After almost two weeks of discussion, the Copenhagen conference on climate change is over. A discussion over what it accomplished is still ongoing.

Commentators can be roughly divided into those who think that the conference accomplished something significant and those who think it didn’t. Within each group, however, there is a considerable disagreement regarding whether that is a good or a bad thing. As a result, one can find those with radically different views of climate change agreeing that the Copenhagen conference accomplished very little.

What is your view of the Copenhagen run-down? Do you think it accomplished what it set to accomplish and did you approve of what it set to accomplish in the first place? Do you think that the next conference will accomplish more or less in its goal of limiting carbon emissions?

Zeljka environment, future, international

As the Copenhagen conference heats up, a new proposal has been brought to the table: a planet-wide limit on the number of children people can have. The rather straightforward rationale, as explained by both a Chinese official and a Canadian journalist, is that smaller human population could significantly reduce greenhouse emissions. Needless to say, this has sparked considerable controversy.

In our work on socio-economic intutions, we have discovered that liberals and conservatives have a very different understanding of the role that rising population plays in wealth creation. Specifically, progressives and liberals are much more likely to endorse a Malthusian view that growing number of humans decreases  mankind’s wealth, while conservative and very conservative voters are much more likely to follow a Hayekian conclusion that increasing number of humans leads to greater wealth for all. Here are the results, based on a Zogby Interactive poll of almost 5,000 likely voters.

Zeljka economics, environment, future, global issues, ideology, international

Last week a number of sources have reported that thousands of emails as well as some computer codes from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University have been hacked and made public. The email correspondence among some of the leading climate scientists appears to show that they have tried to prevent dissenting opinions from appearing in peer-reviewed journals and prevent their data from becoming public.  The computer code used to analyze the data has also increasingly been subjected to scrutiny and some have raised doubts that data have been massaged to fit the preconceived message rather than assess the truth of the matter. Even a congressional investigation is not out of question.

However, some commentators have stressed that correspondence has been obtained illegally and argued that the thesis that global warming exists and is caused by human activity is not in danger. According to this view, the science in support of global warming is based on theoretical and empirical arguments that are broader and deeper than those of data and papers coming from CRU.

What is your view of the events surrounding revelation of emails and code at the CRU? Our March survey showed majority of Americans supporting the broad outline of the President’s environmental agenda. Do you think recent events will influence this support and did it influence your own? Do you believe that they will have a consequence for the climate science specifically and scientific research more generally?

Zeljka environment, future, global issues, international, science

In a recent Zogby Interactive survey of adults nationwide, respondents were asked about their attitude towards the government’s role in environmental protection. The results show that the sample was almost equally split on this issue. About 47% of the respondents strongly or somewhat agree that the government needs to devote more resources to protecting the environment, while almost 48% of the sample strongly or somewhat agrees that the government has taken protecting the environment too far and is hurting businesses with too many regulations.

A closer examination of the results by ideological group shows that 94% of the liberals agree that the government needs to devote more resources to environmental protection, compared to 65% of the moderates and 9% of the conservatives.

What kind of role do you think the government should play in environmental protection? Do you think that the carbon cap-and-trade bill should be passed by the Congress?

Grace environment, ideology, politics environment, war, zogby

When President Barack Obama announced new auto fuel standards on Tuesday requiring new cars and light trucks to get on average 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, almost 40% more fuel-efficient than current requirements,  makers of electric cars had to be happy.

The Chevy Volt, which the company calls an “extended-range electric vehicle” that travel its first 40 miles on electricity before burning any gas, is supposed to launch next year.  On May 6, Ford said it would put up hundreds of billions to convert an SUV plant into one that would roll out battery-electric versions of the Focus. Mitsubishi has a 2012 U.S. release date for plans its electric i-MiEV.  Toyota plans to sell an electric Prius by 2012. Nissan hopes to beat Volt to the U.S. market with its own electric vehicle.

Saving the environment will have its costs. The Obama Administration estimates the added cost of the new standards per vehicle will be $600, added to the estimated $700 per vehicle attributed to the current CAFE program. It is also saying that the extra cost will be offset by fuel savings, but that obviously depends on how much and where you drive.

Then there is the cost of electric vehicles. GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said on CBS’ Late Night with David Letterman that the Volt will cost about $32,500 after rebates. (Sticker price $40,000.)

Will you be ready to buy an electric car? How about other consumers?

Paul environment, future, technology environment, media, Obama, travel

Recently, the idea that the Earth has become over-populated has been enjoying a revival in in some corners of the environmental community. The basic concern is that, as the number of people grows, they are depleting natural resources and damaging the environment.

On the other hand, over years, some economists have argued that, as the number of people grows they are, as a group, becoming wealthier. More people means, more specialization, and, through trade, more total wealth. In addition, humans constantly turn previously worthless resources into valuable ones, and once they become valuable, humans discover increasingly efficient ways to use them. So, rather than depleting resources, humans are, in effect, creating resources.

In one of our Interactive surveys, we asked our respondents whether they find the statement “The more people there are, the more wealth there is” or “The more people there are, the less wealth there is” closer to their own view. Overall, 32% agreed with the former, and 46% with the later, with about 22% undecided. There were no significant generational differences.

Which of these views comes closer to your own understanding of the consequences of a growing population?

Zeljka consumption, economics, environment, future environment

It’s not so simple, being green. Or so claims a National Geographic Traveler article from May 2007 examining carbon footprints, carbon offsets,  and people’s desire to live a “carbon neutral” lifestyle. The article discusses the phenomenon of carbon offsite websites/exchange sites such as www.carbonfund.org. These sites allow you to calculate the amount of carbon used in various activities – for example, using natural gas to heat a small apartment, driving 200 miles a week in a hybrid vehicle, or flying from New York to London. The amount of carbon is then converted into a dollar amount, which people can then pay on the website. According to carbonfund.org, the money is then used for various projects involving renewable energy, energy efficiency, and reforestation.  Those questioned in the National Geographic article expressed a range of opinions on this practice, from support and optimism to  concern that sites such as carbonfund.org amount to “paying someone else to clean up your mess”.

Last summer, we surveyed people extensively about the environmental impact of their various travel plans. When asked “which of the following actions have you taken to make your trip more environmentally friendly”, only 6.7% of the respondents said they purchased flight-related carbon offsets. More common actions were people reusing linens and towels on their trip (82.9% of the respondents), purchasing items from local vendors (66.4% of the respondents), and limiting the use of plastic water bottles (65.9% of the respondents).

Why do you think carbon offsets are  purchased by a comparatively small percentage of  travelers – is it a lack of awareness of carbon offsets, a feeling they are not effective, or something else?

Katy environment, global issues, travel environment, lifestyle, summer, travel, war

Connecticut media recently reported a story about Dave Chameides – a man originally from LA who kept all the trash he made for a year in order to fully appreciate the consequences of unchecked consumerism.  This case suggests a story of a readiness for personal sacrifice in order to protect one’s ideals. However, our data show that attitudes towards environment and actual behavior do not always go together.

For example, while First Globals are the most likely of any generation to describe themselves as environmentalists, they are also the least likely of any generation to recycle. Slightly more than half (53.9%) of First Globals consider themselves environmentalists, compared to 44.5% of those 30-49, 51.9% of those 50-64, and 49.0% of those over 65. Yet when asked how often they recycle, 57.3% of First Globals recycle “always” or “most of the time”, compared to 63.6% of those 30-49, 67.3% of those 50-64, and 72.1% of those over 65.

Why would First Globals be the most likely to call themselves environmentalists while simultaneously being the least likely to recycle? Is “environmentalist” merely a label that people adopt  to make themselves feel morally superior? Or are First Globals not yet settled enough in their home lives and living situations to recycle on a consistent basis? Do you think First Globals will recycle more as they get older, or are they content to label themselves as environmentalists without doing things like recycling?

Zeljka consumption, culture, environment, first globals environment, first globals, media, war

Quick, name a product appealing enough that both Wal-Mart and Starbucks introduced it after being “inundated” with customer requests for this allegedly  more environmental and healthy alternative  to a staple of the American diet.  And here’s another hint: despite the preferences of these stores’ consumers, some doubt that this alternative is a substantive improvement over the original product.

The correct answer is hormone-free milk, or milk that is certified to be free of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH).   An article in the Christian Science Monitor notes that rBGH, which mimics a naturally occurring hormone found in dairy cows, is “linked by some to health problems in humans when ingested.” Concern over these effects is presumably what lead consumers to lobby Wal-Mart to change their store brand of milk to rGBH-free and for Starbucks to only serve rBGH free milk in stores. While hormone-free milk differs from organic milk (organic milk must meet additional production standards),  it can still cost up to $1.50 more, per gallon, than conventional milk.   But not everyone is convinced that rGBH is dangerous or that hormone-free milk is a major improvement – here is one CNN writer casting doubt on the scientific evidence against rGBH being harmful.

When we asked Americans in an interactive poll last summer whether they cared if the milk they drank was hormone free,  about 21.5% of those surveyed  said they always drank hormone-free milk and 41.1% answered that “milk is milk.” The remaining respondents said they tried to drink hormone-free milk but will drink conventional milk as well.

Our survey results show that over half of those surveyed make some kind of effort to drink hormone-free milk instead of regular milk. Do you agree with those who feel hormone-free milk is a major improvement, environmental or otherwise, over conventional milk? Or do you think that “milk is milk”?

Katy consumption, environment, lifestyles consumption, environment, health, summer, Wal-Mart