Centerfield

Erasmus, I hate to be the turd in the punchbowl cycnic, but I wonder whether the people's views on less pollution and more compassion change at all when they are asked how much they support such policies if it means they'll pay higher taxes, more for gas and electricity..

These views are unsurprising to me. Compassion was never really "out." Everyone is "green" in the abstract. People can be relied upon to support nice things when they have no price tag. It's our better nature. This is the voter face that corresponds to the politicans race to appear to be the one most strongly in favor of those things that nobody really disagrees about.

People don't want others to suffer. They want to protect the environment. They want our government to act in ways that are just. This is no more surprising than if surveys told us the people were pro-education and anti-crime, not to mention pro-personal responsibility. But hey, no new taxes. Let's be fiscally responsible!

The culture war vs pocketbook issues thing just restates the obvious, that the broad spectrum of people continue to be reliably self-interested in jobs and a solid economic future much more so than in divisive cultural issues that are extremely important only to vocal minorities.

I don't see any of these aspects of the public's views as trends. I think they are enduring features related to conundrums involving the desire to try and have one's cake and eat it as well.

I agree those views are not surprising. But I want to say something vis a vis paying for green-ness. And I know I'm probably going off in a tangent a little.

We already pay for bad air. Well, those of us with asthma or with asthmatic kids sure pay. That medication is expensive. And I would pay a lot more in gas, oil, renewable energy, taxes, whatever if it means my asthmatic son could breathe better. I'd wager we'd all be healthier. (Sorry, I just get mad at people who think pollution is somehow 'cheaper' than being environmentally conscious. Environmentalism is in our self-interest. To think otherwise is short-sighted.)

Well Susan it's not surprising after all that as a mother of an asthmatic son you'd pay a lot more for cleaner air. and I don't disagree at all with the notion that we'd feel better if the air were cleaner.

But I don't think this changes the paradigm. I think we still have to think about how much we're willing to pay for how much we're able to get. A clean environment is a worthwhile priority for the sake of our health. And yet it competes with other priorities that are worthwhile for other reasons. I think we should strive to be environmentally conscious. But this does not preclude being economically conscious. After all, back in the days when the air was much cleaner and chemical free, life was by most accounts nasty, brutish, and short, it was said.

Many (all?)of society's advancements have come with concurrent costs. I'm for environmentalism, but I'm also in favor of balancing out competing priorities and not reflexively privileging ones that seem unambiguously good based on simplistic connections. And I'm not saying you're doing that. I'm only pointing out that noticing the connection between pollution and respiratory problems doesn't win the argument to privilege environmental concerns over all others, not in my view of things anyway. Your mileage may of course vary.

I hate to join Brian in the punch bowl, but individual views on issues change depending on self interest. Conservatives are against gay rights, but Cheney is not because his daughter is gay. Evangelical's are opposed to abortion unless it is their own daughter you are talking about. Liberals are for raising taxes, but not their own. We are all for compassion unless it requires us to show any effort.

In Washington State the environmentalists where hilarious. All for regulating the property of others but not their own, then they where advocates for property rights. The West Coast in general is a good gauge for self interest's roll in politics, take California and Washington for instance... Two "progressive states" who in the last ten years have voted for initiatives that dramatically reduce taxes, end affirmative action, and place restrictions on immigration.

We live in a world where it is all about, in the words of Pacino, "f--- you buddy, cheat on your wife, call your mother on mother's day." Everybody seems to be looking out for number one.

Can I agree with everyone? I did not find this surprising at all, but it does go against the political worldview of those tending to conservative Christianity.

And polls do not policy make: the actual application always requires trade-offs and one's personal interests (which are not always economic ones, by the way).

Quite right.

Fine comments bk -- it is really easy to want more compassion with Other People's Money.

What poor people need, usually, is more religion/ a feeling that their own lives have meaning (secularism's materialism is ... nothing).

AND a job. Churches that don't offer more jobs to poor folks don't care THAT much ... oh, that's not their purpose. Um, OK ... but gov't programs shouldn't be their purpose either. Using gov't force to raise taxes (on the rich!), and then using that money to reward the irresponsible is NOT charity.

A program of increasing gas taxes and decreasing income tax rates would be a good program. But most of those who want some "good" effect are totally unwilling to pay for it.

BK:

I was always willing to pay more for green-ness. I was using my son to illustrate the point that we do pay for pollution in health care costs. There is an epidemic in childhood asthma, so it's not like I'm the only one paying. Plus all these asthmatic kids might be paying with a few years taken off their life. We all will pay by their having less productivity.

You said:

"A clean environment is a worthwhile priority for the sake of our health. And yet it competes with other priorities that are worthwhile for other reasons. I think we should strive to be environmentally conscious. But this does not preclude being economically conscious. After all, back in the days when the air was much cleaner and chemical free, life was by most accounts nasty, brutish, and short, it was said."

Using up natural resources, polluting rivers, and air is a quick cash game and short-sighted economically even if you discount increased healthcare costs. Back in the day, when there weren't any environmental controls people died of the air. London fog? That's a killing coal-based smog. And weren't there some bad air days in the 1970s that killed people in the US? Back in the day, when the air was clean people died of other things.

By the way, it was Thomas Hobbes who said "nasty, brutish, and short" and he was speaking about giving power to the individual. He said it would make life "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." He was against democracy and advocated for monarchy.

Right, Hobbes. That doesn't obviate the point that without economic activity life might well regress to nasty, brutish shortness.

I don't for a second dismiss the idea that pollution has substantial costs that we should consider. I think I've been pretty clear about that. But as I've already said, I don't think that shifts the paradigm away from the enduring need to strike a balance.

I'm not sure what alternative there is to using up natural resources. We can stress renewable resources and recyclability to some extent, but this is limited by population growth. IMO, we can only try to slow or optimize the rate, not reverse the trend.

A true committment to reversing the trend of increasing human consumption would require a committment to stasis or even population decline. I definitely don't think this is at all likely, and I'm not sure it's especially desirable, either. Your mileage may vary of course.

My take on it is that the level at which a vast majority of people would need to agree on some very enlightened conceptualization of self-interest is not achievable, at least not any time within the next century or 5. We'll use up all the fossil fuels first. That what I think is going to happen, and I think there's just about no chance of stopping it. On the whole, I think we're better of accepting it, expecting it, and doing our level best to manage it.

If this survey was true, the Democrats should be the dominant party in the U.S. It's a matter of intensity; as BK said, it's one thing to say you are for a better environment, another thing to pay for it. But more importantly, the survey has little relevance to the political system. What gets through the system depends not on vague attitudes of the general public, but specific desires of politically active groups. So, most people don't care that much one way or another about gay rights, abortion, etc. But there are small groups that care intensely about that and their influence is much stronger because they deliver votes. Same thing with envionmental regulation--in general, people may support a greener environment, etc. But the specific interests that are effected by environmental regulation (ie., polluters and conservative believers in property rights) are much more intense (and willing to put their money where their mouth is) than the general public. And these interests may vary in intensity from state to state. Joe Congressman from State X couldn't care less with Suzie Citizen in State Y thinks because she is not part of his constituency. Increasingly, I think the outcomes of the political system have less and less to do with the preferences of the general public; not so much because of the influence of money (although that's certainly a factor) but because the political system is increasingly fragmented and can be influenced at specific points by smaller groups that care deeply about a particular issue.

I think most people are generally like the people on this blog--they have a variety of opinions that don't fall neatly into left/right categories. But the ideolgogues are much more able to translate their intense interests into desired politcal outcomes even though they may be a minority.

Ok. BK. I get you. You're a complete pessimist. I despair of your statement that having a "vast majority of people ... agree on some ... enlightened conceptualization of self-interest is not achievable[.]" I think people can realize that exploiting the environment is mortgaging the future -- and the not-so-distant future at that.

There's some hope regarding population trends. The US is the only industrialized nation with population growth.

Maybe we should try to use up all the fossil fuels and force the crisis.

Apologies to all who remain as we are way off-topic now. Ignore as necessary folks.

A Pessimist? No way. At least not on the front of the prospects for ourselves as a species. I think we can continue to manage our lives under current trends and show continual slow growth and progress in both our numbers and our overall quality of life. I think life expectancy will keep going up slowly, and that we'll find ways to meet the challenges we face in this imperfect life. IMO, that's a very optimistic view. Muddling in the general direction of desirable progress, never optimizing.

Where you might be on the mark regarding my pessimism is that I honestly don't think that we are going to change human nature all that much. Not soon, and maybe not ever. I think people will continue to be guided by self-interest, and that for the most part this self-interest will continue to be informed by concrete needs, like food, shelter, the means to provide these, and so on. I think it's hard wired.

Regardless of the merits of privleging environmental priorities, I think it's overwhelmingly clear that compared to the recognized basic needs of most people, environmentalism will remain an abstract concern, which necessarily means it will stay as a lower priority. I just don't see how this ever gets inverted. The only way it comes into the forefront is if the other needs are eliminated by being met so well that almost no one worries about them anymore. And since I don't think THAT is going to happen any time soon, I can't see any such abstract concern coming to be viewed as more important. I think it's very unrealistic.

I didn't used to think so, but life has taught me over and over to be more realistic about human nature than I wanted to, especially when I looked in the mirror. :-). When I was younger, I vaguely hoped that once we got everyone to do a better job of loving each other, agreement on simple self-evident ideas like not harming the environment would just emerge. I've changed my mind.

My apologies for getting way off-topic too. Sorry. I would let you have the last word, BUT I found this article (see below) and wanted to say what John F. Kennedy, Jr. said regarding the environment (this is anti-Bush and really long so be forewarned) and fixing it better historically:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1120-01.htm

(NB: he uses his sons' asthma to help communicate his position too. Maybe we shouldn't. We/I get dismissed that way.) I wish I could put it together as well as this. I'll shut up now.

Susan, surely you don't think I was defending the Bush adminstration's environmental policies in part or in sum, do you?

I'm speaking way more generally of striking a balance. And I'm talking about genuine balance, not hiding behind rhetoric in order to better foster short term gain through unprincipled exploitation.

Each of the policies RFK jr brings up deserves to be examined fully in excruciating detail much deeper than whatever his characterizations of the alleged facts suggests.

But my money definitely still is on humans burning up every drop of extractable fossil fuel sooner or later unless it becomes painfully obvious that god has indeed given us enough rope with which to hang ourselves.

I tend to agree with Brian that, while people give lip service to the idea of environmental protection, for most it's abstract and not something they are willing to change their lifestyle for. I have had several arguments at work with a professed liberal (doesn't eat meant, hates GW, etc.) who drives an SUV. He simply refuses to acknowledge that there is any reason to give up his gas guzzler and simply dismisses any evidence to the contrary. This isn't that uncommon; I suspect if you go to any party with the Hollywood liberal crowd, you will see tons of SUVs. The point is these people are obviously for environmentalism in the abstract and they hate Bush's environmental policy, but they are not willing to make the least adjustment to their individual lifestyles. The only way this is likely to change is if we see a real environmental crises that really effects people's lives; until then, I think environmentalism is going to remain something that is politically correct to talk about but that has little meaning to most people.