Last year, members of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason's Center for Climate Change Communication investigated the percentages of people who believed in climate change and documented the extent of their concern and awareness about its public health effects.
The study, Global Warming's Six Americas, suggests that the U.S. has two extremes, both making up 13% of the population: a group of people who are "Alarmed" about climate change and a group of people who are "Dismissive." The latter doesn't believe climate change exists. The former believes it warrants sweeping environmental legislation.
Between those very polarized views, we have a rather substantial percentage (31%) of aware but less passionate "Concerned" citizens. In the middle of the belief spectrum, 23% of Americans are cautious about climate change, 7% are completely disengaged, and 13% are doubtful it exists at all.
Where do you fall on this scale? Yale University graph.
The numbers aren't the only eye-opening part of the Six Americas study. The report reveals how generally unaware all groups are to the potential health effects of climate change.
Only the majority (60%) of the Alarmed population could accurately cite an ailment caused by global warming, with air pollution, allergies, and lung disease mentioned as the leading climate change-related threats.
Only the majority (60%) of the Alarmed population could accurately cite an ailment caused by global warming, with air pollution, allergies, and lung disease mentioned as the leading climate change-related threats.
Here's how that trickles down to their support of government action, or lack thereof, which would mitigate the health effects from climate change. The Alarmed and Concerned groups advocate government efforts on "every level." The Cautious, Doubtful, and most of the Disengaged want the same level of effort that the government currently exercises. The Dismissive, or at least a majority of them, want less government action.
Here's how that trickles down to their support of government action, or lack thereof, which would mitigate the health effects from climate change. The Alarmed and Concerned groups advocate government efforts on "every level." The Cautious, Doubtful, and most of the Disengaged want the same level of effort that the government currently exercises. The Dismissive, or at least a majority of them, want less government action.
To give you an idea of how this plays out in real time, let's take a look at Utah. Home of the "Best Snow on Earth," the Beehive State has some of the country's worst air pollution. It also has a very divided population of pro-business conservatives and pro-regulation conservationists. These nearly polar opposite value systems complicate how lawmakers can approach environmental regulation–if they can approach it at all.
Utah: Where Alarmed Outdoor Lovers Live Next Door To Dismissive Big Business Lovers
Utah's air pollution in full effect. Scott G. Winterton/Deseret News photo.
The American Lung Association ranks the Salt Lake/Provo metropolitan area as the 7th worst for short-term particle pollution in the country. Especially evident after a snowstorm, warm air traps denser, colder air in the mountain-rimmed valley below. This layer of warm air also holds all the emissions from cars, trucks, and large-scale industrial operations.
Utah's inversion layer is infamous. So are the near-Beijing-levels of fine particulate pollution, called PM2.5, they carry in the atmosphere. The Utah Division of Air Quality (DAQ) issues action alerts through AirNow.gov when PM2.5 levels get high enough to damage public health.
Outdoor athletes are one of the the most at-risk demographics in Utah's population of nearly 3 million people. Because we engage in intense, cardiovascular exercise, we absorb PM2.5 deeper into our lungs. As climate change increases temperatures along the Wasatch Front, the inversion layer, bolstered by more warm air, will get worse. And the resulting public health issues are potentially tremendous.
Outdoor athletes are one of the the most at-risk demographics in Utah's population of nearly 3 million people. Because we engage in intense, cardiovascular exercise, we absorb PM2.5 deeper into our lungs. As climate change increases temperatures along the Wasatch Front, the inversion layer, bolstered by more warm air, will get worse. And the resulting public health issues are potentially tremendous.
According to the EPA, the fine, particulate matter we inhale deep into our lungs after a bright, sunny day of skiing, mountain biking, hiking, or trail running over the long-term causes major heart and lung problems, including heart attacks, arrhythmia, asthma, and decreased lung function. People who already have heart and lung diseases risk premature death.
According to the EPA, the fine, particulate matter we inhale deep into our lungs after a bright, sunny day of skiing, mountain biking, hiking, or trail running over the long-term causes major heart and lung problems, including heart attacks, arrhythmia, asthma, and decreased lung function. People who already have heart and lung diseases risk premature death.
To Regulate, Or Not To Regulate: Utah's Resistance to Obama's Clean Power Plan
Mobile sources represent more than half of the carbon emissions in Salt Lake. Yale study photo.
The sources of emissions in Utah, according to 2008 DAQ estimates, in Wasatch Front's four urbanized counties are varied: 57% of emissions came from mobile sources (i.e. on-road cars and trucks), 32% from area sources (i.e. smaller commercial sources like smoke stacks and gas stations), and 11% from industry (i.e. large power plants).
The challenge with each of these emissions sources has been how to go about regulating them. Utah, like many Western states, has a track record of resisting federal regulation in favor of state's rights.
This August President Obama and EPA Administrator Gina McCathy unveiled the Clean Power Plan, a federal regulatory effort that aims to significantly reduce carbon emissions from power plants, the largest source of carbon emissions in the U.S. Each state has a customized plan, a kind of 'phase-out' for power plant carbon emissions between now and 2030.
The Clean Power Plan for Utah, according to an EPA Region 8 report, claims, "Utah’s 2030 goal is 1,179 pounds per megawatt-hour. That’s in the middle of this range, meaning Utah has one of the moderate state goals, compared to other state goals in the final Clean Power Plan."
The Clean Power Plan for Utah, according to an EPA Region 8 report, claims, "Utah’s 2030 goal is 1,179 pounds per megawatt-hour. That’s in the middle of this range, meaning Utah has one of the moderate state goals, compared to other state goals in the final Clean Power Plan."
Orrin Hatch, the state's longest-standing senator, adamantly opposed the new regulations, because he believes it's not only a federal overstep, but a job-killer. Previously, he has denied there's scientific consensus about climate change and pointed out that humans tend to benefit from warmer temperatures.
“The Obama administration has issued a swarm of burdensome regulations, but the so-called Clean Power Plan is one of the worst,” Hatch said via a press release on his website. “This rule is clearly inconsistent with both the limits on the EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act and the Constitution’s separation of powers and protections of state sovereignty.
"Moreover, according to independent analysts, this rule could destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and impose significantly higher utility bills on families and businesses while producing no meaningful climate benefits according to the EPA’s own model," he adds. "Over the last thirty years, technological advances driven by the free market have led to significant improvements in air quality. We will continue to see further improvements without the unnecessary burden these new regulations place on hardworking Americans.”
What To Do When They Can't Agree
In the follow-up to this piece, we're going to take a look at carbon tax and dividend programs. Revered as pollution's free market solution, pro-business conservatives favor carbon taxes over federal environmental regulations because they help to boost the economy.
play
July 5th, 2019
Need to seen the amazing article here just looking the word finder cheat game here it is the nice way to all players.