Earlier this week, the Pew Research Center announced the results of polling that asked the US public its thoughts on how to address climate change. While the usual partisan split was apparent, the survey highlights an even larger challenge that policymakers will face: the US public supports contradictory things when it comes to climate policy.
Nearly 70 percent of the public favored taking steps toward the goal of being carbon neutral by 2050. Yet less than a third support transitioning off fossil fuels.
There are some obvious problems here with people not having a firm grip on reality. People still don’t think humans are causing climate change, or they somehow refuse to recognize that reducing fossil fuel use will lead to cleaner air. But those have been issues for a while, and the people who believe those things are unlikely to support a pathway to carbon neutrality anyway.
The larger problem is that even the people who claim to support putting the US on a path that leads to carbon neutrality don’t seem to realize the sorts of changes it requires. Given that, many of them are unlikely to support the policy changes that are needed to get there.
John Timmer
Climate policy is far from the only topic where the broader public wants certain outcomes, but is unwilling to contribute to the solution, or is supporting measures that would exacerbate the problem. Take the pandemic: I think everyone can agree that we wish it to be over, but many are perfectly content to shift the burden of ending the pandemic onto others by denying to vaccinate or wear masks, arguing that their personal risks are low. Or the war in Ukraine: many are up in arms for the US government to intervene and enforce a no-fly-zone, ignoring the potential for rapid escalation of hostilities; others advocate for more sanctions on Russian oil and gas imports, but balk at paying higher fuel prices. A similar dynamic seems to be plaguing housing policy in the US, though I admit I have only read about it superficially.
The issue is obviously not confined to the US, as we may see from the difficulties managing the pandemic in many other countries. You could argue it’s a sign of selfishness, a lack of seriousness or education, but I think at the end of the day it’s simply a reflection of the limits of (direct) democracy. No individual can be expected to keep up to date with so many overarching issues simultaneously, nor to understand their implications fully to make the proper choices. That’s why modern states have representative governments and various experts and organisms to decide on issues with important negative externalities, from public health to energy and foreign policy. No amount of ‘personal choice’ or ‘private initiative’ will be able to drive society-level transformation without appropriate incentives and regulations from the top.
One reason we're paying $4 a gallon for gas is that a Saudi prince is angry that we criticized him for for murdering a Washington Post journalist.
— Tom Malinowski (@Malinowski) March 7, 2022
If the alternative to relying on a Russian tyrant's oil is a Saudi tyrant's oil, maybe we should be less reliant on oil?
Post a Comment