Although the recent Gallup poll showing decreased concern over climate change is troubling, it is not surprising given the number of other, more immediate concerns facing Americans today, including such “kitchen table” issues as affordable health care, affordable energy, paying the mortgage, holding on to their jobs, and the shape of their 401k.

For many Americans, climate change is an academic argument over abstract issues that have little immediate connection to their everyday lives. When faced with losing a house or a job, worrying about health insurance or the safety of a child at war, measuring carbon emissions or reading about greenhouse gas buildup can easily fall down the list of people’s priorities.

That said, the debate over the validity of climate change, its potential causes and solutions, remains an important one, which is why AGA, its natural gas utility members and their customers continue to move forward, focusing on proven practices that can increase energy efficiency and conservation, and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. From encouraging the direct use of natural gas in homes and businesses to promoting more efficient building codes and standards, our industry has a demonstrated track record of environmental stewardship. In fact, the number of residential households using natural gas increased from 38 million in 1970 to about 65 million today — an increase of more than 70% — yet aggregate residential consumption of natural gas to heat their homes over that time remained essentially flat and so have greenhouse gas emissions. Equally impressive, households across America today use 32 percent less natural gas than they did in 1980.

The point is that in natural gas households, it is still possible to concentrate on the kitchen table issues while doing your part to be energy efficient and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change.

Gallup's poll indicates that Americans are more concerned about the economy and jobs than the environment. The oil and natural gas industry already supports 9.2 million U.S. jobs and has the potential to create thousands more. If energy development were allowed in areas that are off-limits, the industry could create an estimated 160,000 new jobs, generate $1.7 trillion for federal, state and local governments, improve America's energy security, and help to reduce the trade deficit.

It's also likely that many Americans are aware that the environment is much cleaner now than 20 years ago. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), since 1990 the levels of six common air pollutants have fallen 41 percent on average despite an increasing population and expanding energy usage. Furthermore, between 2000 and 2008, the oil and natural gas industry invested $58.4 billion in greenhouse gas mitigating technologies in North America, more than was invested by either the federal goverment or by all other U.S.-based private industries combined. In 2008 alone, the industry reduced greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) by 48.3 million metric tons, the equivalent of taking 9.7 million cars off the road.

Greenhouse gas emissions are being reduced in other sectors of the economy as well. In the transportation sector, for example, the combination of EPA's existing "new fuels" requirement and higher mileage standards proposed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are expected to keep GHGs flat for the next couple of decades. Additional actions, including the ongoing transition to Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel fuel, also will have significant environmental benefits.

In coming years, environmental improvements will continue as fuel producers and refineries invest billions of dollars in R&D, equipment and infrastructure aimed at providing cleaner-burning fuels to the marketplace. Clearly, the industry's hard work and investments are making a difference. Therefore, one of the first steps in addressing the climate issue should be to recognize those accomplishments and to consider the importance of promoting job creation and economic growth.

Several factors account for the public’s declining concern about global warming. The Climategate scandal, shoddy science by the IPCC, documentation of significant warming biases in surface temperature records, and the lack of a warming trend over the past 15 years have undermined the credibility of former Vice President Gore’s “planetary emergency.”

The worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, high jobless rates, California’s virtual bankruptcy, the failure of the Stimulus, and skyrocketing national debt tend to concentrate the mind. People want their leaders to focus on jobs and the economy, which more directly affect their standard of living than do the uncertain impacts of carbon dioxide emissions on average global temperature 50 to 100 years hence.

In addition, the novelty of cap-and-trade has worn off. Many people now understand that cap-and-trade is a stealth energy tax (“cap-and-tax”), few want to pay higher taxes, and few believe higher energy costs are part of the solution to our nation’s economic woes.

Finally, the public is experiencing what Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute calls “apocalypse fatigue.” Although climate models are not predictive, nothing has become more boringly predictable than regulatory advocates claiming that climate change is even worse than they previously predicted! There comes a point – a “tipping point,” if you will – where angst, hype, and shrill provoke doubt or even laughter rather than belief and alarm.

How should Congress respond to the waning interest in global warming? It should eschew cap-and-trade as a job-killing energy tax, and should protect the economy and democratic accountability, as discussed in previous posts, by vetoing the legal force and effect of EPA’s endangerment finding.

Recently polls indicate that the American people are overwhelmingly most concerned with jobs and the economy. Climate change has never been at the top of the list of concerns, and the recession has just made this view more pronounced than it already was. Why? Because the public knows that dealing climate change will lead to higher energy costs. In a general way, the public certainly would like to do something about climate change, but not if it significantly raises their energy costs. In the past, measures to reduce air pollution have been more popular, because people can see the immediate results. That’s not the case with a complicated policies like cap and trade, which in some forms may not even address the problem.

What’s more interesting and more relevant for policymakers is that as far as the public’s concerned, energy security trumps climate change. This is perhaps most clear in the latest poll from the Pew Research Center, where climate change comes in last on the list of concerns and energy comes in at number 11 (which slipped from number 6 the year before, a reflection of declining energy prices in an economic recession, but still a fairly strong showing). Most people don’t understand why we can’t explore and produce the abundant energy we have in our own country. Doing so would not only make us more secure, it will also create much-needed jobs.

As the global economy picks up, energy supplies will tighten, prices will rise, and the public will once again be clamoring for action. An energy security agenda that incorporates climate change action will have great resonance with the public than a climate change agenda alone ever could. We at the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy have put together such an agenda, with 88 specific energy recommendations. It is time for a reality check—let’s pursue the policies that the public supports (like nuclear, with 62% support in the latest Gallup poll) and focus on doing the things that will create jobs and make us more secure.

Climate change is one of the biggest problems facing our world today. It is also one of the most complex, which may explain why most Americans don't yet appreciate the severity of the threat that climate change poses to our communities and our environment.

So what can advocates of climate change legislation learn from the recent debate over health care, another highly complex issue? Actually, quite a bit. Over the course of the last few months, we have witnessed an apathetic America become reengaged in the law-making process. Citizens from both sides of the aisle turned out in droves to town hall meetings, rallies and events, all eager to be a part of history. It’s time to capitalize on this transformation from uninterested and uninformed to motivated and mobilized, and expand the focus of their attention to include not just the health of the people but the health of the planet as well.

Americans must acknowledge global warming as a national priority. Already, climate change is impacting the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. Our fish and wildlife resources are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of global warming, and many species have already experienced change in the timing of their breeding and migration, shifts in their ranges, and declines in the extent and quality of their habitat, population size and genetic diversity. Left unchecked, these trends ultimately may lead to the extinction of 40 percent or more of the world’s known species. Humans rely on those species to regulate the air we breathe and the water we drink, decompose our waste, fertilize our soil and provide us with food and medicine. Without them, life as we know it would not be possible.

That’s why it is imperative that legislation tackle both the causes and effects of climate change. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is not enough; a comprehensive national policy must also provide adaptation measures for the natural resources already suffering the effects of global warming. The administration has recognized the need for climate change adaptation measures, as have the proposals for multiple bills in Congress. But while government acknowledgment of the problem is progress, it will mean nothing unless we find a way to implement and enforce those policies, and soon.

Congress has the opportunity now to refocus its efforts on passing comprehensive climate change legislation. Last summer saw great strides made through approval of such a bill in the House of Representatives, and it is time for the Senate to resume that forward momentum. Public response is guaranteed; if Americans have proved anything in the past few months, it is a renewed willingness to participate in a legislative dialogue.

We all rely on nature for survival, so when we reduce global warming pollution and invest in ways to safeguard nature and wildlife, we are helping ourselves as well.

And as soon as Americans understand this, that they have a personal stake in the success of climate change legislation as well as the power to influence it, we will find them a force to be reckoned with.

Why has American’s concern with global warming dropped to dead last among issues surveyed? Because a great deal of their concern was based on projections that have been dramatically toned down or exposed as outright fraud. The hysteria is unsupportable and people have caught on.

The very active 2005 hurricane season, underscored by hurricanes Rita and Katrina, put the national psyche in a receptive mood for Al Gore’s inaccurate portrayal of 2005 as the base of an exponentially growing hurricane horror story. Subsequent quiet years and research showing a likely decline in the number of hurricanes took the panic out of that hysteria for many people.

And there is more. The unconscionable exaggeration of the glacial melting in the Himalayas was exposed, which eliminated another panic button.

Wash, rinse, repeat, and repeat, and repeat:

• It turns out the projected loss of rain forest due to warming-induced drought is bogus.
• Where are the missing weather stations in China?
• Where are the missing weather stations in Russia?
• Why are we using so many sub-standard weather stations in the U.S?
• The sub-standard sources (for instance, interviews in a hiking magazine) for melting glaciers in Africa, South America, and the Alps mock the peer-reviewed-only standard at the IPCC.
• Where is Holland?
• Glacier problems arise again in the form of a 40 percent measurement error for Alaska.

Further, “hide the decline” was not some innocent slip of the tongue. By hiding the decline, the researchers hid the fact that this tree-ring proxy data was unfit for documenting significant temperature spikes. That is, since the tree rings in question failed to pick up known recent temperature increases (they actually indicated a temperature decline, hence the need to hide something), the lack of similar findings in the past is hardly evidence against the medieval warm period.

If that’s not enough, blizzards in Georgia (the U.S. state, not the country) are blamed on global warming. People remember the story of the boy who cried wolf.

Apologists for the hysterics claim that the basic science is still intact. Since the basic science depends fundamentally on the questionable data, that’s hard to swallow. But even if the basics are there, it’s not enough to get people worked up.

The temperature might go up two more degrees? Hey, why do you think so many people left the Snow Belt for the Sun Belt? Sea levels might rise 6-23 inches in the next 100 years? It rose six inches in the past 100 years and nobody even bothered to mention it.

Will two or three more degrees, if the rise should be that high, impose some net adaptation costs (don’t forget higher temperatures have benefits as well as costs)? It’s possible, but it’s not a catastrophe. Same goes for the 23 inches of possible sea-level rise over a 100-year span.

If Americans care about the economy and national security, then they care about climate. If they care about their ability to put enough food on the table, they care about climate. If they care about having water for drinking, bathing, and occasionally even watering the lawn, then they care about climate. If they worry about extreme events, like the devastating drought gripping the southwest, the 1995 Chicago heat wave that killed more than 700 people, devastating mega-fires, or Hurricane Katrina, then they worry about climate change.

Americans clearly care about climate, the problem is, they might not know it yet.

Humans were not engineered for long term thinking. Dealing with the mammoth in front of you always took precedence over the worry about whether there would be enough to eat next month or next year, let alone for the next generation. But since we’ve started to engineer the climate, threatening to exit the remarkably stable temperature range in which the agriculture that sustains us was developed, we need to figure out how to think further ahead. Once we do that, we all care about climate.

Gallup’s discovery that the public is less concerned about environmental problems now than any time in the past 20 years must be put in context. The condition of our economy, concerns about jobs and other economic issues (like the growing federal debt and deficit) dominate public opinion and will until the unemployment rate drops to an acceptable level and economic growth is sustaining no less than 3% a year.

For at least the last decade, environmental concerns have had a hard time getting into the top 20 issues of public concern. And climate has been near or at the bottom of environmental issues. Part of the reason is the simple fact that the public sees continuing improvement in environmental quality. Existing environmental laws are working, even if not efficiently. Karlyn Bowman, a public opinion expert at the American Enterprise Institute, noted 3 reasons why climate change does not rank high on the public’s priority list:

• It is far off;
• They don’t see themselves impacted by it; and
• There is no agreement on its seriousness.

Statistics showing that 75% of the public believe that climate change is serious have to be viewed with a certain amount of skepticism, according to Bowman, because 75% always seem to be worried about some issue. And, opposition to actions like cap and trade grows rapidly when the public focuses on increases in unemployment and higher gasoline and electricity prices.

The current public opinion data could also be interpreted to mean that the public simply is not buying into climate orthodoxy and warnings of an apocalypse sometime in the distant future. As H. L. Mencken observed, “the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Based on Congress’ disregard for voters’ opinion on health care reform, there is little reason to believe that much attention will be paid how low climate change ranks in the public’s priority list. If lawmakers did account for this, all of their attention would be placed on the economy, job creation, and our ability to complete in the global economy. History demonstrates that increasing national wealth leads to increased investments in environmental improvement.

Independent of public opinion polls on climate change, Congress should be focusing on actions that will produce long term benefits -- reducing the growth of greenhouse gas emissions cost-effectively. These include more R&D, greater incentives to develop and deploy new energy technologies, increased turn over of the capital stock (since replacements will be more energy efficient, removing barriers to the deployment of existing energy technologies and promoting greater use of natural gas to produce electrical power.)

There is no shortage of actions that are consistent with reducing emissions while promoting job growth and economic growth. Likewise, there also is no shortage of actions that will produce deep and rapid emissions reductions without inflicting more damage to a struggling economy.

We can only hope that Congress shows the wisdom to choose from the abundance of actions that will truly work and help the economy.

A recent Gallup poll indicates that a majority of Americans now favor economic growth “even if the environment suffers to some extent.” This question, which has been asked annually since 1985, has consistently favored “protection of the environment…even at the risk of curbing economic growth” until 2008. Given the current financial crisis, why is this surprising? In another recent Gallup poll, unemployment and the economy are the number one and number two items on people’s mind when asked what they consider to be the most serious problems facing this country. Healthcare is number three. What does this mean for those concerned about the environment? Only two percent of respondents list the environment as a major concern. Yet, this is the same number that mentioned the war in Iraq, and twice the number that mention crime! Putting the public’s mixed feelings about the war aside, research clearly indicates that the public is willing to pay for programs that have been shown to reduce crime, such as early childhood education, drug treatment, or more police. Thus, be wary of interpreting these raw rankings and poll numbers. They might tell us what is top of mind and of highest priority, but they don’t tell us what the public is willing to pay for.

In a recent survey of residents in the U.S. and Sweden, RFF Fellow Alan Krupnick and his colleagues in Sweden found that 92% of Swedes and 71% of Americans are willing to pay for climate change mitigation efforts. The average amount people are willing to pay to avoid a 4^oF temperature rise was $306/year in Sweden and $204/year in the U.S. – amounting to between 2-3% of the respondent’s per-capita income. They were willing to pay even more if temperature increases could be held to 3^oF: $330 per year in the U.S. and $552 per in Sweden. These levels of expenditure are in line with most of the economic estimates of the cost of climate change mitigation – generally thought to be between 1-3% of GDP. Every year, Congress passes hundreds of laws – by definition, only a handful of which are in the top 10 list of the public’s concerns. Thus, it might not matter if climate change is towards the bottom of the list of priorities for the public – what matters most is whether or not they ultimately support legislation. In fact, the same Gallup poll in December 2009 that reported more Americans would favor economic growth over environmental protection indicated that 55% favored an agreement in Copenhagen that “would require the U.S. to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions” (only 38% opposed, with 7% having no opinion.)

Of course, even though studies suggest that the public is willing to pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this does not necessarily translate into political will – and opposing interests are often more concentrated (and hence politically powerful) than diffuse public opinion. Aside from what appears to be at least a slight majority of public support for greenhouse gas legislation, there are also important lessons to be learned about how to increase the public’s interest in an issue affecting their wellbeing. For many years, I taught my MBA students at Vanderbilt courses on environmental management – including topics in environmental marketing. One of the most basic principles in environmental marketing is to understand what product attributes consumers value most. For example, emphasizing the health benefits or lower risk of inhaling toxic fumes is a more powerful selling feature for a non-chemical household cleaner than claiming that it is better for the environment. If quality concerns are not an issue, so is lower price. Personalizing the benefits of environmental product attributes is a well-known marketing approach.

To those seeking public support for legislation reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the lessons should be clear. Policies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions always have additional consequences – and they are likely to differ considerably across policy options. Depending upon which policies are enacted, among the “co-benefits” of greenhouse gas reductions are lower costs (e.g. energy efficiency projects), reduced dependence on foreign oil, better air and/or water quality, as well as the lower costs of long-term adaptation and catastrophic consequences of climate change. Not all climate policy options are created equal. Focusing on “energy security,” for example, should increase the chance of public support. Yet not all energy security policies are equal – with some likely to result in significant greenhouse gas reductions while others moving us in the opposite direction. Focusing on policies that both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create jobs in the U.S. (e.g. home insulation projects that provide construction jobs) would be another example. Similarly, some greenhouse gas reductions are likely to have significantly more ancillary health benefits than others (e.g. reducing dependence on coal might have significant air quality benefit compared to reducing methane gas emissions). Thus, embracing those policies that serve dual goals and provide ancillary benefits of interest to the voting public might be the best option in a political environment that is not overly favorable towards climate change legislation. I say that not to embrace any particular policy platform – other than to note that focusing on policies that have dual benefits will also likely provide the greatest social value at the lowest cost.

Solving the climate crisis is one of the defining issues of our time. Acting to stop catastrophic climate change is not a matter of public opinion, it is about responding to a reality. And Americans have consistently supported action to address this reality. Poll after poll has shown a large majority of Americans acknowledge the reality of climate change, despite the best efforts of professional skeptics who have tried to discredit the overwhelming scientific evidence. Of course, the polls show that Americans are very concerned about the weak economy and high unemployment rates — it’s the worst economic situation most Americans have ever faced. Yet the polls also demonstrate that Americans, in contrast to much of the hyperbolic rhetoric on this issue, understand that addressing climate change will also help the economy.

A recent survey at Stanford University found that 75 percent of Americans acknowledge that global temperatures are rising. While the poll found a 5 percent decline from the year before, it attributed this shift to a minority of Americans who do not trust climate scientists, and might be persuaded by short-term events such as changes in the weather. A recent poll by Republican pollster Frank Luntz found nearly two-thirds of Americans believe climate change is likely caused by humans.

In the years to come, we will confront both the environmental impacts of a changing climate and the economic consequences of using dirty sources of energy. This means that public demand for action will only grow louder. Fortunately, the solutions to the climate crisis are within our grasp. Solving the climate crisis means a transition to a clean energy economy, which will create jobs at the same time we’re helping the environment. It also means we can produce clean, renewable energy in America, instead of spending over a billion dollars a day buying oil from abroad.

The Senate is currently working to craft a bipartisan bill that will unite those who are worried about global warming, and those who simply know that clean energy will help our economy and make America more secure. Developing policies that will create jobs, reduce pollution and increase energy independence is the surest path toward passing a legislative package with enthusiastic support from the public.

But many aren’t simply waiting for Congress to act. My organization has the privilege of working with thousands of everyday Americans and their message of support for a clean energy future. These people are among the more than 58,000 individuals featured on the Repower America campaign’s online “wall,” where you can see their video testimony on why clean energy is important to them. We have brought together steelworkers, farmers, small business owners, faith leaders and many others. These are some of the Americans who know that clean energy is an economic opportunity we can’t afford to lose. For millions of Americans, clean energy and climate solutions are already a priority. Our leaders in Washington are about to make it their priority too.

Americans have always been concerned about their jobs, their homes and their families. Relatedly, Americans usually focus more on environmental issues that affect them most directly. Here’s the thing: global warming is already impacting many Americans and the percentage will only continue to rise as extreme weather events, property damage, insurance costs, agricultural disruptions and damage to ecological services continue to rise. Certainly, the fossil fuel industry’s relentless and baseless attacks on global warming science haven’t helped polling numbers. Even the big Green Group’s campaign focus on jobs has played a role in the environmental polls (which, in actuality, aren’t that different than past polls despite the recent slight dips). But remember this: reality has a way of pushing public opinion polls in the correct direction. It’s only a matter of time.

As day follows night, public concern about the environment waxes and wanes with good economic times and bad, respectively. Thus has it always been and thus will it always be. The same is true when concerns about national security are high. IF we are entering a period during which the economic supremacy of the U.S. declines, this is bad news indeed for those seeking new and stronger environmental laws and regulations.

It's thus critical to emphasize those policies that will both strengthen the economy and also improve the environment. They exist, of course, but they are not as plentiful as some would suggest. We should start with energy conservation.

The binary climate catastrophe bubble has burst. This was inevitable and probably for the best. You’re either with us (Gore) or against us (Inhofe) is a poor frame for a complex issue. Climate is a risk that needs to be hedged because the fat-tail risks from positive climate feedback loops pose economic, and mortality, outcomes simply too grave to ignore. (This weekend’s excellent Economist article stopped just short of highlighting this as a factor in moving forward with policy.)

As a financial person I find it ironic that banks are vilified for un-hedged fat tail-risks resulting in gigantic taxpayer-funded bailouts - yet in climate the probability distribution staring us in the face is dismissed as too uncertain*. Damn right it is uncertain! The shape of the uncertainty is the raison d’être of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The co-benefits to an oil-importing, energy-inefficient, and jobs-challenged U.S. - makes hedging climate risk a bargain. If we could agree on a simple legislative solution, with a narrative that citizens can actually discuss amongst one another (CLEAR is as good as any) - then we might have time to deepen the public understanding of the nuances of climate change.

*An example of fat-tailed risk is single name credit exposure. For example, Goldman Sachs insured significant credit exposures through AIG - so much so that their credit exposure to AIG itself presented a fat-tailed risk to their firm. By fat-tailed, I mean this: that AIG (as a AAA credit) had a very, very low probability of defaulting on the insurance they sold to Goldman - but if by some chance they did default it would be very, very bad for Goldman. We all know what happened: $13 billion of the Government’s AIG bailout money went straight to Goldman Sachs. This fat-tailed risk was reversible in the sense that even if Goldman had not been fully repaid they could have recovered in a reasonable period of time. Climate risk, on the other hand, could bring temperatures that won’t reverse to normal levels for centuries (if the fat-tail risk of potent positive feedbacks like melting ice sheets and permafrost is realized).