If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now

Americans Want Climate Change Preparation, Don’t Want to Pay for It

An overwhelming majority of Americans want to prepare to minimize likely damage caused by global warming-induced sea-level rise and storms, but most citizens want people whose properties and businesses are located in hazard areas – not the government – to foot the bill for such measures, according to a survey conducted by the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and the Center for Ocean Solutions.

Some 82 percent of those surveyed said that people and organizations should prepare for climate change in advance, rather than simply deal with the damage after it happens. Among the most popular policy solutions identified: strengthening building codes for how to build new structures along the coast to minimize damage, favored by 62 percent of respondents, and preventing new buildings from being built near the coast, which was supported by 51 percent.

Eighty-two percent of respondents believe that the earth’s temperature has been rising over the last 100 years. However, even a majority — 60 percent — of those who doubt the existence of climate change favored adaptation measures.

Among the survey’s respondents, 48 percent favor sand dune restoration and 33 percent favor efforts to maintain beaches with sand replenishment. Thirty-seven percent support relocating structures away from the coast and 33 percent support constructing sea walls.

More people believe that preparation efforts will help the economy and create jobs around the US, in their state and in their town than think these efforts will harm the economy and result in fewer jobs in those areas.

The survey was conducted via the Internet with a sample of 1,174 American adults aged 18 and older. The survey has a margin of error of +/- 4.9 percent.

Last week, New York began listing climate change as a risk in its bond offerings, acknowledging that global warming poses a long-term risk to the state’s financial health. The state now lists climate change alongside warnings about other hazards including unresolved litigation and potential cuts in federal spending. It cites Hurricane Sandy and tropical storms Irene and Lee as examples of the financial risks associated with the phenomenon.

Photo Credit: The National Guard

Strategies for Managing Emerging Regulations
Sponsored By: Sphera Solutions

Stormwater Management Programs: How to Integrate New Technologies to Improve Processes and Operations
Sponsored By: VelocityEHS

Merging Industrial Air and Water Pollution Solutions Provides Better Results, Lower Cost
Sponsored By: Anguil Environmental Systems

Powerful Byte - Strategies to Ingest, Digest High-Frequency Data
Sponsored By: Sphera Solutions


4 thoughts on “Americans Want Climate Change Preparation, Don’t Want to Pay for It

  1. I want Big Oil companies to pay for ALL the adaptation. This situation is very analogous to the destruction caused by Big Tobacco. 1 in 5 deaths in America is Tobacco-related and Americans preaching “self-reliance” say smokers bring destruction on themselves. Americans repeatedly ignore the massive holes 3 tractor-trailers wide that tobacco rips through families and entire community as relatives of the victims must drop more productive activities to rally to the aid of the ones who fell victim. I do not blame smokers for that addiction: I blame the tobacco companies for profiting from wholesale destruction. The exact same thing is happening now with Big Oil and climate change.

  2. Americans do want a viable way of addressing the warming climate issue without having to pay for it. Trouble is what they really want is to pass the cost off on someone else and this will result in passing the cost off to their children but at 100 times the cost.

  3. The old saying goes an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure but this needs to be revised to an ounce of prevention in time would be worth 300 tons of cure.

  4. Don’t you think global warming danger would be dramatically decreased if we closed ‘unnecessary’ parks, such as DisneyWorld? The amount of energy used there every day is unbelievable. Just spending a few days there is enough to realise that. If it was reconverted into a wildlife park, it would still be a way to keep jobs going – and preserve wildlife.

Leave a Comment

Translate »