Not Such Happy News: What the Yale Report on The Potential Impact of Global Warming on the 2012 Presidential Election (also) means

Yesterday, the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication released a fascinating report entitled The Potential Impact of Global Warming on the 2012 Presidential Election. The report outlined how the majority of 'undecided' voters' views on global warming were much more similar to those of voters who were likely to dent President Obama's chad come the election in six weeks time. The headlines from that report are (though I thoroughly recommend reading the original):

• The number of 'undecided' voters who believe anthropogenic climate change is happening is much closer to the number of likely-Obama voters who think the same, than likely-Romney voters.
• Global warming is a more important issue for those who are likely to vote for President Obama and 'undecideds' than it is for those who are likely to vote for Mitt Romney.
• The saliency of global warming is actually fairly high in this election, with 55% of 'undecided' voters saying that global warming is 'one of several issues' that would affect their choice of President, compared to 69% of likely-Obama voters, and only 32% of likely-Romney voters who say the same.
• Generally, the US electorate is open to more and new information on global warming, with 86% of 'undecided' voters, 70% of likely-Obama voters, and 66% of likely-Romney voters saying they need at least 'a little more information' about global warming.

This is all good news, seemingly. It means that President Obama is seen as the better choice (from a global warming activism perspective), and that undecided voters are more likely to vote for Obama than Romney, particularly when this decision is based on global warming considerations (which it seems to be at least partially). Furthermore, it shows that the electorate is open to learning more about global warming, with more education presuming greater support for action. The Yale Report, then, is suitably upbeat in its tone. However, there is another side to these findings that is worth exploring. Sadly, it is not all good news.

It depends where global warming is on that list of 'several' issues (and it's probably not that high)

The Yale Report states that voters in all three categories say that 'global warming' is "one of several issues" that would affect their candidate choice (see figure 1, below). Typically, though, the environment (and it's associated issues such as global warming) tend to come quite low in polls measuring which issues are most important to voters. In this Gallup poll, most Americans cite the candidates' economic plans, party, and perceptions of President Obama's nondescript performance over the past four years as reasons for voting for their preferred candidate, with environmental considerations not even making the list. And in this poll, the economy, budget deficit, healthcare, and immigration are all cited as 'important issues' to voters while (again) neither the environment nor global warming make the list. While these are only two polls, and I make no claims for them to be absolutely representative of all polls, they are also not anomalies. Simply put, while 'global warming' may be 'one of many issues' that decide people's vote, so are an awful lot of other issues, and these other issues are more likely to actually decide the individuals vote when push comes to shove. What the Yale Report finding actually tells us, then, is that if global warming were to be the deciding issue, then more of the undecided voters would vote for President Obama than Romney. This is fine, but it's not the same as undecided voters choosing President Obama just because they share similar views on global warming, and shouldn't be confused as such.

Figure 1: global warming as 'one of several issues' affecting voter choice

'Openess' to new information on global warming doesn't mean voters are likely to support action on global warming once they have this information

The Yale Report generally adopts a positive tone when discussing its finding on the 'openess' of the electorate to changing their views on global warming (see figure 2), and their receptiveness to new information on global warming (see figure 3). They seem to implicitly take this to mean that there is an information gap and see an opportunity to plug this gap with what would be (presumably - and this is a presumption as the report doesn't go into detail) 'good' information on global warming which (given the trends within the scientific and policy communities) is likely to support action on global warming. This isn't necessarily the case. While this is certainly one (not unfair) interpretation, there are also alternative interpretations that are less encouraging.

Figure 2: Voters likely to change their minds on global warming

Figure 3: Voters open to new information on global warming

Voters can change their mind both ways

The Yale Report says that 40% of 'undecided' voters say they could reasonably easily change their mind on global warming, with 36% of likely-Romney voters and 23% of likely-Obama voters agreeing. The Yale Report says that this means that "a large part of the electorate is receptive to learning more about this issue".  While it is perhaps promising that 36% of likely-Romney (read, likely-anti-action) voters may change their mind, it is actually discouraging that 40% of 'undecideds' may change their mind. Given the information that the Yale Report provides elsewhere, it seems these 40% of 'undecided' voters are currently more likely to support action on global warming (or at least not be overtly against such action). This means that if they changed their minds, this 40% (or at least a decent portion of) are more likely to join the 24% of likely-Romney voters who are very unlikely to change their minds and be against action on global warming. This goes all the more so for the 36% of likely-Romney voters, who may well join this 24% at the expense of the 39% of likely-Obama voters who are very unlikely to change their minds (and are most likely to support action on global warming).

Furthermore, it is actually worrying that 23% of of likely-Obama voters are open to changing their minds on global warming, unless this 23% happen to be the exact 23% of likely-Obama voters that believe global warming is down to natural variations (which the report doesn't say it is, and it seems unlikely to be). This means that a large chunk of those most likely to support action on global warming are actually very open to changing their minds from this position to a less action-oriented position. So, while there certainly is the opportunity to persuade and change some voters' minds on global warming, their minds are rife for change in both directions.

It depends what information voters are open to

According to the Yale Report, 70% of likely-Obama voters, 66% of likely-Romney voters, and 86% of 'undecided' voters want more information on global warming. The Yale Report says this "suggests that Americans across the political spectrum are receptive to new information on the topic – so long as communication efforts are effectively targeted and communicated in ways appropriate to the audience". The latter part of that quote is the most significant; the information needs to be 'targeted' and 'appropriate'. This statement needs clarification, but assuming it means that voters are most open to information which already aligns with their views in some way (as they generally are), then this 'new information' is either unlikely to change peoples minds on 'global warming' or entrench already-existing views. The crux of the issue is that 'information' on global warming comes in many and various forms: scientific research, opinion, spin, and genuine efforts at engagement on a complex and difficult issue all rub shoulders pertaining to 'inform' on global warming. This is often described as the 'politicisation' of the issue (an unfair moniker, in my view, but that's a topic for another day). The assumption of the Yale Report reads as though 'more information' is likely to lead to 'better education' which is often assumed to be a pre-cursor to supporting action on global warming. In fact, the opposite could be true: 'more information' could lead to greater polarisation, and a tendency towards stasis on the issue of global warming.

The Yale Report is the silver lining

So, while the Yale Report throws up some interesting findings, many of them with potentially promising outcomes from a standpoint of global warming activism, it is not all good news. For all the promise of the 'undecided' voters handing the election to the candidate more likely to act on global warming, there is another scenario in which those very voters may flip (or, indeed, flop) away from their current position supporting action to one of obstructivism. And this is before we even start to think about whether or not a second Obama term would actually deliver any tangible action on global warming. The Yale Report, then, is perhaps best seen as a silver lining to an otherwise grey cloud, not the other way around.

Mitt's family are out of this world: Romney's basic misunderstanding of how humans live on the planet Earth

Last night, Mitt Romney formally accepted the nomination as the Republican candidate for the upcoming Presidential election. This was not a rousing occasion. This was very much the crowning of a man no-one liked, but no-one hated enough (or was organised enough) to depose. While the winning candidate's acceptance speech is always full of nods to right of the party (“As president, I will protect the sanctity of life. I will honor the institution of marriage. And I will guarantee America’s first liberty: the freedom of religion”), nods to the moderate swing voter (“I will not raise taxes on the middle class”), nods to their corporate backers (“by 2020, North America will be energy independent by taking full advantage of our oil and coal and gas and nuclear and renewables”), and nods to those demographic groups which seem to be rejecting them (in Romney’s case, all women – “women are more likely than men to start a business. They need a president who respects and understands what they do”), it also has that old-favourite: the illogical, ill-thought-out, purely populist, kicking-the-opposition, lowest-common-denominator barb. Here is my pick of last night’s speech:

“President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family.”

Wow.

This got rousing applause. From a man who fails to rouse pretty much anyone (or any thing. Ever). Well done, Mitt. With this sort of nonsense you may be alright yet. Here is a few reasons why that statement is ridiculous (with the caveat that it is, of course, not expected to be anything but).

1. President Obama didn’t exactly promise this

He promised a better engagement with the international bodies concerned with climate change. He promised to try and get climate change legislation through Congress (which Congress failed to pass). He promised to try and switch America’s energy focus from carbon-intensive fossil fuels to more climate-friendly renewable technologies. Now, I’m not saying he’s succeeded in doing all or any of these things. However, I’m pretty sure President Obama did not promise to stand on the East Coast with an oversized swirly-straw and drink-away all the excess sea-water flowing off the glaciers. The man may think of himself as a hero, but his bladder simply wouldn’t be able to stand that kind of sustained abuse. Even Obama would recognise this, I think. Likewise, I don’t think he ever promised the use of Air Force 1 to jet-over a ginormous bandage which Obama would personally apply to a gaping wound somewhere over an ill-defined South East Asian mining paradise. Maybe he did – maybe I wasn’t listening carefully enough – but I’m pretty sure he didn’t.

2. Obama didn’t promise one at the expense of promising the other, as Romney implies

I can’t remember President Obama mentioning at any point that he preferred trees to children (I mean, I can see the argument, but I don’t think he’s ever publicly stated it). Was there a point in his first state of the Union where he grabbed Inhofe by the collar and growled in his face “I don’t give a damn about little Jimmy, I’m going to save the beavers…” before skipping out arm-in-arm with Babs Boxer humming ‘The Birds and the Bees’ as they went? Maybe there was, but I reckon it’d be on YouTube by now. Good to have assurances Mitt won’t do this, though, I suppose. Sod the birds and the bees and the flowers and the trees (or the moon up above and this thing called 'love', for that matter), Mitt, what about ME and MY FAMILY, ey, EY?!

3. These two things ARE NOT EXCLUSIVE

Finally, a basic understanding of the physical realm requires us to recognise that ‘I’, and therefore others (i.e. ‘my family’) inhabit the ‘planet’. We can be understood as ‘on’ or ‘in’ or ‘of’ it – it doesn’t really matter – either way, there is still a need for this ‘planet’ as the basis for a basic level of life-support. So, you know that oil and gas you were talking about drilling away at, Mitt? Yeah? That comes outta ‘the planet’, you see. You know that house you live in, Mitt? Yeah, that MASSIVE one in the nice part of town with the gold taps and butler. Yeah, that thing that has a pool and tennis courts and the needless ex-Marine watch guard which your family sometimes frequents. Yeah, that thing. That’s on ‘the planet’ too. No, no, I’m not kidding. I’m really not. Hey, you know how you care about your family, Mitt? And how you’re so proud of breeding, and how you want them to breed too (and then those little breed-ees to breed again, and so on)? Yeah, they’re called ‘future generations’, and they’re gonna need ‘the planet’ to live on/in/with as well. I know, I know. Get-outta-town, ey.

That is unless Mitt and his family live on another planet, of course. A theory which I’m finding increasingly conceivable…

A dumbed-down election for the hyper nation; Obama and Decision Time 08

So, it's finally over.

You really can't beat a good old fashioned bit of hype, can you? Whether America made the right choice or not is currently beside the point (in essence because 'the right choice' is a ridiculous thing to try and calculate). But what does matter is that 'America' has chosen Obama - that's right a single man, not a deity or uber-being as we may have occasionally lapsed into thinking He was - to lead the world (so, America) out of the boggy marsh of economic recession and social delapidation that it has been wading through ever since 'America chose' the last time around. Is it just me, or does anyone else see a worrying consistency here?

George Bush Jnr was to be the antithesis to the Clinton years - clean and wholesome, with values that every American could be proud of. Eight years on and Obama is to be the antithesis to the Bush years - clean and wholesome, with values that every American can be proud of. Yes,...YES, that's what this country needs (yell all the fanatics swept up by the loathingly labelled Obamania), real CHANGE. And lest we forget... YES WE CAN!

While it would be foolish to make detailed comparisons between Obama and Bush (particularly at this stage), they did run their campaigns on a remarkably similar platform; that of 'change'. Neither really promised much (and, in most American's eyes, Bush delivered only on that front) but they didn't half promise to not do an awful lot. 'I will not sleep with my political aides' says Bush. Good, well done you. Faithful and wholesome and loeveable George, that's what's needed. 'I will not go to war unnecessarily' pledges Obama. Great, lovely. That sounds like a tip-top idea. Someone who's not a war-monger, brillo, get him in. ('I will not lead this country into recession' chips in McCain, before his aides quietly wheel him back inside and apologise for the old fella who has been under a lot of strain since around January and 'hasn't quite been there' for the last few months before promising that you wont have to see him again for some time.)

My point being that it is sheer genius to base an entire campaign on 'changing' things - and when asked what this change will look like, to deliver a bunch of promises to not do things. I don't plan on going to war or screwing up the economy but that doesn't really qualify me to be the next President, does it? I also don't plan on spouting patriotic nonsense until my eyeballs bleed and spending billions of dollars that could have gone elsewhere on what is little more than a long-running political soap opera; maybe that means i should become King.

I would love to take the 20 central concepts of Obama's acceptance speech and ask what 10 American's that have been cryogenically frozen for the past 18months thought they meant; i'd be surprised if you didn't get 10 much varied responses. He has managed to make himself appeal to all-comers - something that admittedly all politicians attempt to do - but his genius is that he has managed to do it without genuinely specifying anything. McCain was guilty of much the same - moving closer to the centre even when it was obviously too late and when saving face by returning to the right would have perhaps been the best option - but i believe that the fact that Obama actually won rightfully singles him out.

This election has been one sweeping statement after another. It has been reactive, not proactive (despite what Oba may try to tell you). Of course Obama looked at polls before and during his run. Of course he saw Palin and surged forth on her ground. Of course he saw the word 'crisis' in the headlines and returned to messages of hard-work and self-reliance. And, above all, of course he saw Bush's poll-ratings and thought 'change'. Even his Republican competitor (who, as we have all been made tremendously aware, voted with the administration quite a lot) tried the very same thing.

Has it really got to the stage now where politics has become so dumbed-down that we can only speak in sweeping concepts and allow the voter themselves to fill in the gaps? This election has been an ideal-type example in populism for the idiot. If anyone was confused as to the problems with democracy watch the tapes of the last 18 months. 'Decision Time USA 08' represents a continued slide towards formalised idiocracy. Obama may be a good President - i think he can be and i hope he is - but we have to face the fact that the first item on his Presidential CV will be 'won an election in 2008 by saying little, and doing nothing'. Lets hope his eventual legacy proves to be so much more than that.

Why do people in Britain care about the outcome of the upcoming US Presidential election?

Now, I should clarify. By this I am not questioning why do people care about the eventual outcome of an election that decides arguably (and misguidedly) the man who is the 'leader of the free world' and thus has the power and ability to effect us all. What I am questioning is why some people, particularly colleagues and specific friends of mine, throw themselves into this particular arena with quite so much passion - what is it that they actually hope to achieve?

Having sat through what was a deliberately provocative and not-particularly intellectual hour outlining the 'race so far I was surprised to find myself among about 6 others hanging around to further engage with the topic. It wasn't so much the engaging with the topic and subject matter of the comments that followed that took me by surprise, but the way in which they were delivered. One guy, from London, started to rant about how McCain was no different to Bush really and that the way that he was trying to distance himself from the administration was nothing short of abominable. Another then followed with a breathless retort about how Obama was at least, "and I mean AT LEAST" (he yelled), as guilty as McCain was of denying his ideological roots. While these are both valid points, the arena they were delivered in was fantastically bizarre. Here we were in the middle of a lecture theatre in Bristol (in the UK), in week zero of term, at lunchtime, surrounded by a handful of other non-US citizens hearing why "we" should or shouldn't support Obama/McCain. I appreciate the passion for politics, the interest in international affairs, and the general feeling of disgust about pretty much all aspects of the American electoral system (apart from its ability to stimulate debate, evidently). But what i do not appreciate is the egotistic view that 'my', or 'your', or 'our' support makes a bleeding smidgen of difference to these people!

I genuinely believe that foreign nations have the ability to affect American foreign policy, but in an arena that is pantomimic at its most sophisticated it seems wise to acknowledge that under such circumstances the Americans will only acknowledge we exist when we agree with them and support them, or disagree with them when they feel we shouldn't and they get hurt by it (freedom fries anyone?). So the chances of Obama, McCain, or - god forbid - Baden or Palin giving two hoots about what we think is minimal at absolute best.

Is it even possible for a foreigner to make a difference? I saw the Co-Chair of 'McCain 2008' on a special edition of Newsnight who simply patronised his way through a tremendously easy 20mins of 'questioning' on the basis that he was there to deliver McCain's message and if we don't buy it, who cares?! Either accept that McCain is the 'man of experience', 'the candidate of low taxation', 'the trustworthy American with a clean social past', or don't. What difference does it really make to his "friend". At least he wasn't as bad as the following Democrat spokeswoman who claimed that the recent debate turned a couple of her (most likely imaginary) relatives into Obama supporters. She was clearly able to deliver this at best demi-truth so confidently via one of the most respected broadcasters in the world on the basis that if it emerged that she was lying then again, so what?! Practically all the viewers will not be enfranchised in this particular election. Could we prosecute her? No. Could we even persecute her to the point that she is no longer taken seriously in her role? It seems unlikely. Really, who are we to do anything about this?

As such, please, I implore you all - anyone and everyone who ever meets me in the next eight weeks or so - to stop asking who I support. I don't support anyone. I may have a man who I would prefer to see in the White House but I can't affect his selection so therefore I see little point in declaring my interest. Equally if you happen to guess who my affiliation is with and disapprove then please, do not yell or debate with me. I won't listen, and if i did it wouldn't make any difference anyway. For those few who are in a position to affect such power time would be better spent preparing for the whoever it is that finally claims the ultimate throne of democracy than constantly trying to get involved in an issue in which they have to construct themselves as they otherwise simply won't have one. Lord knows, if we'd seen Bush coming and pre-empted the world that he is readying to leave in his wake then maybe we would have a better world right now.

Follow the election, certainly. Care about it, sure. But if you don't have a vote in this particular charade then do not, whatever you do, become so deluded so as to think that who you 'support' matters. I assure you, it doesn't. And in the meantime, most importantly, please stop bugging me.