by JohnnyPyleDriver Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:27 am
It is possible to have economic growth while protecting the environment, and it’s probably necessary for sustaining our lifestyle and bringing a better one to other parts of the world, but it won’t be easy. Somehow we have managed to keep nudging the MPG of the overall vehicle fleet up while still selling millions of vehicles a year. And closing some dirty power plants that were unreasonably close to the population. There are very few people I meet who have no regard for the environment; it’s mostly a question of what tradeoffs people will accept, and what really works vs. what is only a feel-good exercise that doesn’t move the needle.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:30 am
It’s not an either/or proposition. You can have both.
The “environmental regulators are killing economic growth” argument is corporate spin intended to allow for more pollution to pad corporate profit margins.
But they never get around to factoring in the real costs of increased water, air and soil pollution to health and future uses.
The oil and car companies screamed bloody murder about the costs of removing lead from gasoline and paint. Did that put them out of business?
Was the “cost” of healthier children worth it?
If you want to see no-environmental-regulation in action, today, visit the industrial centers of China. They’re choking their people to death.
And those people are rising up over that issue, in a system where protest can get you a date with the hangman.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:36 am
I’ve always found it interesting how we pit environmental protection against economic growth. When done right environmental protection can help the economy grow.
But I understand the skepticism to that notion. After all, the Clean Air Act decimated entire communities in Southern Illinois. There should have been retraining clauses to make up for coal mining job loss. Instead a lot of Southern Illinois had to completely remake its economy–which I argue they successively did–without help from the people who shut down the old one.
Comment by Chicago_Downstater Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:39 am
Perhaps those of us over 50 are more skeptical because in the 70’s we were told we would run out of oil by now and in the 80’s we were told the hole in the ozone layer would destroy all life on earth by now.
Comment by A Jack Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:50 am
I think more and more people are figuring out that if we don’t take care of the planet, it will be harder to maintain economic growth and the standard of living for both current and future generations will suffer as a result.
Comment by Going nuclear Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:55 am
The real battle will be when climate forces us to rethink land use. The damage cost estimates for Hurricane Mathew are in the billions because we allow development along vulnerable coasts and rivers.
Republicans hate land use planning and regulation.
Comment by Sir Reel Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:56 am
LOL!
The sign of a wealthy society is it’s obsessions over trivial stuff instead of food, water, shelter or survival.
“Yeah, we don’t need economic growth!”
LOL
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:58 am
===Perhaps those of us over 50 are more skeptical because in the 70’s we were told we would run out of oil by now and in the 80’s we were told the hole in the ozone layer would destroy all life on earth by now.===
There is that, and some in the environmental movement have done their cause a disservice by crying wolf too much and making hyperbolic predictions that demonstrably fall flat. All things being equal, I’d rather breathe the air and drink the water in Chicago rather than Guangzhou.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 11:00 am
–“Yeah, we don’t need economic growth!”
LOL–
Who said that?
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 11:21 am
==Perhaps those of us over 50 are more skeptical because in the 70’s we were told we would run out of oil by now and in the 80’s we were told the hole in the ozone layer would destroy all life on earth by now.==
The only way we continue to access oil is by continuing to come up with more complex and expensive ways to get at it. and we fixed the ozone through the Montreal Protocol, a Bush 1 program that laid the groundwork for cap and trade
Comment by JohnnyPyleDriver Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 11:28 am
==There is that, and some in the environmental movement have done their cause a disservice by crying wolf too much and making hyperbolic predictions that demonstrably fall flat.==
There is a vigorous debate in the scientific community about how to deliver important scientific information to people. They tried for decades to just deliver the bland facts. They were ignored as boring nerds. So they made a movie and some graphs, and a very few of the most fervent ones exaggerated their claims, though most of that was in the media. They’re screwed either way they go. But on the whole, their predictions have been pretty on point
Comment by JohnnyPyleDriver Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 11:30 am
Wow, what great news for Rauner - economic growth doesn’t matter! IL has that the no growth thing covered.
Comment by Angry Republican Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 11:51 am
The magnetic north pole moving fast than any time in human history, south Atlantic anomaly growing, those pesky humans
Comment by Rabid Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 12:10 pm
If we do not protect the environment, there will not be an economy left to grow. The facts are that ocean temperatures have steadily risen (a key ingredient in hurricane intensification), air temperatures have steadily risen, and atmospheric CO2 concentration has never been higher. The science behind global warming is rock solid.
Comment by Chicagonk Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 12:36 pm
Spock said global cooling…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei-_SXLMMfo
Comment by Liberty Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 12:41 pm
“…[youth] have grown up with environmental awareness campaigns”. Is that what those have been? “Awareness campaigns?” How amusing.
Comment by Beeker Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 12:46 pm
Don’t tell me about global warming when a sci-fi tv actor said it was getting colder 40 years ago!
Comment by JohnnyPyleDriver Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 12:51 pm
lake county democrat - Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 9:48 am:
“This poll is abstract to the point of meaningless. How much sacrifice are they willing to make before they say “ok, enough “prioritizing” of environmental protection.” Willing to drive 55 and have it strictly enforced? Give up SUV’s and go back to station wagons? Keep the thermostat no lower than 78 in the summer?
It’s like the tax debate here - most here are for higher taxes because they love the upside, but ask them how much more a Illinois median income family should be paying and they go quiet.”
Well stated! another goody two shoe, phony survey
Comment by Federalist Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 1:04 pm
Wash post: “dawn of new ice” my prof said it was science…
Comment by Critic Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 1:12 pm
Without environmental protection, factories would pollute our air and water like it is in China, etc.. There would be no clean air to breathe or clean water to drink.
Environmental protection protects peoples health and that is a very big deal.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 3:49 pm
10 second clip Says it All.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIYM-I4sJKU
Comment by The Cardinal Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 4:11 pm