Overall, 83% of global online consumers say that it is important that companies implement programs to improve the environment, but only 22% say they will pay more for an eco-friendly product

Really depressing. If only 22% say they are willing to pay more, you bet that when it comes to making the actual decision, even less people will choose the more environmentally friendly product.

i.o.w: "Don't bother me, just solve the friggin' problem"

I wonder: if people are more concerned over water shortages than climate change, do they realise that climate change is actually the main threat to a reliable water supply becasue of changing precipitation patterns and receding glaciers? There is still a lot of education to do.

Go back to your cave Herm. The US just broke records for damages from weather disasters, and the heat records in the US keep outweighing the cold records by a significant margin.

That you ascribe a political motive to addressing one of the most significant challenges we face shows how bankrupt your ideology is.

Please turn off your mind and go back to watching FOX News, you thoughtless dolt.

Hurricane Lost Steam as Experts Misjudged Structure and Next Move - New York Times 8/28/2011

The climate change campaign has failed and only the prideful and obdurate refuse to admit it. But there is increasing positive action around the Energy Independence campaign. And new approaches like Breakthrough's "Climate Pragmatism" suggest the inclusive direction.

http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/07/climate_pragmatism_innovation.shtml

Further delay and clinging to past hope that climate would galvanize the planet, is fruitless. The polls show the mindset direction and before the entire charade becomes a... charade, it's time to change course.

Else increasing numbers around the world will view our obsession with gloom and doom:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/08/hurricane_hype_irene_offered_p.html

The funny thing about this controversy/ conflict/ standoff is that both sides will claim limited victory in 20-30 years because the natural evolution of technology and cost-reductions will provide low-energy, low-pollution, improved standards in all aspects of car, building, and infrastructure sectors anyway. By association, carbon intensity and imports from questionable regimes will have dropped all along with these improvements. Because energy will be less cost volatile, standards of living will have increased sharper than those times when we were subject to carbon fuel spikes. Nothing extraordinary will have caused this. There will be no successful climate change crusade (as in lifestyle clawback) or withdraw of suburban sprawl or change in median house size or change in miles travelled adjusted for population or car size proportions or drop in percentage of meat intake or spike in transit use. Electrical vehicle adoption will be no more (melo)dramatic than carburetor or lead-content change 20-30+ years ago. Any increased intensity in weather concerns, water availability volatility, changes in sea levels or wildlife biodiversity will be met with the same yawns and disinterest as they always have when compared to politics, current events, and living routine issues. Large infrastructure projects will occasionally be implemented as needed and as they always were, such as the everglades clean-up etc. Perhaps increased zoning and mild regulation, people naturally moving and adapting will continue to overcome all long-term changes that may have been predicted or forecast with little real disruption. Any significant 'climate change' suffering elsewhere in the world will be no different than the regular famines, wars, crusades, epidemics, outbreaks, and other circumstances that typically affect cultures without access to technology or infrastructure. Ho-hum the drama continues. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Hi Anne,
I share your sentiment...it's depressing when a large number of people in the world fail to put 2's and 2's together to see the whole pictures: water shortage aggravated by global warming, and steep rise in CO2 leve associated with global warming...famine, poverty, lost of low-lying lands aggravated by global warming...etc. To us, it's very obvious!

However, I also observe a steep increase in global unemployment rates. In many countries, the unemployment rates run from 20-50 %, or even higher. Unemployment in Ireand is now 15%, Greece 17%, and Spain 21%...In the USA, unemployment is listed at 9.2%, but anyone with contact with reality knows that this number is a grossly low, since it only counts those who are now actively looking for work, and not those who are chronically unemployed and have quit looking.
Environmentalism is labor-intensive and hence more costly.

But, by putting 2 and 2 together, (environmentalism and rising unemployment rates world wide), linking environmentalism to job creation effort, perhaps a lot more political capital can be gained to bring forth more environmental projects to achieve dual or triple or quadruple gains for the same effort.

This should require no extra governmental expenditure. Simply making income tax more progressive while creating a tax shelter for private investment in environmental projects, such as renewable energy deployment, recycling, etc,. In conjunction, the gov. should ensure a gradual rise in the cost of fossil fuels and making pollution more costly, and putting tariffs on imported products from countries with low environmental standards. Predictaby, job growth will ensue when new green-energy factories will be open and new projects will be started. Tax base will increase with job growth and will solve the gov. budget deficit problem. Social stability and increase in living standards will ensue.

Are there any glaciers left in Glacier National Park? Seeing them is on my bucket list.

I think economics is largely about people doing what they want to do, although heavily influenced by free-market style advertising. We need leaders who can motivate people to save the environment. No amount of monetary investment can replace the idealism represented in the concept of environmentalism. People have to believe that it is important.

With Perry, Palin, Bachman, and the anti-science G.O.P. platform, there is a good chance that our next President will believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. That kind of leader can never motivate us to save the planet from the obvious problems we face.

For the above reason that I propose that we link job creation to environmentalism. Joblessness is an immediate problem that needs immediate attention...that we can use environmentalism as a job creation engine.

Harvey and Roger both have good ideas. But keep in mind history of the climate campaign and enlisting the necessary political support to execute the plan. This CANNOT be done under the Green or Environmental banner. Too much conflict and blowback and political damage (ahem, Algore!)

IF, however, the jobs creation program is pitched in a way that addresses perceived threats (national security), economic crisis ($450B annual foreign oil purchases) and JOBS, JOBS JOBS... you can enlist both sides of the aisle.

The JOBS programs center around Energy Independence - lowering our consumption of foreign fossil fuel. We do this by replacing the old grid with a portfolio of new energy producing technologies: NG, new nuke (thorium), solar/PV, wind, geotherm, tidal, biofuels, etc., AND introducing a major 30 year program to implement DISTRIBUTED ENERGY in residence and light industry.

This means MANUFACTURING is reawakened in North America to manufacture original equipment for CHP appliances, CCHP industrial systems, waste to energy conversion plants, solar farms, EV/PHEV auto equipment, etc. DOE is doing a decent job of this already - albeit under the unfortunate rubric of "climate change." This must change.

Centralized power production and distribution was good for Edison's day - it's a different world and we know how to make energy in-situ, locally, far more efficiently and at far less enviro impact. We all know this - now we must accept it. Centralized energy production and distribution is a century old, outdated model, and it's time to take the next step.

To implement the JOBS program we must make one relatively minor adjustment to our campaign - rename it Energy Independence. IT IS NOT A CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAM. Period. Left, right, angels and trolls need to grok, THIS is the common ground. Put pride and ego aside, hitch up the belt, and get to work on Energy Independence.

PS: you get ALL the green, climate, enviro benefits this way.

Actually, DOE and Ag are both doing a pretty good job of getting funds to green alternative energy R&D. DOT is helping implement EV infrastructure. Obama is the best friend of alternatives having helped Detroit save their auto industry and piloting the Chevy Volt - which pushed Nissan to build the Leaf and now a dozen PHEV/EV products from around the world.

But surely the States should take a lead as well. T Boone wanted to build the world's largest wind farm in Texas. They don't need that now - but developing natural gas as the fuel for CHP appliances in residential homes - would be a way to lower demand for coal fired power immediately.

And to start replacing aging high voltage transmission towers with local, micro-grids for community backup and UPS services.

@Reel$$,
I agree with your promotion of Energy Independence, and in combination with a concerted job creation program, I'm sure that it will create a lot of political traction. Conveniently, campaign season for 2012 election is now in full swing. We must find ways to get the message out for the all candidates of all respective parties so that actions will be taken as soon as possible.

Keep in mind, though, Energy Independence promotion will need the following essential actions from the Federal government:
1) Guarantee a gradual rise in the price of imported fossil fuels, or highly polluting fossil fuels, on order of 7% yearly
2) Institute gradually rising tariffs, up to a point, on all imported goods made in countries that have unfair cost advantage such gov. subsidies and/or low environmental and worker protection standards...in order to provide a level playing field for our recovering manufacturing sector.
3) Tax shelter for Private Investments in all Energy Independence-related projects...
4) To make this tax shelter revenue neutral (to avoid further budget deficit), gradually roll back the Bush's tax cut until Clinton's era tax rates will be reached.
5) Raise public awareness of the issues and what is at stake to raise more political capital.

@Zhukova,
Don't worry about the legal immigration. Many Americans yearly have found jobs abroad and are working overseas to balance out the legal immigration. Our business and industry need certain type of skills or talents from all over the world that we do not produce in enough number. We should focus first on illegal immigration...

To address the population increase as we all should be concerned about, we will need to institute selective birth control policy. How about restricting welfare support for ONE CHILD per family only? Adopt a One Child per Welfare Family policy! Mandatory birth control on all female welfare recipients by the use of IUD's that can be electronically tagged and verified when they go to pick up the welfare check.

China's One-child policy is too draconian for American's taste. However, what China has achieved is a proportional increase in the gene pool of highly capable people. This is done by allowing those who want to have more than one child to pay the gov. a large sum of money that only the wealthy (capable) can afford...Having a larger family is now the status symbol in China...the end result is that there will be higher proportion of capable people in the population to manage business and to create wealth, while the welfare roll will be more and more reduced. This is the way to prepare for the high-tech future and to reduce future unemployment problem, when higher skills and intelligence will be needed, while low-skilled works will be increasingly robotized.

Roger
Legal immigration adds about 1,000,000 to US population each year and is the highest level in history. When you include chain-migration, and high-birth rates among immigrants, you have a very significant increase in population. It is something to worry about. Traditionally, meaning before 1995, legal immigration was limited to about 250,000. Then big business lobbied the government because they claimed there was a shortage of workers. It was only a shortage only for them because they benefit directly from growing, while the rest of us have seen declining personal incomes after inflation.

Birth rates among immigrants are more then double those of native-born residents. The Census evidence shows that immigration is responsible for about 75% of population growth. Even if you consider illegal aliens, 1,000,000 legal immigrants is a big deal and something to worry about.

One child per family won't work here for the next fifty years if ever. however, I support eliminating the child tax credit. Why should I be required to pay for somebody else's big family? But, legal immigration is a policy that can be changed more easily, with several bills already in congress, and would have a big impact on resource demand and pollution. If our population could be stabilized, energy conservation might improve our lives instead of just allowing more people to crowd into a fixed amount of space.

"even more immigration ... due to climate change!"

Not if we don't allow them. In the 1970s, population stabilization achieved for a while. It was accepted as a national goal to assure a future supply of resources, to save wildlife from being exterminated, and to make environmental pollution manageble. Many Americans chose to limit their family size for the benefit of the country. Nobody does that anymore. With current immigration policy, the country's population will soar to 450 billion by 2050. Jobs will be a minor issue at that point! Immigration policy is the only reason I would vote republican, although I'm not sure I could trust them if they take the WH.

Good point, Reel$$, the birth rates for the middle class and upper class are already in the sustainable range. WE will need to work on more birth control for the lower class and welfare class. The solution can be real simple: The gov. will offer economic supports for those in needs in exchange for them staying on birth control. If the population of those in need of helps is kept low enough, the situation will be sustainable.

The poors have a subsconcious desire to have a large family in order for mutual support. Those who are chronically on welfare, one generation after the next, desire to have more kids to collect more welfare support. Heck, their kids will receive all kinds of freebees such as free health care, free dental care, free education, free school lunch, head start, etc. why should they desire to limit their family size, when they're not working, hence having all day to play with their kid?
Solution: One Child per Welfare Family policy. Support only up to One Child for those on welfare. Those working poors who may have to go in and out of welfare will be more careful not to have more than one child. Require Welfare recipient to stay on birth control in order to pick up the welfare check or before receiving any kind of financial support.

There is an abundance of everything in the Universe, but we can't get there yet. May be after many centuries long into the future, we will develope means to colonize the Moon or Mars.