Surprise: Almost Half Think Hotcoldwetdry Is Someone Else’s Problem

Unfortunately, they didn’t put it as I do, Someone Else. I’m also surprised that the percent is so low

49% of Americans think climate change is mostly someone else’s problem

Pew surveyed 8,842 adults in the US between September 25 and October 1, 2023, about their opinions on climate change. The survey asked Americans who said they see climate change as at least a somewhat serious problem which groups they think can do “a lot” to combat climate change. (The deniers who said climate change is not too serious or not a problem – 24% – weren’t asked that particular question.)

Fifty-five percent of respondents answered that the energy industry can make a big impact, and 52% think large businesses and corporations can mitigate climate change. Then came the belief that the federal government (47%) and cities and communities (40%) can make a difference.

But only 27% of US adults polled felt that individual Americans’ efforts can help “a lot.” Thirty-six percent said that individuals’ efforts can do “a little” to impact climate change, and 13% said “not much.”

That means just under half – 49% – of Americans think individuals can do a little, or not much, to combat climate change. Then add in the 24% group who think climate change isn’t real, and you have a majority.

So, um, do these same people not use fossil fuels themselves? Remember, half of every barrel goes to make some over 600 products other than gasoline. Clothes, shoes, plastics, computers, TVs, smartphones, makeup, and so much more. Do they not buy products from Big Companies? And when they talk about government, do they not realize it would mean government forcing these people to change their lives to comply?

Yet when asked to look ahead to 30 years from now, 52% felt that “major changes” to everyday life will be needed to address the problems caused by climate change. (Again, the climate change deniers weren’t asked this question.)

Why are they not willing to change their own lives right now?

More than half of Americans think that they – or rather, their kids and grandkids – are going to have to make major changes to everyday life to address the problems caused by climate change in 2053.

But just under half also feel there’s nothing more than at least “a little” that individual people can do about climate change right now.

Let’s also presume that those polled were also thinking about themselves when they answered this question about individuals. So what’s with this seemingly selfish viewpoint?

A lot of psychology comes into play. Psychology professor Art Markman reported in 2018 for Harvard Business Review that acting on climate change means “a trade-off between short-term and long-term benefits, which is the hardest trade-off for people to make.”

Nah. It’s just that they’re a bunch of hypocrites, and ‘climate change’ is simply another way of pushing Modern Socialism.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

12 Responses to “Surprise: Almost Half Think Hotcoldwetdry Is Someone Else’s Problem”

  1. L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

    As I mentioned about a week ago EV car seemed to be going down the toilet. They can’t be sold at a profit they can’t be manufactured a profit they can’t be distributed to profit and they can’t be junked after use had a profit. Basically they’re a loser. But then mankind had found that out in the early 1900s with the first electric cars. And we haven’t even gotten into the major impact mining for electric what cause and the impact it will have on the earth. The left is deliberately killing the earth to push electric cars on people who don’t want them.

    Here’s a little article from American Thinker you might find interesting:

  2. L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

    And another little tidbit from the same source. Of course this one demonstrates the insanity of New York City as well as the religion/cult of EV.

  3. H says:

    As I mentioned a few weeks ago……. Tesla reported 22.8 billions in profit in 2022
    Other car manufacturers who are like 8 years behind Tesla will continue to have years of unprofitablity. Tesla was unprofitable for years. Every year batteries become both better and cheaper. Even the Oil Minister of Saudi Arabia has said ” the end of the Age of Oil is on the horizon”

    Pepsi has been very pleased with its Tesla semis. Fuel is THE. Biggest operating expense of class 8 trucks. Tesla cuts it by about 2/3s in regional use the highest daily mileage recorded was 1070 in one day. That included 3 recharging stops.

  4. H says:

    Lithium ion batteries are well on their way to obsolescence. Fossil fuel exporters fund terrorism, and Trump

  5. Jl says:

    Carbon boy-Saudi Arabia is the source of 7% of our total imports oil. Why is Brandon giving money to the terror sponsoring Saudis?
    And where’s the proof lithium batteries “are well on the way to obsolescence”?

  6. Jl says:

    Carbon-why has Brandon given over a billion dollars since taking office to the terror loving Palestinians?
    And by the way, the US also exports fossil fuels. Didn’t they tell you that on your Cheerios box?

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Oh Jill…

      Oil is a global commodity. Have you learned nothing. Why did the Trump Crime Family take $2 BILLION from the terror-loving Saudis??

      Perhaps you have little understanding of the markets. Remember when Mr Trump claimed the US was energy independent just because the US exported more than we imported, LOL? We were still using more than we produced!! Didn’t they tell you that on your Trix box?

      • Jl says:

        J-nice rant, but it doesn’t refute the fact that the US exports oil, which is what I said. Good job on the reading comprehension, though…

  7. Jl says:

    And are you alluding to the 2 billion given by the Saudis to Jared Kushner’s investment firm 6 months after Trump left office?
    But here you go, J since this seems over your head as you seem to try to compare the two incidents, irrespective of the fact that the money didn’t go to Trump and it was after he left office. If the Saudis give away 2 billion, that’s less money for them to sponsor terrorism. If Brandon gives over 1 billion to the Palestinians/Hamas, that’s 1 billion more for them to build their terror network. Not sure, but there may be some difference there….

    • Professor Hale says:

      When Saudis “give” money to an investment fund, they expect to get it all back some day PLUS even more as the value of their investment. So, none of it actually went to Kushner or Trump. When Ukraine “gives” money to a Biden, they know they are not getting any of it back. Instead, they expect the US taxpayers to cough up some money in exchange. That is why it is called “bribery”. When Biden “gives” money to the Palestinians or Iran, he isn’t giving away even a dime of his own money and he does expect to get some of that back for himself. Iran is going to fund terrorist networks. Any money the US Government sends them will only help them do that, but they are going to do it anyway. It is inevitable. None of the brokered monitored spending programs in the past 50 years have ever worked as they were described. Oil for food (Iraq) became nothing but a payoff scheme for European aristocrats and was indeed used to fund the Iraqi military, not food. Only Democratic party activists in the state department think giving any money to Iran or Hamas/PLO is a good idea.

  8. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: Why are they not willing to change their own lives right now?

    Private action can only help on the margins. Most of the change has to be societal, such as updating electricity production to green energy.

  9. H says:

    2 billion is a lot of money
    Do you think that the negotiations began before the deal was inked?
    Any idea when they began those negotiations?

Pirate's Cove