This doesn't surprise me at all.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/usa_elections_environment_dc

Americans favor environment; votes don't show it

By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent Mon Oct 30, 12:05 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans care about the environment, but they don't usually vote that way in elections for president or Congress.

Compared to voters in Europe, where the Green Party is a political force and global climate change is part of the public dialogue, U.S. voters in national elections tend to cast their ballots based on candidates' stances on the
Iraq war, the economy and health care -- not on environmental policy.

The next Election Day is November 7.

Only about 3 percent of U.S. voters in recent exit polls said the environment was the most important issue to them in casting their ballots, according to Karlyn Bowman, who tracks public opinion polling for the American Enterprise Institute.

That puts it far behind the hot-button issue of abortion, which between 9 percent and 13 percent of U.S. voters said was most important to them.

This may be because Americans reckon the question about what the country wants in terms of the environment has long ago been settled, Bowman said.

"When we (in the United States) agreed in the late 1960s and early 1970s that we wanted a clean and healthful environment and we wanted to spend a lot of money to get one, once that consensus was reached at the national level, most Americans pulled away from the debate," she said.

While Americans accept the need to support a clean environment, each U.S. resident uses about twice as much energy as the typical German, Japanese or Briton and emits roughly as much carbon, according to the
Sierra Club.

With 5 percent of the world's population, the United States uses 25 percent of the world's oil and produces 25 percent of the world's carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming.

Much of the American appetite for energy is focused on transportation, where individuals are more likely to drive energy-inefficient vehicles for longer distances than in other developed countries.

ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS IS LOCAL

Bowman said the environment has lost its potency as a national issue, but still mobilizes Americans in state and local races.

That mobilization is clear as the United States counts down to the November 7 election for Congress and other offices.

California Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who has broken with the Republican Bush administration on environmental issues, has pushed for special state vehicle pollution standards, a bond issue meant to assure safe water and beaches, and for a sharp reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Nearly 400 Green Party candidates are on U.S. ballots in 2006, and so far Greens have won 24 out of the 62 elections where they had candidates around the country, according to the greens.org Web site. However, those winners are all in local offices, ranging from the Sebastopol, California, city council, to the board of supervisors in Douglas County, Wisconsin.

Most Americans do consider the environment important, according to Michael Bell, an environmental sociologist at the University of Wisconsin. Bell noted polling since 1983 shows a consistent high level of public support for environmental issues.

But he said few politicians make this a highlight of their campaigns, so voters leaving the polling booth are unlikely to list the environment as the reason they cast a ballot for a particular candidate, Bell said.

He also acknowledged that the environmental message is often one of "gloom and doom" -- a strategic mistake, in Bell's view.

"If to be an environmentalist is to put on a hair shirt every day, to force yourself at every second of the day to ask, 'Am I making the environmentally right decision?'... it's going to be rather overwhelming to people," Bell said.

The issue resonates with voters but not with business leaders, Bell said, adding, "That maybe is an important factor in understanding why it doesn't seem to resonate with politicians, whose interests often reflect those of business."

The enivronment is an invisible issue for everyone. Nobody understands that the best way at solving environmental problems is to prevent them in the first place. They don't get noticed until it becomes too late.

Another problem is that most politicians at local and national levels (especially national) are completely clueless as to the benefits of environmental awareness. Mostly it gets tagged as anti-business, or even more annoyingly, "anti-progress" and so people in a capitalist society are naturally frightened by environmentalism. All the while a lot of these dunces are taking money from lumber companies, oil companies, unions, etc. The fact is that it's possible to run a healthy business system and protect the environment, since it's the taxpayers who usually end up having to pay for costly business errors. It's an investment that has excellent and sucessfully proven long-term benefits.

that was a great post, matt.

good thread nick.

Let's all say this together:

"duh!"

in canada

enviromentall policy will affect my vote some but i vote NDP anyways and they have a better enviromentl policy than the green party does and they actually have a chance to bring some change here and there. wheras the green party has no mp's, hooepfully they'll get one soon though.

this is the #1 issue for me when deciding who to vote for. i wish more people did the same, but what can you do about it? it's very hard to change people's values, although maybe as the effects of climate change start to have an impact on people's daily lives things will change. by which time it'll probably be too late.

I just wanted to let you know that there are at least two of us out there. It is my #1 issue as well.

thanks
that is heartening

To me, it takes a backseat to broader issues such as federalism and limited government.

To those of you who say it's your #1 issue, why? If there was a candidate who had an excellent environmental policy but didn't match your views on several other issues, would you vote for that candidate?

What's so great about federalism?

Yes, I'd compromise some of my other views (not all) in exchange for some strong environmental policy.

I'm going to respond to this in two parts.


I'm not sure that this is something which can be summed up in a post. Suffice to say, it's my life. When I was a kid, I remember seeing a hill covered in logged trees and a ship dredging up sand from the bay; both of these things made me want to cry with despair, even as a child. I'm not sure I can say why, but damage to the environment has always invoked a passionate response from me. So I dedicated my education and career to it. It logically follows that it's the most important thing to me politically.



It depends on the strength of the other candidates' environmental credentials and what these other issues are. If push came to shove, I suppose I would vote for the one with the excellent environmental policy- provided their other views weren't so abhorrent that I couldn't bring myself to give them my vote. Either way, I vote for the Greens, and most of their views align with mine so this hasn't really been an issue for me.

environment is long term


people are short term

soooooo.... which are you saying is more important? doesn't the latter depend on the former?

if you're saying the latter is more important, or that people think that way, then the inherent assumption is that future generations are worth less than the current one. is this correct and if so, what discounting rate would you use to measure the value of one human life against another? does nationality come into play?

i think you read too much into it

people are about the hear and now. taxes can be cut now. highways can be improved now. labor laws can be changed now. the environment can not be saved now, it takes time. so it gets put to the side

because it's something which extends beyond a term of office.

actually, i meant people are about the here and now


i dont want vegman turning another pearl in his vag


people just look at the issues that affect them AND can be changed as soon as possible. the environment is going to take years if not decades

Do you like top-heavy government? I don't. It's more likely to tip over that way.

It would be pretty cool if there were a single politician in America who had the environment as his number 1 value as well. Then you'd have someone to vote for.