Donate Newsletters

Collection: Word on the Street

Who Likes Subsidies for Big Oil?

by

Who likes subsidies for Big Oil? Well, Big Oil, for one. They really like the billions of dollars they get in tax breaks. Then there’s the Republican caucus’s three votes this year to protect those loopholes. But that’s about it. Nobody else likes them much at all, including Republican voters.

Center for American Progress pulled together some recent polling numbers. And we’ve piled more on:

  • 66 percent: The proportion of Americans who say gas prices are taking a toll on their personal finances, according to a recent CNN poll. (In the same poll, 61% said oil companies deserve “a great deal of blame” for rising costs, compared to just 25% who said the same about Obama’s energy policy.)
  • 74 percent: The proportion of Americans who favor “eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industry,” according to a NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey.
  • 2-to-1: The margin by which “Republican voters support ending subsidies” for oil companies.

Read more

Blue and Red Makes…Green!?

by

Anyone with a box of Crayolas and a 1-year-old, and anyone who’s been following climate politics in the United States would tell you that, contrary to the rules of color theory, red and blue make an ugly mud color. But new research from Pew suggests that red and blue actually come out green—bright green, in fact, when it comes to “red-” and “blue-state of mind” support for alternative energy!

All that is to say that Americans almost all the way across the political spectrum support clean energy development over expanding fossil fuels. Center for American Progress public opinion expert Ruy Teixeira sums it up. Get this:

Overall, the public prioritizes developing alternative energy over expanding oil, coal, and natural gas by a 63-29 margin. And, as shown in the chart below, seven of Pew’s eight active typology groups support this position, including a whopping 40-point margin among the Main Street Republican group. Only the staunch conservatives (9 percent of the public) dissent from the rest.

Read more

Taxes Are Patriotic

by

American Flag courtesy Click at MorgueFileI filed my taxes a long time ago (just one of the many benefits of being married to someone far, far more organized than I am). So, I haven’t been thinking about my own taxes much this week—except to hope for a refund and follow President Obama’s road-show about his budget (He did Jay Leno, 60 Minutes, two nationally-televised town hall meetings, and a prime-time news conference—but I caught most of it via Jon Stewart).

But the best thing I’ve seen about taxes all week is a bunch of millionaires telling it like it is, saying that paying taxes is patriotic.

Read more

Americans Like the EPA

by

As one follow-up to yesterday’s rant about efforts afoot in DC to gut the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to do its job on behalf of American families, I give you more polling data compiled by Center for American Progress (CAP) that shows that Americans really do want the EPA to keep up the good work … Read more

The Power of Green

by

What’s in a name? A lot, I think. So, with this post, I’m officially launching my solo campaign to change the name of the Environmental Protection Agency. It’s ill-named if you think about it. After all, their raison d’etre is keeping Americans’ air and water clean enough to breathe and drink, clean enough that our babies aren’t born with brain damage, kids aren’t drinking water with lead in it from city pipes, and our food isn’t toxic and a bunch of other stuff we take for granted. The environment is our environment after all—where we live. It’s about our health and safety. It’s about protecting our families, not just about ecosystems and endangered species (though those are worth protecting too). The EPA is our line of defense against a bunch of bad stuff.

Shouldn’t it be called the American Protection Agency? Heck, maybe it should become a branch of the Military and we should call it the American Protection Army. Are you with me?

Okay, enough about that for now. But, I bring it up because the EPA is under attack. Proposals are currently afoot to gut the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. According to the Christian Science Monitor, “House Republicans want to reshape federal environmental policies by adding amendments to the spending bill due Friday.” Reshape is a nice way of putting it! Sadly, President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) appeared quite ready to accept these “riders” and “swallow rollbacks to EPA’s authority to crack down on climate emissions, mountaintop-removal coal mining, and Chesapeake Bay pollution as the price for passing a budget deal.” (As reported by AP and described by Glenn Hurowitz, Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy, writing for Grist).

The willingness for capitulation or concession, or whatever you want to call it (I can think of far harsher ways to describe it), changed quickly, however, over the past few days as green groups fell on Obama and Reid with a rare—and downright refreshing—fury.

Read more

Should I Say ‘Climate Change’ or ‘Global Warming?’

by

Thermometer Morguefile cohdra

A while back, in a famously leaked talking points memo, GOP pollster and messaging guru Frank Luntz advised those wishing to thwart energy reform to use the term climate change rather than global warming—because it made the problem sound less urgent and less “frightening” to the American public. (The same memo advised making “the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.” Nice.) But the strategy may have backfired—or simply been turned inside out.

Ironically, new research finds that Republicans are far more likely to say they believe “climate change” is happening than “global warming.”

This via Grist, via Tom Jacobs at Miller-McCune:

Writing in the journal Public Opinion Quarterly, a research team led by University of Michigan psychologist Jonathon Schuldt reports Republicans are far more skeptical of “global warming” than of “climate change.” In an experiment conducted as part of a large survey, the researchers found 44 percent of Republicans endorsed the notion that “global warming” is real, but 60.2 percent said the same of “climate change.”

For Democrats the distinction is seemingly unimportant. Around 86 percent of Democrats believe in climate change and global warming interchangeably. (Among Independents, 74 percent said that climate change is happening, while 69.5 percent acknowledged global warming.)

So, it does matter what words you use. But I don’t think we should necessarily try to drop either term.

Read more

Reagan Did It, So Can You!

by

Ronald Reagan

Whether you agreed or disagreed with his politics, just about everybody has to admit that Ronald Reagan was a masterful communicator. He was quick witted, often downright funny, and almost always affable—even in tense situations (Think: presidential debates and emergency rooms. He came off funny rather than mean-spirited when he said “there you go again” after Jimmy Carter attacked his health care record. He managed to pull off two jokes in the minutes after getting shot. “I forgot to duck!” to his wife, and to the surgeons extracting the bullets: “I hope you’re all Republicans.”)

But more important than all that, Reagan successfully cemented in the American consciousness the powerful conservative brand that still thrives today.

They didn’t nickname him “The Great Communicator” for nothin’. For better or for worse, he shaped the political landscape for decades to come. And perhaps the most powerful, among his many skills was his ability to convince voters that he shared their core values–even if they opposed his policies.

As psychologist Drew Westen puts it, “By my count, voters disagreed with Ronald Reagan on about 75 percent of the issues. But they liked him. They believed he would restore America’s greatness. They voted with their values.”

Not everyone can have Reagan’s poise or Hollywood polish! But, any of us—even the most hardened policy wonk—can emulate the ways that Reagan offered a clear, uplifting vision, in part by telling us our own American story—a story of confidence, strength, power, and optimism.

Ronald Reagan did it, so can you!

Read more

Canadians Believe in Climate Change!…and Government!?

by

A report detailing Canadian and US public opinion on climate change and based on the results of two national surveys was released Wednesday by the Public Policy Forum and Sustainable Prosperity (full report here, pdf).

The big takeaways:

  • Far more Canadians than Americans believe climate change is real (80 percent vs. 58 percent).
  • Canadians, unlike their US counterparts, see clear government responsibility in addressing climate change (65 percent vs. 43 percent).
  • And unlike the bulk of Americans, Canadians are willing to pay for global warming solutions (twice as many Canadians as Americans support both a cap-and-trade system for industry and the idea of paying a carbon tax of up to $50 a month).

Support for Climate Policies in the US and Canada—and Willingness to Pay


Note: Support levels represent the percentage of respondents who indicated that they either “strongly supported” or “somewhat supported” the policy option.

Read more

D’oh! Global Warming According to The Simpsons

by

Television set and wind turbines Morguefile Pablogv2001I encourage you to check out a downright awesome analysis of the treatment of global warming on The Simpsons, over at the The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media. Meanwhile, here’s my take.

The Simpsons phenomenon is a reminder of the power of pop culture to reflect—and shape—political attitudes. But, as Sara Peach concludes, the longest running (hardest working?) sit-com on TV hasn’t exactly moved the public forward on the issue of climate change—in terms of basic knowledge about the issue or the possible solutions, nor empathy for those who are already concerned about it.

Still, for anyone, like me, trying to communicate about climate change, the analysis (and clips) can be instructive. The Simpsons‘ caricatures of American attitudes about global warming are not only sobering reminders of exactly what we’re up against, but also illustrate well (and I think, accurately) how messages about the highly-partisan issue can fall on deaf ears—or worse: backfire.

Read more

Are Humans Hard-wired to Reject Science?

by

brain MorgueFile ClaritaAs Felicity Barringer reports at NYT’s Green blog, scientific evidence reinforces something that communicators have long understood as a guiding rule of our craft: “[Humans] are hard-wired to respond to external or internal information with emotion and instinct first and cognition second. With emotion and instinct more and reason less.”

In other words, (this is not the scientific way of putting it, either, BTW) we react to information with our heart or gut more than our brains. Of course, this impacts responses to our messages about policy solutions and new technologies.

For example, reporting another story for the Times, Barringer ran into opposition to smart meter technology from an unlikely mix of Tea Party conservatives and left-leaning individualists in California, many of whom are convinced that the meters’ “radio frequency radiation” poses a health threat.

But there’s absolutely no scientific evidence of a link to health problems. The predicament led Barringer to ask:

How, in a rational society, does one understand those who reject science, a common touchstone of what is real and verifiable?

The absence of scientific evidence doesn’t dissuade those who believe childhood vaccines are linked to autism, or those who believe their headaches, dizziness and other symptoms are caused by cellphones and smart meters. And the presence of large amounts of scientific evidence doesn’t convince those who reject the idea that human activities are disrupting the climate.

What gives?

Read more

+ More
×