The God Squad, Part 2: The "Greening" of Christianity

In Part 1, it was noted that religious people are less supportive of reducing carbon emissions than non-religious people. In the last couple of decades, several surveys have shown a negative relationship between religiosity and environmental concern. One commentator sees Christian disregard for the environment as rooted in the Old Testament claim that God gave Man dominion over the Earth, and the New Testament promise of the imminent return of Jesus, which implies to some that they might as well trash the place.

A new study by John Clements and others analyzes data from the 2010 General Social Survey, with a sample size of 1430. Environmental concern is divided into three components: perceived dangerousness of environmental problems, willingness to pay or sacrifice to protect the environment, and self-reported environmentally-conscious behaviors. Here are the results by religious identification. Christians are less environmentally concerned than non-religious people or members of other religious groups.

Perceived Environmental Dangerousness

% choosing “dangerous” or “extremely dangerous”. . .	Christian	Non-Christian	Non-religious
Air pollution caused by cars	44.4%	57.8%	50.0%
Pesticides and chemicals used in farming	51.7%	71.8%	56.4%
Air pollution caused by industry	64.5%	69.4%	72.4%
Pollution of rivers, lakes and streams	68.4%	75.3%	75.6%

Willingness to Pay or Sacrifice

% choosing “willing” or “very willing”. . .	Christian	Non-Christian	Non-religious
Pay much higher prices	43.8%	59.4%	55.2%
Accept cuts in standard of living	32.6%	45.7%	43.7%
Pay much higher taxes	28.5%	52.2%	43.7%

Private Environmental Behaviors

% choosing “sometimes” or “always”. . .	Christian	Non-Christian	Non-religious
Sort glass, cans or plastic for recycling	61.5%	75.7%	62.9%
Buy fruits and vegetables grown without pesticides or chemicals	33.5%	50.7%	35.0%
Cut back on driving a car	16.1%	31.2%	23.8%

Christians have also been slower to accept the evidence that the Earth is warming. Here are the results of a 2009 survey (n = 1502) by the Pew Research Center.

Since the mid-1990s, the mass media have been publicizing a reform movement within Christianity that claims Christians have a duty to protect the environment. Even Pope Francis has argued for “wise stewardship” of the environment. Has this movement had any impact on Christians' attitudes and behavior?

The same measures of environmental concern were used in the 1993 General Social Survey. Clements and his colleagues found no evidence of the “greening” of Christianity. Self-identified Christians reported less environmental concern than non-Christians and non-religious people in both 1993 and 2010, and there was no significant change in Christian environmental concern. The only exception was a slight moderation of environmental attitudes among evangelical Protestants, which still left them far behind other denominations.

The good news for the environment is that the number of non-religious Americans is increasing, especially among young adults. However, the change is probably too gradual to save the planet.

You may also be interested in reading:

The Revolt of the Nones, Part 1

The Revolt of the Nones, Part 2

The God Squad, Part 1:  Religion as Selfish Individualism

The God Squad, Part 3:  Projection

Public Getting Warmer

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), co-chairs of the Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change, released some surprising new public opinion data earlier this week. The data were prepared by social psychologist Jon Krosnick of Stanford's Woods Institute for the Environment. Krosnick did a secondary analysis of 21 random-digit telephone surveys and internet surveys conducted, mostly by Stanford, between 2006 and 2013, with a total sample size of almost 20,000 respondents. Krosnick's mathematical model looked at changes over time, and the data he presented are his best estimate of public opinion today.

The results show that there is broad consensus among the American public that climate change is happening and that government should do something about it. Here are the percentages in each state who believe global warming is happening.

The overwhelming majority agree, not only in liberal states like New York (84%) and California (82%), but also in conservative states like Mississippi (82%) and Texas (84%). At least 75% of residents in every state surveyed believe in the existence of climate change. (There were a couple of states for which Krosnick lacked enough data to make a reliable estimate.) Sixty-five percent or more in every state believe that global warming is caused by humans, and 58% or more believe that it poses a serious problem for the United States. Krosnick believes that personal experience with hot weather is primarily responsible for these opinion changes. 

There was only slightly less agreement on whether the U. S. government should take action to address climate change. In only four sparsely populated Western states (ID, MT, NV, UT) did the majority not agree that the government should do more. Here are the percentages by state who believe government should limit greenhouse gas emissions from U. S. businesses.

Similar majorities favor limiting emissions of greenhouse gases from power plants, tax breaks to produce renewable energy, and a cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse gas production. You can go to this site to check out the maps for all the questions that were reported. If you would like to take a closer look at Pennsylvania's results, they are here.

Where did the public draw the line? In only five states did bare majorities endorse tax breaks for nuclear power. And in no state did a near-majority endorse consumption taxes on gasoline or electricity, or government support for all-electric cars.

These data are not new, but they seem to be sharply at odds with previous statements about American public opinion on climate change made by politicians and the corporate media. The consistency across states is particularly surprising. Here is Krosnick's take on how American public opinion is represented politically.

I have often heard legislators in Washington express the belief that there is considerable variation in opinions about global warming across parts of the country, and that most of the people in their state or district are skeptical about global warming. When I ask about the polling they have done that led them to this belief, I have routinely been told that they had not done polling and, instead, base their impressions on phone calls, emails and conversations with and from constituents on the issue. Our findings suggest that the balance of those direct communications from constituents to elected representatives may have created a misimpression of the public's opinions on the issue.

My guess is that Krosnick is trying to be diplomatic. This is not the first time politicians have been show to misperceive voter attitudes. Not only do Congresspeople not hear from a random sample of constituents, the ones they do hear from are primarily large campaign contributors.

Now that these data are available to Congress, we will have yet another opportunity to observe whether the American political system is responsive to public opinion. Would you like to estimate the chances of these surveys having an impact?

You may also be interested in reading:

Reality Shows a Slight Gain

The Myth of the Conservative Voter

Whose Opinion Matters?

Climate of Mistrust

We know that conservative media, such as Fox News, deliberately attempt to undermine the public's belief that climate change is happening. Here is an 9-minute clip from Media Matters that documents this strategy.

One way to cast doubt on global warming is by questioning the credibility of scientists. In Merchants of Doubt, Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway review how industry-funded scientists have been running effective media campaigns to mislead the public about scientific research for five decades. Some of the same organizations that claim global warming is unproven developed this strategy to deny the truth of studies linking smoking to lung cancer. Here is Dr. Oreskes discussing her research.

A new paper by Jay Hmielowski and others, in the journal Public Understanding of Science, examines the familiar hypothesis that conservative media promote doubts about climate change, but demonstrates it more convincingly than in the past. Their argument states:

• Use of conservative media—in this case, Fox News and The Rush Limbaugh Show—is associated with a lack of belief that climate change is happening. Exposure to non-conservative media—ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR and MSNBC—is associated with greater belief in climate change.
• Exposure to these same conservative media is also correlated with a lack of trust in scientists; while exposure to non-conservative media is correlated with greater trust in scientists.
• Conservative media exposure causes distrust of scientists, which in turn causes climate change skepticism; while nonconservative media exposure causes trust in scientists, which causes belief in climate change. Another way of saying this is that the relationship between media exposure and belief in climate change is mediated by trust in scientists.

Previous research has shown that conservative media use is associated with lack of belief in global warming. However, correlation does not mean causation. It is impossible to say, for example, whether viewers are being influenced by Fox News or whether people who have already rejected global warming are attracted news media that reflect their views. However, the direction of causality can be clarified by collecting data at two points in time.

Hmielowski's data come from a panel study—a survey in which the same people are interviewed more than once—collected by Knowledge Networks. Their sample is representative of the American adult population. A group of 1036 people responded in the Fall of 2008 and again in the Spring of 2011 to questions about how often they watched conservative and non-conservative media, their trust in scientists, and their certainty that global warming was happening. To eliminate alternative explanations, several variables were statistically eliminated from the data: local media use, political ideology, religiosity, gender, race, age, education and income.

The hypotheses were evaluated using structural equation modeling, a statistical analysis that tests whether the correlations along a proposed path account for a significant percentage of variation in the outcome, belief in climate change. On the basis of this analysis, they found that conservative media use in 2008 is associated with a change toward mistrust of scientists in 2001 which is associated with a change toward lack of belief in global warming in 2011. There was also a similar path from nonconservative media use in 2008 to increased trust in scientists in 2011 to increased belief in global warming in 2011. Their results are shown in the diagram, with the pluses and minuses indicating where positive and negative relationships were obtained.

Although these are still correlational data, the 2½ year time lag increases our confidence that it is media exposure that influences beliefs rather than vice versa. However, since the participants themselves decided which newscasts to watch, the study does not control for self-selection bias. It is possible that the conservative viewers were exposed to other influences over these 2½ years to which the nonconservative viewers were not. We also can't be sure that the nonconservative media viewers, had they watched Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, would have been equally persuaded to mistrust scientists and reject global warming, or that the conservative media viewers would have had different beliefs if they had only watched the mainstream media.

It's also worth noting that distrust of science among conservatives predates Fox News, which began in 1996. Sociologist Gordon Gauchat compared survey data measuring trust in science among conservatives, moderates and liberals from 1974 to 2010. Conservatives actually began the period with slightly greater confidence in science, but showed a significant decline, while liberals and moderates did not. Those who report attending church frequently also became significantly more distrusting of science. Obviously, there is considerable overlap between the two groups. The greatest declines in trust among conservatives occurred during the Reagan and George W. Bush presidencies. Chris Mooney has suggested that mistrust began when scientists questioned the effectiveness of Reagan's missile defense shield (the “Star Wars” program).

You may also be interested in reading:

Reality Shows a Slight Gain

Two Different Worlds

Reality Shows a Slight Gain

It's the first day of Spring in Pittsburgh, and a high of 80 degrees is predicted. Our magnolia tree is blooming a month ahead of schedule. Temperatures have been well above normal all winter—11.6 degrees so far this month. I would never cite any of this as evidence for global warming. This is weather, not climate. Yet for most Americans, this may be the most convincing evidence.

Photo by tumbleweed@yahoo.com

The sixth and latest National Survey of Public Opinion on Climate Change was conducted in December, 2011 by Christopher Borick of Muhlenberg College and Barry Rabe of the University of Michigan. It was a telephone survey with 887 respondents and a margin of error of +/-3.5%.

The good news is that belief in global warming seems to be on the rebound. In Fall 2008, 72% of Americans believed “there is solid evidence that the average temperature on Earth has been getting warmer.” This number dropped to 52% by Spring 2010. Since then, it has gradually increased and now stands at 62%. 26% say “no,” and 12% are “not sure.”

The survey finds the usual effect of political partisanship. (See table below.) The other three demographics they looked at—gender, race and education—had no effect. Yes, that's right, teachers, education has no effect!

	Earth Getting Warmer	Earth Not Getting Warmer	Not Sure
Democrats	78%	15%	7%
Republicans	47%	42%	11%
Independents	55%	30%	15%

Respondents who thought the Earth is getting warmer were asked the primary reason for their belief (out of nine possibilities that were suggested to them). It was a tie. 24% cited their personal experience of warmer temperatures, and another 24% said it was the presence of extreme or changing weather (floods, droughts, tornadoes, etc.) that convinced them. Therefore, almost half the respondents who believe climate change is real base their belief on the weather. Only 8% chose scientific research as their main reason for thinking the Earth is getting warmer.

The problem, of course, is that people are not distinguishing between weather and climate. Weather is far more variable. What randomness gives, it can also take away. Next year, when temperatures in the Northeast regress toward the mean—as they inevitably will—residents may again reduce their belief in global warming. (The authors point out that more people claim warm weather as evidence of climate change when their surveys are conducted in the Fall than in the Spring.) If we have to wait until a high percentage of Americans are convinced by the weather that global warming is real, we may fail to take action in time to save ourselves.

Finally, respondents were asked whether they thought “the media is (sic) overstating the evidence about global warming” and whether “scientists are overstating evidence about global warming for their own interests.” (Italics mine.) Not surprisingly, people who did not believe in global warming thought they were being lied to. 90% thought the media were overstating the evidence and 81% thought the scientists were.

I'm curious about the thinking that went into the wording of these two questions. Why are scientists presumed to have “an interest” in the outcome of global warming while the media are not? I wonder how much people think climate scientists are paid, whether they think scientists' salaries are contingent on finding evidence of global warming, and, if so, who is paying them this extra money. How does this compare to the incentive the media have for understating the evidence—namely, the millions of dollars they make from fossil fuel advertising?

The article does not report whether respondents attribute climate change to human activity. However, the authors promise a follow-up article looking at policy implications of the survey, so we may learn the answer to that question later.