As for elites versus the public, the US public overwhelming supports environmental regulation, even at the expense of short-term jobs or anything else proposed, since they recognize the long-term losses could be far worse. It is actually an elite position to have blase attitudes on such issues. Even republicans in the US support the climate change treaty by strong majorites, while the public as a whole is supportive by over 2-to-1. On tightening standards on car emissions, the public wants them by a 3-to-1 standard, yet the elites continue to defeat them. And the public overwhelming supports solor energy while opposing nuclear energy.
The tree huggers are the populists on the environment and the hardhat poseurs are reflecting elitist interests.
Here are some basic Gallup polls on the subject:
With which one of these statements about the environment and the economy do you most agree? Protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth. OR, Economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent."
%
Protection of environment 57
Economic growth 33
Equal priority (vol.) 6
No opinion 4
(BTW this is a recent poll from last year and reflects the recession; in 2000 when the economy was doing better, the polls showed that environmental protection at the expense of the economy was supported by 67-28 levels or such levels)
Do you favor or oppose:
"Setting higher auto emissions standards for automobiles"
Favor 75 Oppose 23 No opinion 2
"An international treaty calls on the U.S. and other industrialized nations to cut back on their emissions from power plants and cars in order to reduce global warming, also known as the greenhouse effect. Some people say this would hurt the U.S. economy, and is based on uncertain science. Others say this is needed to protect the environment, and could create new business opportunities. What's your view? Do you think the United States should or should not join this treaty requiring less emissions from U.S. power plants and cars?"
Should 61 Should not 26 No opinion 13
Nathan Newman nathan at newman.org
----- Original Message ----- From: "James Heartfield" <Jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 5:19 AM Subject: Scoop: Ice melts!
Ordinarily I wouldn't reply to Chris Kromm, because he is so lacking in ordinary human graces.
However, I cannot share in the general expressions of terror at ice melting in the Antarctic. Climate changes, whether we do anything or not. Anyone who wants to avoid climate change should go and live on the moon.
Kromm takes exception to the idea that capitalist elites might promote the interpretation that industrial emissions are endangering the planet. But he takes a narrowly American view. In Europe, governments that are committed to capitalism are also demanding America reduce its CO2 emissions.
More to the point, the ostentatious expressions of outrage at pollution we hear from Kromm and others are entirely insincere.
If anyone really believed that industry was going to destroy the environment, wouldn't they do something about it? As far as I can see, no significant section of society is voluntarily reducing its consumption.
I am interested to hear what Kromm will give up to save the planet, or what actions he is involved in to change policy?
More likely is that this environmental shock-horror story will drift out of people's minds within a few days, along with all the other panics that come along from time to time. The reason for that indifference is not apathy, but an intuitive sense that the sky is probably not falling down.
From: Chris Kromm <ckromm at mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 23:08:31 -0500
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- ------=_NextPart_000_0471_01C1CF9A.FC8B8600 Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> [Just had James Heartfield on the radio, and he told us global=20
> warming was no big deal. James?]
Yes, global warming is a conspiracy propagated by the capitalists to = keep down the workers. Even though climate control measures are = vociferously opposed by the capitalists. But that's just false = consciousness on their part. Or something.
Why you had James "pollution is good because it's oh so proletarian, or = at least in my flimsy analysis" Heartfield on your show is the real = mystery...
-- James Heartfield Sustaining Architecture in the Anti-Machine Age is available at GBP19.99, plus GBP5.01 p&p from Publications, audacity.org, 8 College Close, Hackney, London, E9 6ER. Make cheques payable to 'Audacity Ltd'. www.audacity.org