National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

HARDBACK
price:$74.95
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals (1996)
Policy Division (PD)

Citation Manager

. "Attitudes Toward the Environment Twenty-Five Years After Earth Day." Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1996.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
184
bottomleft bottomright

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.


Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals

Because the public affirms the general value of a clean environment and is not engaged in specific policy choices, the wording and timing of questions that ask people to engage in specific policy choices can be extraordinarily important. Four questions asked by CBS and the New York Times in 1992 and early 1993 illustrate the point. The public switched its view from May to September about whether protecting the environment was more important than stimulating the economy. Negative coverage of the economy in the fall of 1992 was making people more anxious about economic prospects, and that atmosphere probably explained the shift in responses.

The second pair of questions was asked in September 1992 and in March 1993. People were asked whether we must protect the environment even if it means jobs in your community are lost because of it. The public split evenly in September, 45 to 45 percent; in March 1993, 60 percent agreed with the statement. Had people changed their minds about anything related to the environment over the ten months those four questions were asked? Of course not. An election campaign took place, and a new president was inaugurated. The political context in which the questions were asked shifted from negative coverage of the economy to more positive coverage of a new president. Americans use polls to send messages to their governors—to indicate subtle changes in moods, as they did over these ten months.

SPENDING

When a value such as the importance of the environment occupies a substantial position in public thinking opinion researchers need to take care not to attribute specific conclusions to it mistakenly. Consider the familiar question about whether we are spending too little, too much or the right amount on the environment. The National Opinion Research Center has asked Americans that question nineteen times over the past twenty years. Strong majorities have consistently told the pollsters that we are spending too little. The proportion saying we are spending too much is always small. policy-makers should not read these responses literally. They are expressions of a broad general commitment to a clean environment, not an endorsement of higher spending.

Public thinking about what spending is actually needed today is more complex. Americans say we are spending too little on many problems, and it appears from some questions that they think we can move a little more slowly in the environmental area. In January 1995, 53 percent of Americans told Yankelovich Partners that "given our other problems right now," it would be better to go slow in spending money to cleanup the environment. Still 40 percent said we should go full speed ahead.

It is striking how few questions over the past twenty years have asked Americans to think about their tax burden when thinking about federal spending on the environment. In surveys conducted by General Electric from 1966 to 1981, people

Page
184
Front Matter (R1-R12)
Part I: Committee Report (1-2)
Summary (3-14)
Society's Environmental Goals (15-26)
Use Social Science and Risk Assessment to Make Better Societal Choices (27-36)
Focus on Monitoring to Build Better Understanding of Our Ecological Systems (37-50)
Reduce the Adverse Impacts of Chemicals in the Environment (51-60)
Develop Environmental Options for the Energy System (61-72)
Use a Systems Engineering and Ecological Approach to Reduce Resource Use (73-80)
Improve Understanding of the Relationship Between Population and Consumption as a Means to Reducing the Environmental Impacts of Population Growth (81-86)
Set Environmental Goals Via Rates and Directions of Change (87-90)
Bibliography (91-94)
Part II: Commissioned Papers (95-96)
National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research (97-134)
Measurement of Environmental Quality in the United States (135-178)
Attitudes Toward the Environment Twenty-Five Years After Earth Day (179-190)
Environmental Goals and Science Policy: A Review of Selected Countries (191-242)
Can States Make a Market for Environmental Goals? (243-280)
Setting Environmental Goals: The View from Industry. A Review of Practices from the 1960s (281-326)
Status of Ecological Knowledge Related to Policy Decision-Making Needs in the Area of (327-344)
The Federal Budget and Environmental Priorities (345-398)
Part III: Keynote Addresses and Presentations (399-400)
D. James Baker, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (401-406)
Thomas Grumbly, U.S. Department of Energy (407-412)
Barry Gold, U.S. Department of the Interior (413-418)
Harlan Watson, House Committee on Science (419-422)
David Garman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (423-430)
John Wise and Peter Truitt, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (431-436)
Judith Espinosa and Peggy Duxbury, President's Council on (437-448)
Gilbert S. Omenn, University of Washington (449-462)
Part IV: Appendixes (463-464)
A Committee Member and Staff Biographical Information (465-470)
B Forum Agenda (471-474)
C Forum Participants (475-482)
D Summary of Responses to Call for Comments (483-488)
E Respondents to Call for Comments (489-496)
F Summary of Breakout-Group Discussions (497-500)
G Detecting Changes in Time and Space (501-504)
H Contents and Executive Summary of a Report of the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government (505-516)
Index (517-530)