Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
DISTRIBUTION: Heads of Executive Departments
FROM: Scott Corwon
Managing Member
SUBJECT: Public Perceptions of Climate Change
DATE: 8 February 2010
The Memorandum for the Secretary of Energy concerning the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear
Future (issued on 29 January 2010 by the Office of the Press Secretary, The White House) identifies the goal of
“expanding our Nation’s capacity to generate clean nuclear energy” as “crucial to our ability to combat climate
change, enhance energy security, and increase economic prosperity.”
This Memorandum concerning Public Perceptions of Climate Change summarizes the relevant, contemporary
attitudes and opinions of the American public as they relate to the broad topic of climate change. This
Memorandum is the sixth such summary of findings made available to the Administration since January 2009.
Americans Perceive Climate Change as a Diminishing National Priority
The American public does not believe that climate change is an “imminent” threat to human health, national
security and/or the welfare of the planet. Issues such as the economy, health care, the wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq, and terrorism continue to overwhelmingly dominate the American consciousness. Since January 2009, the
perceived relative threat posed by climate change has decreased by 14.8% as quantified by IMPACTS in its
Relative Risk Assessment and Index. (IMPACTS. Relative Risk Assessment and Index. Center for National Security
Research, Pasadena, CA. USA: IMPACTS Research & Development, 2010.)
An Increasing Number of Americans Believe that the Administration Overstates or Otherwise Exaggerates the
Likely Risks of Climate Change
39% of Americans currently agree with the statement “The Administration of President Barack Obama overstates
or exaggerates the risks that the United States faces as a result of global warming.” Respondents cite recent
weather conditions, dissenting “scientific” opinions and punditry influence as contributing to their beliefs that
the Administration is overstating the risk of climate change.
Concomitant to this belief, Americans consider “maximizing America’s natural resources such as its offshore oil
reserves” a more effective short‐term strategy to positively impact energy security, the economy and national
security (read: dependence on foreign oil supplies) than alternative energy strategies (including nuclear, solar,
and wind energies).
Americans Believe that Technology is a More Likely Interdictor to Stop the Relative Threat of Climate Change
than is Any Policy or Legislative Proposal
The American public is generally unable to identify any positive outcome resulting from the 2009 United Nations
Climate Change Conference (“the Copenhagen Summit”). This ostensible lack of result continues to support an
increasing belief that technology – and not policy – will ultimately interdict, retard or resolve whatever threats
posed by climate change. Among those respondents indicating the greatest awareness of the intent of the
Copenhagen Summit, the lack of adoption of the Copenhagen Accord was generally viewed as indicative of the
significant challenges inherent to developing a broad, effective global strategy to combat climate change.
To the degree that individual members of the American public believe that the “global” nature of the threat
poses a significant challenge to developing an effective response, so, too, does the American public believe that
“American innovation and technology” are the “best hope” for managing and/or resolving the climate crisis. This
finding perhaps suggests a more “sovereign” approach to developing and promulgating potential solutions that
are less dependent on the cooperation and compliance of foreign nations.
(continued)
MEMORANDUM – PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF CLIMATE CHANGE
Page Two
“Climate Change” as the General Descriptor of the Threat is Unlikely to Gain Significant Traction and Salience
Within a Three Year Chronology – “Carbon Pollution” is the Public’s Preferred Nomenclature
For years, the interchangeable phraseologies “global warming” and “climate change” and “global climate
change” have been used to describe the condition…with limited confirmation of the external adoption of these
phrases by the American public. In spite of multiple, sizeable investments with the ambition of increasing the
public’s awareness and acceptance of the broad topic of climate change, scant evidence exists supporting the
sustained efficacy of these initiatives. (Exceptions of defined durations – such as the seven‐month period
spanning June‐December 2006 when the documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth” benefited from wide‐release
and critical acclaim – are noteworthy but, ultimately, have not proven sufficiently impactful to fundamentally
alter the public’s priority concerning climate change.)
An increasing percentage of the American public believes that “climate” is a natural phenomenon that is largely
insusceptible to the actions of man. Related findings continue to support a strong correlation between an
individual’s personal religious convictions and the belief in climate as an example of “natural phenomena.” (In
other words, persons indicating faith‐based religious beliefs tend to view climate as analogous to events such as
volcanic eruptions and earthquakes – independent from man’s influence.)
This finding is consistent with recent meta‐analytic reviews documenting correlations between religious and
other belief sets such as racism and other forms of prejudice. (Hall, Deborah L., David C. Matz, and Wendy Wood.
"Why Don't We Practice What We Preach? A Meta‐Analytic Review of Religious Racism." Personality and Social
Psychology Review, February 2009: 126‐139.)
This finding – coupled with related findings – continues to indicate the very description of climate change as a barrier
to its public acceptance and prioritization. Simply put, the Administration’s positioning of the climate change crisis is
potentially in conflict with a prevailing, dominant system of beliefs for many Americans.
However, evaluation and testing conducted by IMPACTS indicates that the phrase “carbon pollution” as a descriptor of
the same condition (whereby “climate change” is but one symptom of the root problem) does not possess the same
bias characteristics that continue to inhibit the adoption and acceptance of climate change as a national priority.
Though the introduction of “carbon pollution” as the “official” description of the issue/condition would represent a
shift in the Administration’s messaging platform on the topic, the preliminary testing‐to‐date indicates the potential
for a momentous shift in the American public’s perception of carbon pollution (née climate change) as a national
priority.
END