A fresh environmental issue survey from CNN/Opinion Research finds that a majority of Americans believe that the economy should take precedence over the environment. It wasn't by a large number - a very little more than 0.5 (51%) picked "economy: and slightly but [*fr1] (forty five%) picked "environment." The margin of error was 3%.
Pollsters love this query and they've been asking variations of it for decades. Here is how the question was worded this point around, during this explicit environmental problems survey:
"With that one of those statements about the surroundings and also the economy does one most agree - protection of the atmosphere should be given priority, even at the chance of curbing economic growth, or economic growth ought to be given priority, even if the setting suffers to some extent?"
Till recently, majorities of Americans have consistently responded that the environment takes precedence. Generally a massive majority, generally a little one, however forever a majority. It absolutely was that way for decades. It's solely currently, during this brutal, grinding recession, that the economy has inched ahead. And it's not just this survey, it's others.
These poll results are disturbing, sure, but I think they're misleading, too. There's masses of evidence out there that everyday citizens really reject the basic premise of that question. Once I sift through my intensive collection of environmental issue surveys, I find lots of poll queries that explore Americans' attitudes towards the environment and their wallets in additional depth.
I think you'll summarize the Yank public's general attitude towards the setting and their wallets in 3 statements:
one) "Environmental regulations and protection do not burden the economy abundant"
As a general matter, when pollsters ask Americans if they believe that environmental regulation hurts the economy, the solution is typically "no." Here's one example: In a very 2005 study conducted by Yale University, additional than three/four of those who responded agreed with this statement: "You don't should sacrifice environmental protection to induce economic growth. The selection between jobs and atmosphere may be a false one: we will have both."
Keep in mind, most Americans work in various service industries now. Only some folks work in mining, agriculture, business fishing, forestry, or different industries where environmental compliance may be a daily problem or expense. The companies that feel the pinch directly are usually very outspoken regarding it - but that's a minority view.
Statement 2: "Environmental laws hurt some companies sometimes, but they will be smart for the economy, too"
When EPA announced last week that it was cracking down on mountain high removal mining, West Virginia mining interests and politicians thumped the table, squealing about lost jobs and economic ruin. Thus you would possibly be stunned that simply some years ago, virtually half of West Virginians told pollsters they believed environmental protection are often smart for the economy, and another quarter said they generally do not have a lot of impact. Only one in 5 reported that environmental protections were typically bad for the economy - and that's in coal mining, tree cutting West Virginia.
I think most Americans instinctively perceive that individuals and businesses avoid highly polluted areas, that medical prices associated with pollution-connected diseases are a tangle on their families' economic well-being, and that wasteful, polluting businesses are less competitive in the fashionable economy.
Statement 3: "Environmental regulations and protections might cause higher taxes"
Americans typically see that protecting the atmosphere could be a legitimate responsibility of state, and acknowledge that this prices money - their money. In an exceedingly study conducted for Duke University's Nicholas Institute some years back, researchers found that voters were much additional seemingly to believe that new environmental rules and protections would lead to tax increases than to lost jobs.
Thus if everyday citizens are skeptical of the fundamental premise of the "surroundings vs. economy" poll queries, what do their answers to those questions tell us? Honestly, I'm not sure. And if everyday citizens are skeptical of the fundamental premise of this question , why do pollsters keep asking it this method, anyway? Once more, I am not sure.
But I assume I'm on safe ground here: The economy could be a disaster and few people have escaped it completely. Everyday citizens need to see our nation's leaders focusing their attention on obtaining the economy fired up and moving forward. But there is no proof whatsoever that voters blame environmental protections for this recession - or that they believe that cutting existing environmental regulations will produce abundant economic stimulus, either.
Author Resource:
Adam has been writing articles online for nearly 2 years now. Not only does this author specialize in Environmental Issue Surveys - What Are They Telling Us?
You can also check out his latest website about
CordlessS Phone Headsets Which reviews and lists the best
Vtech Cordlesss Phone Batteries
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://www.look4articles.com/images/icon_Rss.png "XML Feed For RSS"){kind=icon}
Category Rss Feed
Print This Article
Add To Favorites
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://www.look4articles.com/images/rss.jpg "XML Feed For RSS")