PIPA poll: The impotence of mere belief

A big new poll from the Program on International Policy Attitudes shows widespread public belief in the phenomenon of global warming and broad support for action to fight it, even if that action hurts the economy (via Mooney on Scienceg8.)

I'll put some excerpts from the poll summary below the fold, but first a few caveats.

• Heed the wise words of Roger Pielke Jr., who points out that majorities have believed in global warming for years:
  

  ...the battle over public opinion about the existence of global warming has been won. Efforts made trying to convince the public that global warming is "real" are pretty much wasted on the convinced. The public overwhelmingly believes global warming to be real and consequential.

• Politically informed people tend to project their habits on others. The fact the the public says it believes in global warming, or that it supports a cap-and-trade system, doesn't mean that people have individually sat down, surveyed the science, assessed the policy possibilities, and come to considered conclusions. People more or less parrot conventional wisdom.
• Because they are parroting conventional wisdom, it doesn't matter much to them, and they don't follow it very closely. Polls are always finding widespread support for progressive policies, but conservatives keep winning elections because elections aren't fought over policies.
• One hesitates to sound cynical, but nevertheless: Never underestimate the ignorance of the American public. As you will read below the fold, almost half the respondents believe that Bush supports Kyoto. People just by and large know very little about what politicians support, and even less about what politicians are actually doing. Talk about global warming floats about the media and culture, and Average Joe and Jane assume that somebody somewhere is doing something about it.

What greens should get from this poll is not a thrill of hope that the tipping point has finally arrived. It was always a pipe dream that some magical study would come along to finally-once-and-for-all prove that global warming exists, and voi la, the world would change.

The public is already convinced, and has been for some time. What we need now are local activism, fresh stories to tell, innovative policies, dramatic representations, success stories, unflagging political engagement ... all that stuff. It's still going to be a long, hard slog to get where we need to go. But if nothing else, this poll shows that the raw materials are there to work with.

Now, some excerpts:

Still more Kelo

My opinion on SCOTUS' Kelo decision has softened somewhat since my initial outrage, but it still strikes me as, on balance, a Bad Thing.

Once recent strain of argument I find pretty convincing is that Kelo will not, in fact, enable good urban planning (one of the purported reasons many liberals defend it). Andy alluded to this argument here. See also this Planetizen piece from Samuel Staley:

To illustrate Kelo's potential damage, recall that its precedent, Berman v. Parker, substantially relaxed constraints on takings of private property in 1954, unleashing a wave of urban renewal that cleared large swaths of America's cities in the late 20th century. The results, even many planners now believe, were devastating for communities. Many areas cleared for urban renewal were never redeveloped, but affordable housing and many potentially vibrant neighborhoods were bulldozed. Not surprisingly, critics now refer to urban renewal as "slum removal" and cynics refer to this period as "negro removal". The Court's reasoning in Kelo grants cities and public officials even broader powers to clear neighborhoods and force families from homes and businesses than those current existing from Berman.

On his blog, City Comforts, David Sucher argues at some length that eminent design is not required for good urban planning -- he prefers many small development projects to a few large, bloated ones -- and that Dems are missing the a great political opportunity (I'd offer specific links, but there are too many).

Kelo's a fascinating issue -- it cuts across our established political divisions and produces very strange bedfellows (for instance, Sucher finds himself agreeing with conservative John Tierney). Much to ponder.

Global concerts to focus on G8, but not climate change

With the G8 Summit just days away, pop stars the world over are preparing for marathon concerts tomorrow in each of the eight wealthiest nations in the world. Modeled after the Live Aid concerts 20 years ago (when the likes of U2, David Bowie, and Mick Jagger performed for some 1.5 billion people and helped raise money for Ethiopia's famine), the Live 8 concerts aim to draw attention to and demand action from the leaders gathering at the summit.

Unfortunately, however, Live 8 is focused on only one of summit leader Tony Blair's two main goals for the meeting -- and it's not climate change. Don't get me wrong; I'm definitely anti-poverty-in-Africa. I just wish some of the media attention this Live 8 concert will get on outlets like MTV and VH1 -- where younger, impressionable viewers will be watching -- could be focused on that other major issue.

Thoreau vs. central climate control

It's hot. I am coming to understand that spending the summer outside and below the Mason-Dixon line is slightly less pleasant than spending the summer outside and in the Green Mountains, where I read Walden (not for the first time) last summer (it's a different experience when you read it in the woods).

But the combination of those two experiences has got me thinking. Thoreau talks about the "animal heat" that we all need to maintain if we're going to stay alive. He notes that in warmer weather, we consume less food than in colder weather. Makes sense -- we need less fuel to keep our bodies at 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit if the ambient temperature is close to it anyway.

So global warming is good, right?

GAO to investigate whether Cooney’s editing was illegal

Chris Mooney has a good catch today: Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have asked the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, to determine whether recently-resigned Bush administration official Philip Cooney violated federal statutes against obstruction of Congress and false statements.

Cooney, as you may recall, is the former oil industry lobbyist, turned chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality who edited research reports to play up uncertainties about global warming. Turned, uh, oil industry lobbyist. (To everything turn, turn, turn, eh?)

Lautenberg and Reid are also asking the Climate Change Science Program to retract the redacted reports, writes Chris. "I don't know what kind of results this will achieve, but it's a new tactic, as well as a strong demonstration that Congress is getting serious about the science abuse issue."

What a difference an ice sheet makes

Or, three. Not to mention a picture of what Britain will look like in 200 years if climate change melts the globe's three largest ice sheets. According to today's Scotsman, a new study suggests sea levels would rise some 275 feet. The U.K. mainland would turn into a North Sea Polynesia, with coastal towns and many cities disappearing completely. The center of London would be underwater. Hm -- those zombies in 28 Days Later are starting to look like a more manageable end-of-the-world scenario by the minute.

Of course, the big queston here is: how likely is this? And that's where respectable scientists disagree.

Brush pickers chew up our forests to make your flower bouquets.

I own a piece of second-growth forestland that abuts the Tahuya forest in Washington State. It is my contribution to the wildlife conservation effort. I think of it as a small, privately owned nature preserve. By choosing land adjacent to an existing forest I have effectively increased the size of that forest. Not being part of an ecological hotspot, its preservation means far less than that of, say, the Monteverde cloud forest of Costa Rica. Nonetheless, my efforts to protect it over the years have taught me a few things.

Getting through peak oil without disruption seems unlikely.

As I said last week, I'm not sanguine about our prospects in the face of peak oil.

It would be nice if the decline of oil supplies was slow and steady, markets adapted smoothly with the introduction of alternative fuels, and we came in for the much-touted "smooth landing." But those who envision such a scenario drastically underestimate just how delicate a situation we're in. We're trying to get from one side of a chasm (an oil-based economy) to the other (a healthy economy wherein oil is marginal) on a tightrope. While patting our head and rubbing our stomach. And reciting the alphabet backwards. Drunk. On one foot. Etc.

To get a sense of what I mean, consider "Oil Shockwave," a recent wargaming exercise cosponsored by the National Commission on Energy Policy and Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE).

That would be nice, but several factors could make it unlikely.

In my more purely optimistic moments, I come close to agreeing with Marshall Brain (founder of HowStuffWorks):

As oil gets more expensive, we will replace it with less-expensive technologies in a completely natural way. Therefore, peak oil will be a non-event.

But I can't quite get there.

I share a great deal of faith in the power of markets, unlike some of my fellow-travelers, but this seems naive and flat-footed to me. Here's why:

• Oil's current market dominance in the transportation and agricultural sectors is not "completely natural." It's propped up by innumerable subsidies, tax breaks, favorable trade deals, etc., etc. -- all secured as a result of its unprecedented entanglement with the ruling class. It maybe that its unnatural market position has been propped up -- or will be propped up -- past the point when a "natural" transition will be possible.
• Brain acknowledges that, in today's market, "supply and demand for oil are almost perfectly balanced," and that any disruption on either side could cause a spike in the price of oil, but seems to brush that possibility off. Peak oil, though, will not happen in a vacuum. It will happen in a context wherein the U.S.'s general financial situation is execrable, with spiraling deficits and an aging population, propped up by Chinese bond purchases. The housing market could tank. The airline industry could go belly-up. Another terrorist attack could happen. China could bomb Taiwan. India could invade Pakistan. Point being, the oil market is not the only fragile system we rely on -- lots of them are pretty fragile right now. A few disruptions could cause a mutually reinforcing cycle of ... crap.
• We live in a global marketplace. "Natural" market transitions involve winners and losers, and there's no guarantee that we might not "naturally" lose out to, say, Japan, or China.

But regardless, let's hope Brain is right.