Survey: Environment a Low Voter Priority

[jpak]

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2005/sep/20/092006465.html

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) - A vast majority of voters favors stronger policies to protect the environment, but the issue still ranks low on their list of priorities, according to a survey released Tuesday.

The survey found that 79 percent favor "stronger national standards to protect our land, air and water," including 40 percent who strongly support the idea. But only 22 percent said environmental issues played a major role in their recent voting.

The survey was conducted by Hart Associates and Public Opinion Strategies for the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

"There is a clear disconnect here," William K. Reilly, former EPA head and chair of the institute's advisory board, said in a statement accompanying the results

<more>

[beingthere]

1. let's see the wording of that survey

let's not be sure it's a disconnect, until we see what questions were asked

[phantom power]

2. Most people view "environment" as something outside their daily lives.

It would be different if more people understood this:

The economy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the natural environment.
-- G. Nelson

[kahleefornia]

3. yes. environmentalism

seems to be thought of as saving spotted owls, or people camping out in redwoods.

[phantom power]

4. It annoys me when news-casters say stuff like...

"environmentalists are concerned about the impact of (policy-X) on clean water."

I mean, why call them "environmentalists?" How about just calling us "people who care about not being fucking poisoned?"

Or, "people who care about not watching our families die of famine from climate change"

[PATRICK]

5. This is the SAME

tactic the establishment or the crooks(the same nowadays) make when the people OBVIOUSLY want action on major reform issue. Election reform, getting big money out of politics, whatever.

The "ranking" ploy makes it seem the people don't want any of the major necessities of life and the future. If someone has a gun to your head today will you worry about having clean air tomorrow. Is it important? Stupid, stupid to fall for this dumb tactic. Not surprisingly it is the Bush faux EPA actually fronting this insulting crap.

Oh yeah everyone wants election reform but.... There IS no "but" unless you are trying to put down the people's will.

[hatrack]

6. Would an 820-millibar hurricane focus public attention on climate?

Would an outbreak of dengue spread by imported tiger mosquitoes be enough to make people realize that public health and invasive species are important issues?

Would condemnation of public drinking water supplies due to mercury contamination, or a definitive link between canned tuna and birth defects/autism/ADHD get people concerned about plans for more coal-fired power plants?

Would the spectacle of the slaughter of the last of the great apes as the remaining tropical forests fall spark real and lasting assistance to the developing world?

Maybe. But barring such catastrophes, it's hard to see concern growing in a lasting way in the hearts of Americans during this, the Age of Paxil.

[phantom power]

7. Nowadays...

it's not enough to just get people to understand there's a problem. These days, you have to convince them that there's a thing called "government" that humans used to use to solve large-scale problems. You'd have to convince about 25% of them that it wasn't God's punishment for {gays,abortion,secular-humanism}, and that the best solution is a massive prayer-group and a $100 donation to the 700-Club. Hell, you'd actually have to convince some of them that the problem wasn't really those commie environmentalists and their anti-growth agenda.

[MasonJar]

8. Then they are calling the wrong people.