Pew Research 2019 survey: ‘Climate Change’ Still Ranks As Low Priority – 17th place out of 18

[Crazy Cat 42,145]

"Moral of the story: There has never been any evidence that climate change is a top concern for most Americans. This is not a crowd-pleaser or a vote-getter."

https://www.climatedepot.com/2020/02/11/pew-research-2019-survey-climate-change-still-ranks-as-low-priority-17th-place-out-of-18th/

[Steeleballz 7,550]

 

  Hard to say how significant a poll is. The only thing that ranked lower here is dealing with global trade issues. Yet that did seem to be a crowd pleaser and vote getter in 2016. 

 

  Come to think of it, most polls said Clinton was going to win in 2016. I think what polls reflect best is the outlook of individual people who took the polls. I'm not sure how well that extrapolates to the public at large. Most people I know ignore polls and surveys. 

 

  I think opinions on climate change is divided more by age group. Talk to younger people and it's a pretty big issue. IDK how well that group is represented in polls. As we get older, I guess what happens in 50 years down the road is probably less relevant than more immediate issues. It's still easy for politicians to kick things like energy, climate change and social security down the road. Even the deficit is always a big campaign issue, but there's really only one way to reduce the deficit, and yet we haven't seen a federal budget surplus in almost 20 years. 

 

  At any rate, congress is to the point now where it would be an accomplishment to just tackle one issue and get it done. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 hour ago, missileman said:

"Moral of the story: There has never been any evidence that climate change is a top concern for most Americans. This is not a crowd-pleaser or a vote-getter."

https://www.climatedepot.com/2020/02/11/pew-research-2019-survey-climate-change-still-ranks-as-low-priority-17th-place-out-of-18th/

A lot of polls "suggest" various things... 

 

https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/about/projects/global-warmings-six-americas/

 

North American academia constantly assesses this. The important thing for the layman to understand is that while they try and find various methods of segmentation, the premise largely remains the same.

 

For example, you have classifications like this, which would make you think the overwhelming majority of Americans are on board with global warming being the fault of people and are ready to adapt to any changes thrown at them:

 

This ties to the diffusion approach because "laggards" are basically "doubtful"/"dismissive" segments. It's important because people spend exorbitant amounts (millions, billions) not on science but socially coercing people into adoption of this belief system. People who are in the least bit skeptical of global warming, whether "the planet is warming" aspect or the "anthro-" aspect of global warming, they're basically on the "make me" part, as in, the government needs to make you (and organizations) comply, and it requires pulling the "early/late majority" (cautious/disengaged) into the adoption portion. When they have these portions together, you have the tyranny of majority, thus they have their "make me" facilitator to force you to adopt to their beliefs via government/legal implements. There is an absolute sea of money out there dedicated to this because there are plenty of profiteers and nefarious people in general who benefit from this psychological effort.

Edited February 11, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

6 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Hard to say how significant a poll is. The only thing that ranked lower here is dealing with global trade issues. Yet that did seem to be a crowd pleaser and vote getter in 2016. 

 

  Come to think of it, most polls said Clinton was going to win in 2016. I think what polls reflect best is the outlook of individual people who took the polls. I'm not sure how well that extrapolates to the public at large. Most people I know ignore polls and surveys. 

 

  I think opinions on climate change is divided more by age group. Talk to younger people and it's a pretty big issue. IDK how well that group is represented in polls. As we get older, I guess what happens in 50 years down the road is probably less relevant than more immediate issues. It's still easy for politicians to kick things like energy, climate change and social security down the road. Even the deficit is always a big campaign issue, but there's really only one way to reduce the deficit, and yet we haven't seen a federal budget surplus in almost 20 years. 

 

  At any rate, congress is to the point now where it would be an accomplishment to just tackle one issue and get it done. 

Well thought out and on-point response.  Politicians say ANYTHING to get elected, only to discover their hands are tied and they cannot (or won't personally benefit from) making the changes they promised.  Sad that it has become the norm that it is ok to say anything to win, but to not expect results.  

[Boiler 45,966]

Well it depends which version you want to impose, the everybody wins variety proposed by AOC etc or what would actually be needed if they were to actually want to do what they said is needed.

 

 

[laylalex 7,300]

Why should popularity of a existential threat in an opinion poll mean that it's not actually an existential threat? 

[Boiler 45,966]

1 hour ago, laylalex said:

Why should popularity of a existential threat in an opinion poll mean that it's not actually an existential threat? 

There is nothing to stop those who wish to take action, taking action. However they seem more interested in telling others to do so that somewhat weakens their position.

[laylalex 7,300]

2 hours ago, Boiler said:

There is nothing to stop those who wish to take action, taking action. However they seem more interested in telling others to do so that somewhat weakens their position.

What are who telling whom to do in particular that weakens what position?

 

Sorry, maybe my blonde roots are showing too much today.  

[Boiler 45,966]

The usual suspects, AOC who fly's to Washington even though there is a perfectly good train line, usual Hollywood suspects, Al Gore is perhaps one of the worst, multiple houses and private jets. He seems to have disappeared of late?

 

I think you mean your strawberry blonde roots?

 

Did amuse me to look at the cost of HS2 in the UK, now I like trains and I seem them as an important but $60,000?

[laylalex 7,300]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

The usual suspects, AOC who fly's to Washington even though there is a perfectly good train line, usual Hollywood suspects, Al Gore is perhaps one of the worst, multiple houses and private jets. He seems to have disappeared of late?

 

I think you mean your strawberry blonde roots?

 

Did amuse me to look at the cost of HS2 in the UK, now I like trains and I seem them as an important but $60,000?

Yes, my blondeness sometimes shines through more than on other days.

 

What is HS2? I also like trains and have started exploring more of the city on the Metro. Went to Culver City today on the Expo Line and had lunch (roasted jidori chicken salad and a glass of Sauvignon Blanc), walked around and checked out a few boutiques. Gorgeous day here today, about 65F and sunny. Have you had to dig out again?

[Boiler 45,966]

2 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Yes, my blondeness sometimes shines through more than on other days.

 

What is HS2? I also like trains and have started exploring more of the city on the Metro. Went to Culver City today on the Expo Line and had lunch (roasted jidori chicken salad and a glass of Sauvignon Blanc), walked around and checked out a few boutiques. Gorgeous day here today, about 65F and sunny. Have you had to dig out again?

There is a film that comes to mind when you describe your exploits, one of these days I will remember it's name.

 

Not too bad today think I saw 20f and just some wind blown stuff, no major accumulation from what came down.

 

HS2 is the high speed train from London to Birmingham, I grew up using the train and tube, went to school and work on the train, travelled around London on the tube, so for most of my life it was the norm.

 

Development changed travelling patterns and I have no idea how you reverse the process.

[laylalex 7,300]

7 minutes ago, Boiler said:

There is a film that comes to mind when you describe your exploits, one of these days I will remember it's name.

 

Not too bad today think I saw 20f and just some wind blown stuff, no major accumulation from what came down.

 

HS2 is the high speed train from London to Birmingham, I grew up using the train and tube, went to school and work on the train, travelled around London on the tube, so for most of my life it was the norm.

 

Development changed travelling patterns and I have no idea how you reverse the process.

There was definitely some high drama in my life last year that might have been filmworthy but so far this year things have been fairly chill. The more I stay away from my toxic ex the less crazy stuff I find myself drifting into. 

 

Part of the six months I lived in the UK was spent in London -- we lived in Westminster, and the nearest tube was Victoria (gross). I got used to getting around on the tube -- I don't know how anyone could live there without it. When I was out in the country... blah. Just the little train that went from Ipswich and the local station wasn't anywhere near walking distance. Mostly it was walking everywhere to get around, or getting my ex's sister to drive me places. Going to Halesworth was going to town! No wonder I went crazy out there.

[Boiler 45,966]

6F and going down, think we will have cold one tonight.

 

Showing my age but I do remember when jobs etc were concentrated around the radial routes, I traveled into the City and all but one of my friends used public transport to go to work, since then we have had decades of development which essentially requires people to have a car, I remember it being talked about at the time and the solution was to build more roads...

 

I also have lived in a small village, now that used to have a train, long gone when I moved there but was close ish to the M4 chicken and egg.

[laylalex 7,300]

When we were in London, my ex had a car which he kept really for only getting out of London. He didn't take the Tube, he was driven everywhere either by a driver or black cab because... reasons. (Mostly having to do with being in close proximity to other people.) I am not nearly so precious and preferred public transportation unless there was a strike on, obviously. 

 

I get what you mean about there being a chicken or egg problem -- if you remove the train, you have to take a car, but it's difficult to incentivize public transport if the train is gone, so more people use more cars... Here in the LA area, we suffered from the same problem, much earlier. The Red Line streetcars and other trams/trolleys were removed, even to the very far-flung places they used to serve. So you have something like the CA-110, which runs from Downtown LA up to Pasadena. When it was built in the 20s/30s (I think) it had the capacity to handle traffic admirably because there were alternative and viable ways of getting between the two places. Now, the 110 Downtown is a NIGHTMARE that I try to avoid at all costs. @Cyberfx1024 can back me up on this -- the interchange there between the 110/101/10 is a hellscape that involves massive amounts of traffic all trying to change lanes within less than half a mile. When the 110 and 101 opened in the 20s and 30s (again, I think), a short space to do all this was realistic because there were fewer cars. Now there are too many, and it becomes a sort of... do I feel lucky, well do I, punk? moment when you're just trying to get somewhere. 

 

Now the new Metro stations will help, but it's still bad. I don't own a car yet down here and I keep asking myself if it's strictly necessary if I can just rent one when I need one. I don't have a commute at the moment, so it's sort of... 🤷‍♀️

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

26 minutes ago, laylalex said:

When we were in London, my ex had a car which he kept really for only getting out of London. He didn't take the Tube, he was driven everywhere either by a driver or black cab because... reasons. (Mostly having to do with being in close proximity to other people.) I am not nearly so precious and preferred public transportation unless there was a strike on, obviously. 

 

I get what you mean about there being a chicken or egg problem -- if you remove the train, you have to take a car, but it's difficult to incentivize public transport if the train is gone, so more people use more cars... Here in the LA area, we suffered from the same problem, much earlier. The Red Line streetcars and other trams/trolleys were removed, even to the very far-flung places they used to serve. So you have something like the CA-110, which runs from Downtown LA up to Pasadena. When it was built in the 20s/30s (I think) it had the capacity to handle traffic admirably because there were alternative and viable ways of getting between the two places. Now, the 110 Downtown is a NIGHTMARE that I try to avoid at all costs. @Cyberfx1024 can back me up on this -- the interchange there between the 110/101/10 is a hellscape that involves massive amounts of traffic all trying to change lanes within less than half a mile. When the 110 and 101 opened in the 20s and 30s (again, I think), a short space to do all this was realistic because there were fewer cars. Now there are too many, and it becomes a sort of... do I feel lucky, well do I, punk? moment when you're just trying to get somewhere. 

 

Now the new Metro stations will help, but it's still bad. I don't own a car yet down here and I keep asking myself if it's strictly necessary if I can just rent one when I need one. I don't have a commute at the moment, so it's sort of... 🤷‍♀️

The 110 from Pasadena to that interchange is horrendous at best. They built that road from a old road that was built for wagons initially. So that is why there are so many twists and turns with sucky on/off ramps. Then when you get down to the 5 and Dodger stadium that is just a wreck waiting to happen. Which is exactly what the 210 and 134 interchange is, and people wonder why there is a accident everyday there.

 

But as to public transit in LA.... You never want to go on it if you can and never at night. There are too many drug addicts/vagrants that make it unsafe. 

Edited February 13, 2020 by Cyberfx1024