Intuitively we know rifts are widening between Republicans and Democrats on a host of hot button issues. Abortion and civil liberties have long been divisive topics; Gallup Poll data reveals that climate change has entered the same realm.
An article in Environment magazine (September/October 2008) sheds light on how political affiliation – primarily Democrat or Republican – impacts one’s views toward climate change. Their findings offer insights into how Barak Obama’s and John McCain’s platforms reflect their party’s general sentiments and how either candidate’s presidency might ultimately bridge or further widen the chasm.
It wasn’t always this way. Once upon a time environmental attitudes ignited inspiration rather than rancor. The split became noticeable in the 1980s and 1990s during the Reagan Administration and under Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich’s leadership in Congress. Prior to the Reagan presidency, both Republican and Democratic politicians supported bold moves protecting our environment: for example Theodore Roosevelt (R) established national parks; Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D) created the Soil Conservation Service; and Richard Nixon (R) worked with Democrats to create the Environmental Protection Agency.
During the Reagan years, however, political appointments and subsequent scandals in environmentally related cabinet departments (think EPA and Department of Interior) undermined nonpartisan consensus.
Authors Riley E. Dunlap and Aaron M. McCright track results from Gallup surveys conducted over a decade that focused on the public’s opinion about climate change. Since 1997, Gallup has queried people about their attitudes toward global warming and how they perceive its effects.
Not surprisingly they discover that on the whole, more US citizens acknowledge climate change is a real phenomenon. In 1997, when respondents were asked when global warming might begin to happen, 48 percent said, “it had already begun.” By March 2008, 61 percent of respondents said the effects of global warming had already begun.
Yet when the authors compared the responses between respondents who classify themselves as Republicans or Democrats, they discovered markedly different trends in attitude. Within the Republican Party, Gallup Poll respondents’ views about global warming have held relatively constant over the 10-year time period. In 1997, 48 percent of “Republican-respondents” said climate change was something that had already begun; however by 2008 the response rate had decreased to 42 percent.
The responses by “Democrat-identified” respondents go the other way. Those that said the “effects of global warming had begun” ballooned from 52 percent in 1997 to 76 percent by 2008.
The 34 percent gap between parties reveals something else. In 1997 the contrast between Democratic and Republican respondents’ views toward global warming were not that significant (just 4 percent) yet by 2008 they have swollen to 34 percent.
Other questions within the Gallup Poll further accentuate the rift. For example, Democrat and Republican leaning respondents perceive that media coverage “generally exaggerates the seriousness of global warming” differently: in 1997 the gap wasn’t great – 37 percent of Republican versus 27 percent of Democrat respondents agreed that the media brings bias. Today, however, 59 percent of Republican respondents said news stories exaggerate the seriousness of global warming compared to 17 percent of Democrat-leaning respondents.
Given the chasm revealed in the Gallup Poll data, you appreciate how much of a maverick John McCain is within his own political party. McCain has repeatedly validated his belief that climate change is a real phenomenon that must be addressed through public policy. He has sponsored legislation addressing climate change and has promised to make climate change focused policies a priority if he is elected president. Such actions really would contrast McCain to George W. Bush, his Republican predecessor.
But McCain is a victim of his party’s viewpoint as well. McCain’s rhetoric has not always translated into affirmative votes. As the League of Conservation Voters’ Environmental Score Card shows, McCain receives a lifetime score of 24 percent.
Given the wide divide in Republicans and Democrats attitudes toward climate change, one can’t help but wonder if either presidential candidate would be in a better position to close the partisan gap. Would a McCain presidency help shift Republican attitudes as a whole toward acknowledging the real effects of climate change? Or does Barak Obama as a self-promoting change agent, help bridge the divide?
The League of Conservation Voters gives Barak Obama a higher lifetime score (86 percent) than John McCain, but Obama’s time in the Senate is much shorter. In many ways Obama’s proposals for the environment are more aggressive than McCain’s. Obama can set a higher bar, in part, because the majority of the Democratic base perceive global warming is a real threat (as the Gallup results attest). But the high bar Obama has set may be hard for him to follow through on which could potentially spark further divide.
In a few days, the election will reveal who wins the office. If an Obama victory comes from a broad range of constituents (who represent both political parties, as well as independents), then Obama may be the person who can turn climate change related partisanship back to its nonpartisan heritage – a place where both Democrats and Republicans can take credit for far-reaching and forward-thinking policies that change our environment.
