Get our latest essays, archival selections, reading lists, and exclusive content delivered straight to your inbox.
Four decades ago, widespread public alarm about air and water pollution, pesticides, toxins, and the extinction of endangered species inspired Congress to pass landmark legislation for the protection of human health and the environment. But today’s environmentalism looks different. Policymakers and the advocacy community have largely moved on to the issue of climate change, but most Americans have not joined them.
At first glance, the public seems sufficiently worried about climate change to create strong demand for policy action. In surveys we have conducted over the past decade in conjunction with the MIT Energy Initiative, large majorities of Americans express concern about climate change. Upon closer examination, however, public anxiety about climate change does not run very deep. The issue barely registers when we ask people to indicate the most important problems facing the country. Issues such as the economy, health care, and dissatisfaction with government all take priority. And when we ask Americans about the cost of addressing climate change, few are willing to spend much to tackle the problem.
Illustration: Frank LeClair. Click for a larger image.
Climate change doesn’t even register highly among environmental concerns. Each year, the pollsters at Gallup ask Americans how much they personally worry about various environmental problems. In each survey, people express less concern for global warming, the term Gallup uses, than for each of the other problems. Indeed Americans are much more troubled by traditional environmental problems, with upward of 80 percent of the public worrying “a great deal” or “a fair amount” about air pollution, water pollution, and toxic waste. In most years the number stands closer to 55 percent for global warming, about ten points lower than seemingly less pressing issues of tropical rainforest loss and species extinction.
This is not to say that Americans do not care or do not want to address climate change, but it has yet to become the environmental issue foremost on their minds. A promising way forward in the near term is to take actions that simultaneously reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants that voters traditionally care about. Policies that generate both benefits will enjoy the most public support.
David M. Konisky is Associate Professor of Public Policy at Georgetown University and is coauthor of Cheap and Clean: How Americans Think about Energy in the Age of Global Warming.
Stephen Ansolabehere is Professor of Government at Harvard University and coauthor of Cheap and Clean: How Americans Think about Energy in the Age of Global Warming.
…we need your help. Confronting the many challenges of COVID-19—from the medical to the economic, the social to the political—demands all the moral and deliberative clarity we can muster. In Thinking in a Pandemic, we’ve organized the latest arguments from doctors and epidemiologists, philosophers and economists, legal scholars and historians, activists and citizens, as they think not just through this moment but beyond it. While much remains uncertain, Boston Review’s responsibility to public reason is sure. That’s why you’ll never see a paywall or ads. It also means that we rely on you, our readers, for support. If you like what you read here, pledge your contribution to keep it free for everyone by making a tax-deductible donation.
Vital reading on politics, literature, and more in your inbox. Sign up for our Weekly Newsletter, Monthly Roundup, and event notifications.
Reflecting on three monumental works of modernism—James Joyce’s Ulysses, T. S. Eliot’s The Waste Land, and Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus—a hundred years on.
Both regulators and employers have embraced new technologies for on-the-job monitoring, turning a blind eye to unjust working conditions.
But I do miss the hymns, / the small, hard apples with their dimpled skin. I do miss / things.