Intensity vs. preference

Climate, as such, is unlikely to ever be a determinant of many votes

Posted by David Roberts at 8:16 AM on 20 May 2008

Read more about: climate | elections | politics | severe weather

Chris Hayes emphasizes the difference between, in Grover Norquist's terms, "intensity and preference" -- issues that people vote on vs. ones they merely respond to favorably in polls. He thinks it's dumb that many Dems still don't seem to get the difference when it comes to deficit spending.

Which reminds me of something I've been meaning to say about climate. It's often said that absent some sort of serious catastrophe -- "another Katrina" -- climate change will never become a vote-mover. I basically agree with that. I'd go further, though, and say that even if there's another Katrina, climate still won't become a vote-mover (much like it didn't become one after the first Katrina). Vote movers will always be more proximate, and in this case people will demand to be better protected from severe weather. There will never be broad intensity around a threat so diffuse, the worst effects of which lie decades in the future -- at least not in time to materially reduce that threat.

Given that fact, it's incumbent on green campaigners to think about either a) how to make change without voter intensity or b) how to break the climate issue into constituent pieces that are vote-movers, like national security.

For story: Intensity vs. preference
14 Comments | Post a Comment

or c) put the pieces together

as I was arguing here, in response to Ward's post, perhaps the best way to move the global warming issue forward is to link it to other issues and constituencies -- for instance, the blue-green alliances are an example of linking to unions, Van Jones/Majora Carter a way to link to cities and African-Americans and Latinos, and then link all of those groups together in one pretty package -- but that's more like a political party, or at least, a fairly well organized political movmeent, than a single issue of "global warming", and I don't know if people are ready for that.

by Jon Rynn at 8:46 AM on 20 May 2008

How does one "vote" on the environment

Unlike some issues (e.g. abortion), if one really digs into the whole mess of cause/effects, there does not exist a clear-cut line between the two Parties that separates a pro-environment from an anti-environment vote--especially with the two Presidential candidates in '08. Just to name a few examples in regards to energy alone:

Carbon: regardless of what initial allowances (or taxes) are accessed to carbon, it appears that only a bill that includes a "safety valve" will pass. If current consumer attitudes against even slightly higher energy prices (see Deloitte survey) do not change, these allowances will be too low to dissuade power companies and their creditors from moving forward with new coal plants.

The purpose of carbon taxation (or allowances) is to reduce carbon emissions--therefore, one needs to FULLY (i.e. by the numbers: $ AND kW) outline how power will be replaced in EVERY section of the country (e.g. Wind turbines fairly useless in most of the South; or Solar panels in the upper North; or Hydro almost everywhere; or Nuclear in spread-out consumption regions; etc.) based on various sequestration-technology realization time lines.

Nuclear: if a Party or politician is anti-Yucca and anti-reprocessing, then such Party or politician should be honest and assert a no-nuclear power position. Some (e.g. John Edwards; John McCain) have taken such a consistent stance, while others (e.g. Barack Obama) take an incongruous position on nuclear.

Oil: just when the American public finally begins to sever its inelastic demand for gasoline (note: without governmental intervention), politicians rush to rhetoric of reducing taxation or pressuring OPEC. Attitudes towards driving and public transportation need more than a few months to make permanent adjustments--allowing gas prices to ease even slightly closer to our European brethren is not a bad thing.

Ethanol/Bio-fuel: Is there a bigger example of a governmental rush to an environmental solution (against all market forces) having such far-reaching effects (food shortages in developing countries; rain forest destruction; carbon increases; etc.) that run counter to the environmental cause?

by Green Libertarian at 10:10 AM on 20 May 2008

leadership

I believe this is a case that the electeds need to actually lead the people.

by setb at 12:38 PM on 20 May 2008

On linking to other constituencies

One possible approach would be to point out - to any constituency which has a goal that's not purely short term (e.g, "save the [whatever]") - that in the long term, the [whatever] likely won't survive the effects of climate change, so they should be putting some portion of their effort into long-term prevention.

by Anna Haynes at 12:52 PM on 20 May 2008

Anna --

The problem there is that you're sort of asking them to prioritize their concerns in such a way as to put climate change on top. That may not be so bad, in and of itself -- I think there's something to be said for trying to prioritize, instead of just laundry lists -- but I think people that are committed to a particular constituency need to see how they fit into the holistic picture. So, for instance, if your a union activist, you can both stop global warming and expand your union membership because we'll need train and windmill factories. The progressive political movements are pretty fragmented, you need a glue to fit them all together.

by Jon Rynn at 1:53 PM on 20 May 2008

Stick To The Classics

I think the whole turn of the Greens to CO2 as its arch-nemesis was a tragic marketing mistake (thanks, Al Gore).

Before, the issue was pollution. Very graphic. Show a city with smog. Show a littered street and a Nez Perce shedding a tear. Show some fish floating on an oil slick....Ker-ching! Open the pocketbooks!

But now you guys wonked it and have to go around with computer models and charts and sheesh, it's Darkness At Noon in the old lecture hall.

Oil Is So Hot! http://oilismastery.blogspot.com

by jabailo at 3:29 PM on 20 May 2008

Other way around...

I think the whole turn of the Greens to CO2 as its arch-nemesis was a tragic marketing mistake

Actually, I think it's the other way around. People and governments are prepared to invest billions in emissions control...and thus, also pollution control.

Coal, traditionally a HUGE source of pollution, is comin' under fire like never before, but more so because of GHGs than other, more "traditional" pollutants.

Reforestation efforts and protection of wetlands have taken on new meaning and increased by leaps and bounds since they're now used for carbon offsetting.

The issue of smog didn't get governments to increase fuel efficiency standards, but global warming sure has helped.

Not to mention the sudden increase in wind and solar power we've had the past couple of years.

The issue of global climate change puts the issue of pollution into a new perspective that (hopefully) gets people to pay more attention to, and solve, the problem.

by Tasermons Partner at 5:16 PM on 20 May 2008

Debug.Assert(true)

The issue of global climate change puts the issue of pollution into a new perspective that (hopefully) gets people to pay more attention to, and solve, the problem.

Nice thought -- but did you read the OP? It says the opposite...

Oil Is So Hot! http://oilismastery.blogspot.com

by jabailo at 5:48 PM on 20 May 2008
[ Parent ]

Human Responsibility

A large portion of the first wave of "environmentalism" decades ago was the promotion of people action, personal behavioral responsibility--not just enactment of laws and regulations.

Changing light bulbs, using powerstrips, etc.? Is this the best we can do?

It was easy for environmental celebs to preach against pollution--everyone can change such personal behavior.

I fail to see many environmental celebs of the present preaching about living within one's means, scaling back the size (or number) of one's home, swapping out that SUV or sports car for a hybrid or compact.

As for their purchase of carbon offsets, I ask this: Should one be allowed to purchase pollution offsets if one wants to dump their refrigerator in the creek? How about purchasing recycling offsets if they just don't want to bother separating their garbage? Could one purchase a spotted owl credit if one desired shooting that pesky noise-maker outside their home?

Responsibility.

by Green Libertarian at 6:06 PM on 20 May 2008
[ Parent ]

Interrelated...

Nice thought -- but did you read the OP? It says the opposite...

Yes, and what I'm sayin' is that though intensity and preference are different, they are interrelated.

by Tasermons Partner at 6:14 PM on 20 May 2008

Churchill had it right

when he said that "you can always count on Americans to do the right thing, but only after they've exhausted all other options".

In that respect, I agree with setb... and in a very Churchillian way. We need a leader to use the bully pulpit to make this an issue. National Parks weren't an issue until Teddy Roosevelt made it so. Reagan made free markets an issue. We need a president who will make global warming an issue. One who understands it, markets it, and makes the case for action today to secure a better tomorrow. We would have had it with Gore, and we can have it with whoever comes next. It's a thin silver lining on a deep dark cloud, but Bush has at least exhausted a lot of those other options.

But at core, it does have to come from the executive branch. Because (to take another great European observer), de Tocqueville had it right when he noted that US democracy fails once the public realizes that it controls the power of the purse, through it's ability to elect Congress. And as the Lieberman-Warner debate has shown, Congress seems to be working hard to make de Tocqueville into the Nostradamus of the 21st century.

by Sean Casten at 7:22 PM on 20 May 2008

You're wrong jabailo

I spoke to an elementary school class on climate change the other day. I asked the kids what was causing global warming to get an idea of what they already know. The answers I got ranged from 'pollution' to 'something to do with the ozone layer' to 'CO2.'

I think the concept of pollution in our society is changing. It's no longer just trash and smog in the eyes of the laity. If a 3rd grader can make the connection between pollution and global warming, maybe there's hope in the future.

by Quinn at 8:42 PM on 20 May 2008
[ Parent ]

That's awesome

Did you tell them that the earth has cooled over the past decade...and many of the same man made global warming scientists now say that trend will continue for the next 15 years?

All of this while the CO2 level in our atmosphere is rising at a rate never seen before.

If you did, maybe you blamed it on La Nina...doubt it though

by Bear80 at 12:19 PM on 30 May 2008
[ Parent ]

Uh, huh....

Did you tell them that the earth has cooled over the past decade

Do ya have a reliable source for this?

One which can be verified by the scientific community?

by Tasermons Partner at 12:59 PM on 30 May 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.