Environment vs. Economy: What Does the Public Really Believe?

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 huge number –  a little more than half (51%) picked “economy: and slightly less than half (45%) picked “environment.” The margin of error was 3%.

Pollsters love this question and they’ve been asking variations of it for decades. Here is how the question was worded this time around in this particular environmental issues survey:

With which one of these statements about the environment and the economy do you most agree — protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth, or economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent?

Until recently, majorities of Americans have consistently responded that the environment takes precedence. Sometimes a large majority, sometimes a small one, but always a majority. It was that way for decades. It’s only now, during this brutal, grinding recession, that the economy has inched ahead. And it’s not just this survey, it’s others. Check out recent stories from ABC News and USA Today.

These poll results are disturbing, sure, but I think they are misleading, too.  There’s plenty of evidence out there that everyday citizens actually reject the basic premise of that question. When I sift through my extensive collection of environmental issue surveys, I find plenty of poll questions that explore Americans’ attitudes towards the environment and their wallets in more depth.

I think you can summarize the American public’s general attitude towards the environment and their wallets in three statements:

#1) “Environmental regulations and protection don’t burden the economy much”

As a general matter, when pollsters ask Americans if they truly accept that environmental regulation hurts the economy, the answer is usually “no.”  Here’s one example: In a 2005 study conducted by Yale University, more than 3/4 of those who responded agreed with this statement: “You don’t have to sacrifice environmental protection to get economic growth. The choice between jobs and environment is a false one: we can have both.”

Click the chart to read the complete environmental issues survey

Remember, most Americans work in various service industries now. Only a few of us work in mining, agriculture, commercial fishing, forestry, or other industries where environmental compliance is a daily hassle or expense. The businesses that feel the pinch directly are often very outspoken about it — but that is a minority view.

Statement #2: “Environmental regulations hurt some companies sometimes, but they can be good for the economy, too”

When EPA announced last week that it was cracking down on mountain top removal mining, West Virginia mining interests and politicians thumped the table, squealing about lost jobs and economic ruin. So you might be surprised that just a few years ago, almost half of West Virginians told pollsters they believed environmental protection are often good for the economy, and another quarter said they generally don’t have much impact. Only one in 5 reported that environmental protections were generally bad for the economy — and that’s in coal mining, tree cutting West Virginia.

environmental issues survey

Click the chart to read the complete environmental issues survey

I think most Americans instinctively understand that people and businesses avoid highly polluted areas, that medical costs associated with pollution-related illnesses are a drag on their families’ economic well-being, and that wasteful, polluting businesses are less competitive in the modern economy.

Statement #3: “Environmental regulations and protections may cause higher taxes”

Americans generally see that protecting the environment is a legitimate responsibility of government, and recognize that this costs money — their money. In a study conducted for Duke University’s Nicholas Institute a few years back, researchers found that voters were much more likely to believe that new environmental regulations and protections would lead to tax increases than to lost jobs.

Click the chart to read the complete environmental issues survey

The real bad news here is that the voters are much more certain that hypothetical new environmental regulations would increase their taxes than they were that these these new regulations would actually clean up the air and water. D’oh!! :-(

So if everyday citizens are skeptical of the basic premise of the “environment vs. economy” poll questions, what do their their answers to those questions tell us? Honestly, I’m not sure. And if everyday citizens are skeptical of the basic premise of this question, why do pollsters keep asking it way, anyway? Again, I’m not sure.

But I think I’m on safe ground here: The economy is a disaster and it has touched us all. Everyday citizens want to see our nation’s leaders focusing their attention on getting the economy fired up and moving forward. But there is no evidence whatsoever that voters blame environmental protections for this recession — or that they believe that cutting existing environmental regulations will produce much economic stimulus, either.

52 Responses to “Environment vs. Economy: What Does the Public Really Believe?”

  • James Ehlers says:

    Hello Eric,
    Well-done post. I could not agree with you more that the many of us reject the premise of the question. Furthermore, the media when asking these questions does us a disservice by continuing to pit the environment against the economy. The economy is the environment and vice versa. If my assertion were false, why is it that the poorest nations generally experience the worst environmental conditions, and the wealthiest, the best?

    We need to reject these simplistic, polemic media characterizations. Our organization, Lake Champlain International, Inc., every day brings people together to address water issues motivated by the fact that the environment is both a matter of our health and wealth. If it were not, I suppose property values would be highest adjacent to brownfields as opposed to pristine lakes and bays.

    Given our past environmental oversights and neglect, there are unfortunately many employment opportunities, both here and abroad, cleaning up our past mistakes, not to mention improving current practices and safeguarding against future errors.

    Sincerely,
    James Ehlers
    Executive Director

    Lake Champlain International, Inc.
    … because a swimmable, drinkable, fishable Lake Champlain is the only acceptable option.

    http://www.mychamplain.net
    http://www.facebook.com/LakeChamplain

  • Brook says:

    Here in Washington State environmental and sustainability educators are working to enforce the notion that the environment is the economy.

    If you have 4 minutes, watch our E3 Washington Video and learn how E3 is making connections between environment, education, and economy.
    http://www.e3washington.org/video.html

    PS I am a big fan of this blog!

  • Gil Friend says:

    Thank you for this post, and shame on CNN.

    We’ve long know that “you don’t have to choose between making money and making sense.” http://www.natlogic.com/truth; it’s good see confirmation that the general public does too, even if our mediators don’t.

Leave a Reply

Subscribe for Updates
Enter your email address:
Or via:
Subscribe to this water blog via RSS Subscribe to this water blog via Twitter Become a fan of this water blog on Facebook
Sponsored By:

water blog advertiser

water blog advertiser

water blog advertiser

Search
Sponsored By:
Archives and Topics