Global Warming

Opinion Dynamics

     One of the most interesting aspects of any study of public opinion involves the dynamics and diversity of opinion. Public opinion is rarely a static phenomenon, with uniform views held by all members of a society across time. For the purposes of this analysis, opinion dynamics refers to how public opinion has changed over time, on the environment generally, and specifically on public concerns about global warming. Through this window into the public opinion sphere, we can draw conclusions about how the media cover issues, and how interested actors influence media coverage, even public policy. The theoretical underpinning for this study is Down's Issue Attention Cycle, and the construct of framing.

     Down's Issue Attention Cycle

     According to Dunlap (1995), "the most influential" model of the evolution of public opinion on environmental issues is Down's model of the issue-attention cycle (1972, p. 64, 65). The idea is that social problems typically proceed through a five-stage cycle:

1. The pre-problem stage, where interest groups and experts know of a problem, but it has not yet received widespread media coverage or public interest;

2. The alarmed discovery stage, when a dramatic event or crisis brings the issue to the attention of the media and the public;

3. The realization of cost stage, which dampens public enthusiasm;

4. The declining interest stage, when the media stops or slows covering an issue and the public becomes bored with it;

5. The post-problem stage, when the problem is either solved or replaced by other issues on the public agenda.

     Notice that agenda-setting works with this model, in that media coverage and public concern are linked, and that they were developed independently in the same year. The problem with Down's model is that while the environment did drop from the public agenda to some extent in the 1970s and 1980s, it came back strongly in the late 1980s and early 1990s (see survey results in previous section).

     Framing

     Interest groups or stakeholders in a public debate attempt to influence the media, public opinion, and policymakers, by framing an issue in a certain light. This is akin to what is more conventionally termed spin or political spin, and to the public relations concept of issues management. Yet no coherent consensus exists on the best analogy to employ in the study of this public opinion process.

     As it was originally conceived, Bateson used a picture frame metaphor and described a frame as a delimiter of a class or set of messages (Bateson, 1972). Many scholars give the credit to Goffman, who depicted the theoretic framing of reality as a theater stage, where performers act out a fictional representation of reality and audience members interpret and respond, presumably with boos or cheers (Goffman, 1974). Entman described frames as "clusters of messages," meaning roughly the same as frame, framing, and framework, outside the realm of scholarly discourse. This process can be conscious or unconscious, primarily conscious by public figures and stakeholders, but unconscious on the part of most journalists. Yet by calling attention to "some aspects of reality while obscuring other elements," Entman says, the process of framing carries "important implications for political communication" (1993, p. 57, 52). Riechert takes framing to mean the same as "frame of reference, or frame of mind, as well as framing of issues and messages in communication" (1996, p. 6). Petterson saw a frame as a "cognitive window" through which a news story is "seen" (1983b, p. 59). Gamson saw framing as a useful "bridging concept" between cognition and culture (1985, 615). And in the latest agenda setting book, Ghanem says framing "deals with the selection of elements within a particular issue" (1997, p. 8).

     Considering the plethora of metaphorical constructions employed thus far, perhaps it is time for a unifying version to emerge, although it is recognized that this is not likely in the foreseeable future. So for the purposes of quantitative content analysis of stakeholder and media messages and values, and in the interest of moving toward an understanding and prediction of short- and long-term trends, I argue here that framing research should be viewed as a two-way mirror. Look long enough and hard enough through it with the right methodological tools and a clear picture of reality should emerge. This extends the Enlightenment's spirit into the present, and is best elucidated through quantitative, empirical means. In the absence of a crystal ball or divine inspiration, social science methods are best at answering questions about human thoughts and actions.

     That stated, this analysis moves on to how environmental concern has changed over time. The most reliable and valid longitudinal measure we have of public concern for the natural environment is the most important problem question, in spite of its critics. This will be followed by specific polls on how opinions have changed on global warming.

     Most Important Problem Question

     The most important problem (MIP) question is the best long-term predictor provided in survey research today. The environment first made the list in 1970, peaked with the Earth Day celebration in 1972, and dropped off the list for much of the 1970s and 1980s. As table one shows, it came back in a big way in the late 1980s and early 1990s, then plunged again in the aftermath of the Gulf War.

Table 1.

    Year                                                      %

    1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
    1971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
    1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
    1974-1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Less than 1
    1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
    1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
    1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
    1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
    1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
    1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

     [ For a graphic representation, click here to see a figure of press coverage and public opinion on the environment from a paper presented to the Midwest Association of Public Opinion Researchers in November, 1997. ]

     It appears the environment is now an institutionalized part of the nation's top concerns and here to stay, perhaps an indication that Downs was wrong about the environment entering the post-problem phase of public concern.

     Other Evidentiary Support

     To buttress the obvious fact that the American public now shows high levels of concern for the environment, Gallup also provides data on the depth of public concern (1990). It is unfortunate that we do not have the answer to these more probing questions back to 1970s. On the twenty-first anniversary of Earth Day in 1990, and in the midst of a recession, most Americans said they were concerned about environmental threats to the planet, and that they were taking active steps to conserve resources. Seven in ten (71 percent, plus or minus 3 percent) said they favored protecting the environment, even at the risk of curbing economic growth, while 78 percent considered themselves "environmentalists" (p. 6).

     Global Warming Concern is Down

     Surveys conducted on the eve of the Global Warming Summit in late 1997 revealed that the naysaying stakeholders on the right had penetrated public perceptions on the threat of global warming to some extent. Writing for the Gallup Poll On-line (Nov. 1997), Managing Editor David Moore said public fears declined significantly from 1992 levels. A Gallup poll reported in January, 1992, showed that 61 percent of Americans said the effects of global warming had already begun to happen. In the 1997 poll, only 41 percent agreed with that assessment, a significant 20 percent drop in 5 years. [3]

     Sixteen percent expect the effects to be evident during their lifetime, and another 21 percent expect future generations to see such effects. Although a majority of Americans say the effects have already begun to show up--or will within the next few years--only 25 percent say global warming will pose a serious threat to them or their way of life in their lifetime. However, 65 percent still say global warming will pose a serious threat to the next generation of Americans.

     What the Public Thinks Scientists Think

     Key to public opinion on global warming, Moore said, appears to be public perception of what most scientists think. Here Americans are divided: 42 percent say that scientists mostly believe that global warming is a serious threat, while 44 percent say scientists are mostly divided on the issue. Only 6 percent say scientists mostly believe global warming is not a serious threat. Of those who think scientists believe the threat to be serious, more than 8 in 10 expect the next generation to face a serious threat from global warming. Among those who say the scientists are divided, just over half expect the next generation to face a serious threat from global warming. [4]

     Personal Involvement Linked to Higher Support

     Surprisingly strong public support for higher gasoline prices to help reduce global warming was found in the Pew survey (1997). In one half of Pew's sample, 73 percent of respondents said they would be willing to pay five cents more per gallon for gas, while only 60 percent acceptance was found when a 25 cent per gallon price hike was tested with the other half sample. The latest Pew survey also indicated that most Americans regularly take some pro-environment action--such as recycling, lowering thermostats to conserve energy, or trying to purchase recycled products. This personal involvement was strongly related to support for higher gasoline prices and internationally mandated environmental standards. Those who are most active in this regard are also more supportive of international standard setting (58 %) and are more inclined to pay as much as 25 cents extra per gallon (67%) than are those who do little or nothing (47% and 52%, respectively). This finding demonstrates the difference between the active, informed and attentive publics and the neutral, uninformed and inert.

     American Sovereignty and Concern

     Yet from the data, it may be concluded that concern about American sovereignty may be more of an obstacle to international efforts to curtail global warming than higher gasoline prices. Americans say the United States should join other nations in setting global environmental standards (55%) rather than establishing its own standards (42%). This finding, however, represents a far smaller majority than the large majority who support increased prices at the pump.

     Attention and Potential for Change

     There may be considerable potential for opinion change on the environment and global warming, according to Pew, since the public has yet to fully engage in the debate. While most Americans correctly identified the greenhouse effect, only 9 percent said they paid very close attention to news about U.S. policy on global warming, while 24 percent said they paid fairly close attention. And since only 1 percent of the public cite the environment as the "most important problem facing the country," the authors concluded that this represents a "lack of public focus" on the issue (1997).

     This should not come as such a surprise, however, considering the highly complex nature of global warming science, and the lack of substantive media coverage of the issue in the absense of an event such as the global warming conference in Japan. Remember, the survey was conducted a couple of weeks prior to the conference, not in its aftermath, when the public would presumambly be more engaged due to heightened press coverage. And as other researchers have pointed out with regard to public perceptions of risk, global warming does not appear to be a localized issue with immediate, acute effects. It is a more chronic problem that seems far away and outside individual control, and the bright line cause and effect case has not yet been convincingly established by a populizer of the science.

     The Pew survey also found that those who worry about global warming are more attentive to news about the policy debate surrounding it than those with less concern, which also comes as no surprise. As outlined in earlier sections of this paper, the attentive public are more interested in public issues and active in public policy formation.

     The most puzzling statement in the Pew report, however, is worth highlighting here. It seems even those who report the findings of objective surveys may reveal their biases from time to time.

Opponents of a gasoline price increase and internationally mandated standards may also take some comfort in the findings of Pew longitudinal surveys that reveal declines since 1992 in strong support for environmental regulation. This drop is consistent with less alarm about a range of environmental issues compared to the early 1990's (1997, emphasis added).

Diversity of Opinion

     Demographic and psuedo-demographic variables from public opinion surveys may tell us a lot about who supports environmental policy and who does not. True demographic variables include those attributes people cannot change after birth: age, race, and gender. Psuedo-demographics include regional differences, education levels, party affiliation, income, etc.

     Region

     Gallup's surveys show, for example, that people in the Eastern part of the country are more concerned than those from the South. Westerners polled in the middle. While the report offers only gross opinions and no educated guesses at why this is the case, conventional wisdom and what we know from other social science research would lead to these conclusions. Industrial development and pollution are more widespread and visible in the East, and much of the national media report from the Eastern centers of Washington and New York, so tend to overreport on problems there. In addition, news outlets and audiences tend to be more conservative in the South.

     Age

     Gallup's results also show that respondents over the age of 50 are less concerned than the young. Sociological studies are just beginning to attempt and explanation for this. Suffice to say here that older Americans tend to be more conservative economically, live in single family houses in the suburbs, and not to face as much exposure as younger Americans to institutional messages about problems with the environment. It has only been during the past decade that environmental education permeated our schools, and only the past 30 years that environmental issues attained the status as a specialized beat in news organizations.

     Gender

     According to Gallup, women were more concerned about the environment than men, although the differences do not appear to be statistically significant.

     According to the Pew survey, however, gender and politics seem to have a direct bearing on public attitudes on the environment. More women than men said they were willing to accept higher gasoline prices to reduce global warming. The Pew researchers interpreted this to mean that gender "may be more related to this pocketbook question than income or education" (1997).

     Party Affiliation

     Republicans and Democrats split on the issue of the United States joining other nations to establish global environmental standards, although Democrats are more likely to favor regulations than Republians, as might be expected. A 50 percent to 47 percent majority who self-identify with the Republican Party oppose global warming standards, while a strong 56 percent to 41 percent majority of Democrats favor the treaty. In other words, half the Republicans oppose government regulations to curb global warming, while significantly more than half the Democrats favor government regulations to curb global warming. Interestingly, the Pew survey also found that opponents of the NAFTA treaty were also cool to the global warming treaty. This is an odd finding which deserves further investigation, considering that a large segment of the opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement came from environmentalists concerned about ecological degradation at home and abroad as a result of unfettered global capitalism.

     Republicans, Democrats and Independents agreed that all countries, rich or poor, should share equally in global clean-up efforts, according the Pew results. Fully 70 percent of the respondents felt this way, compared to just 19 percent who believed that poorer countries should be allowed to do less. Even Americans who were aware of the fact that the United States produces more carbon dioxide per capita than other countries believe that the U.S. should not bear more of the burden.

     This may well be a reflection of the pro-American bias of news outlets in the United States, and the tenor of the political times. Surveys show Americans more preoccupied with domestic matters over international issues. Other studies show a shrinking amount of space and time devoted to international issues in U.S. news media (Hess, 1996).

     Attitudes and Behavior

     One of the more interesting dynamics of public opinion involves the interaction or lack of interaction between attitudes and behavior--between the expression of concern on a survey and the willingness to take some action in support of a stated position. Price says there is a "large literature" on the subject, yet he devotes less than a page to the issue (p. 66).

     One of the more interesting Internet finds for this study involves a survey of undergraduate students at a large state university, supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation. Bord, Fisher, and O'Conner (1997) took a hard look at the link between survey response and actual support on the issue of global warming, reaching a number of provacative findings, summarized here.

     To begin with the descriptive findings, 44 percent said global warming was "already happening," 29 percent selected "it will probably happen in the next 50 years," 10 percent chose "it might not be happening now but is sure to happen within the next 50 years." Another 15 percent said "it is doubtful," while only 2 percent said it "definitely will not." Another way of looking at it is that 83 percent believe global warming is happening or will happen unless we take action, while only 17 percent doubt it.

     Other findings include:

• The public will be more concerned about issues with perceived threats to health and well being than those that do not carry such a threat. Jobs, violent crime, hazardous waste and air pollution are among the top issues a majority of respondents expressed concerned about. Global warming, acid rain, the federal budget deficit, and food shortages--issues with no clear threat to individual health and well being--ranked at the bottom of public concern. In other words, global warming is not a salient attitudinal issue.

• The public has some level of understanding about global warming, but also misunderstandings. A majority of respondents accurately identified emissions from industrial sources, automobiles, and tropical forest destruction as causes of global warming, although confusion was evident when it came to identifying coal burning power plants and the burning of fossil fuels to heat and cool homes. Confusion was also evident about the role of atmospheric ozone (the ozone hole) and tropospheric ozone (which causes health problems in cities and environmental degradation in mountains).

• Respondents were more supportive of regulations on industry than on themselves. Overwhelming support was found for industry energy efficiency standards. Respondents seemed reluctant to accept a government ban on low-mileage cars, regulation of thermostat levels, or significant tax hikes on gas. (The authors admit problems with these options, however, since none are likely outcomes and all involve draconian government measures).

• Understanding is not highly correlated with concern. In other words, accurate knowledge of an issue may not be necessary for high anxiety. [4]

• An educated and knowledgeable public may not be necessary to drum up support for global warming mitigation policies. In other words, "concern for global warming may be increased (or decreased) at least as much by misinformation as it is by an accurate understanding of the facts. Anything that heightens (or decreases) perception of risk, whether accurate or not, appears to increase (or potentiall decrease) concern" (p. 8). [4]

• With only partial support, the authors found an interesting pattern. "Those with high levels of concern for global warming and an accurate understanding of its causes are more willing to accept personal costs" (p. 7).

     In the next section, conclusions will be drawn about the interplay between stakeholder claims and values, press coverage, public opinion, and policy formation.

---

Copyright © Glynn R. Wilson, 1998.
All rights reserved.