Public cooling on climate, bay cleanup?
A new national public opinion survey finds Americans are cooling on dealing with climate change, while a statewide poll finds Marylanders also want to put off saving the Chesapeake Bay.
In both polls, the vast majority rank jobs and the economy as their top priorities for government action. Climate and the environment trail.
The national survey, by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press, says that global warming ranked last among the public's priorities. Just 28 percent of those questioned called it a top priority, down 10 percent from two years ago. Protecting the environment fared better, with 44 percent rating it a top priority. That's a slight improvement over last year, but down more than 10 points from where it was a few years ago.
A recent survey of more than 800 Marylanders, meanwhile, found that 77 percent think creating jobs and improving the state's economy should be a higher priority for the O'Malley administration than taking steps to reduce bay pollution. Just 15 percent put the bay first.
The poll, by Gonzales Research and Marketing Services of Annapolis, also found that a majority, 55 percent, think the state should postpone any new bay cleanup regulations until economic conditions are better. To see the full results, go here.
The poll was done for the Maryland State Builders Association, which is pushing back against new regulation requiring tighter controls on polluted storm-water runoff from development and redevelopment sites. Builders contend the rules could make their projects more costly and some even unbuildable.
"We commissioned the survey because in the third year of a recession, the leadership of our state needed to know what the priorities of their constituents are - JOBS," wrote Tom Farasy, president of the state builders association.
But Kim Coble, Maryland director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, questions whether the latter poll is a true reflection of voters' minds. She argues that the builder-backed survey is based on a flawed assumption that environmental protection has to cost jobs.
"If we are pitting jobs against a healthy environment, then we are rolling back the clock by decades," Coble said. The bay's decline also has cost jobs, she argued. The crabbing industry has lost more than 4,000 jobs since the mid-1990s, she pointed out - a decline her group blames at least partly on poor water quality.
What do you think? Should Washington forget about climate change for now and focus on reviving the economy? And should state lawmakers put the bay cleanup on the back burner until unemployment goes down? Are those the only choices?
Comments
I haven't seen a proposal from 'Washington' or the State that has any chance whatever of cleaning up the Bay... Here is a modest proposal that might improve water quality while allowing growth in appropriate places at appropriate densities: 1)pass the Governor's Sustainable community and Historic Tax credit programs; 2) eliminate the nutrient caps on small municipal wastewater treatment plants; 3) require nutrient removal technology on all new septic systems; 4)focus transportation money on transit services and encourage Transit oriented development; 5) dump the concept of the new stormwater regulations and TMDLs entirely.
Posted by: Jim Noonan | January 26, 2010 10:34 PM
Although, it is clear that the Maryland survey is biased in that it makes it seem as if cleaning the bay is completely unrelated to job growth. That is you can't have one with out the other. It seems that the agenda of the Maryland State Builders Association is more job growth in construction related fields (surprise, surprise).
It is interesting that in this biased survey, 43% versus 46% (That is ½ of the people) (I assume the other 11% had no comment) would support paying more in additional taxes and fees to clean up the bay
Posted by: David Lasker | January 27, 2010 9:45 AM
The only way we're going to improve our environment is if we foster the ideas and technology needed to eliminate, or at least drastically reduce, those industries that pollute heavily. I don't see why reviving the economy and reviving the environment can't be married into a policy that will stimulate our reduction on fossil fuels and the automobile.
We don't just need "jobs" I see plenty of "jobs" out there, what we need are jobs that meet the needs of our labor force, which many see as manufacturing. If we don't start innovating our policies with our technological savy, we're going to see that once again, the rest of the world has beaten us to the finish line!
One thing for sure is that jobs in land development and construction are not sustainable and are generally outsourced to low cost labor such as immigrants anyway, so how does more housing help us in the long run?
Posted by: Greg Sandi | January 27, 2010 10:08 AM
Quoting from a "push" poll like the one the Builders' constructed is naive and uninformative. Asked "would you rather drive or walk five miles to pick up milk," people will of course say "drive" -- so is an honest preference for driving to pick up groceries expressed in such a survey question? But asked, more appropriately, "if you could walk three blocks to pick up milk, would you do it, rather than drive to a store farther away," perhaps a preference for the walk would emerge. One can lie as readily with "polls" as with statistics, and you should know better. And yes, the "jobs" vs. "environment" question is old, tired, and thoroughly discredited.
TW: Would you rather we ignore the builders' survey? That won't make it go away. It's being peddled by the builders to politicians who may wade into the storm-water controversy. My intent was to let people know it's out there, to understand its context and to let folks who may be interested see the whole survey and judge for themselves how much faith to put in it. Are you - or is anyone else - aware of any other recent surveys asking the public to rate the Chesapeake Bay cleanup among a list of priorities? Any asking what people would be willing to pay, or if they'd be willing to pay more, to restore it?
Posted by: Lee Epstein | January 27, 2010 10:47 AM
Wheeler serves us well by highlighting this survey and the biased, shortsighted view it represents. We have for decades allowed "just a few more nails" in the Chesapeake's coffin, and the lid is pretty well on by now. Allowing more unwise development just accelerates the process,
Use the 'recession' to rethink and retool the assumptions we have about this economy. There are plenty of jobs that will emerge from a serious effort to build wisely, re-build wisely and to change our unsound habits in transportation.
Posted by: Kent Mountford | January 30, 2010 10:31 PM