Protecting The Environment Versus Dealing With Global Warming

I just read the interesting results of a January 2007 survey of US attitudes towards global warming. One thing it makes clear is that the tireless work of all the folks educating about climate change is still badly needed.

A few facts from the survey:

While 77% of Americans believe that temperatures are indeed rising, only 47% say that human activity is the cause.

And the number of Americans who say that global warming is a problem that calls for immediate government action has fallen slightly since the last similar poll in August 2006. (From 61% to 55%).

One other interesting point from the survey data: While 57% of Americans felt that "protecting the environment" is a top priority for our leaders, only 37% felt that "dealing with global warming" should be.

While it is tempting to roll one's eyes and wonder what leads so many people to think that we can protect the environment without dealing with global warming, there may also be nugget of insight here for those of us who teach about global warming and climate change. Notice the two different verbs used by the survey: "protect" versus "deal."

Here's a thought experiment: Apply those two words to something dear to you – your children, your household, a local park. Which feels like a higher calling: protecting it or dealing with condition or problem that might threaten it? Do you want to protect your children or deal with the dangerous intersection on their walk to school?

Well, it depends, right? If the intersection is dangerous enough, dealing with it and protecting your kids might well be one and the same thing. But most parent's driving impulse is protection, not "dealing."

And so I would argue that our job in teaching and communicating about climate change is to tap into people's strong desire to protect what is precious. That's what carbon taxes and energy efficiency and all the rest are about: protecting the Earth we depend upon.