Say, Is Climatism On For The Rich?

The NY Times’s gives Neil Gross, a professor of socialogy, a platform to say that it is complicated, especially as he muddles the waters by mixing environmentalism and ‘climate change’

Is Environmentalism Just for Rich People?
Sometimes it can seem as if only the privileged support the cause. But the truth is more complicated.

(couple paragraphs on Paris climate change tax riots)

As with working-class support for the faltering coal industry in the United States, the question arises: Is environmentalism a boutique issue, a cause only the well-off can afford to worry about?

Some social science suggests the answer is yes. In a landmark 1995 paper, the sociologist Ronald Inglehart observed an intriguing pattern in public support for the environmental movement. According to a public opinion survey he conducted in 43 nations, the countries where large percentages of the population supported strong environmental policies shared two characteristics: They were dealing with major environmental challenges (air and water pollution and species conservation were among the top priorities at the time) and they were affluent.

Mr. Inglehart argued that citizens were apt to prioritize environmental concerns only if they were rich enough not to have to fret about more basic things like food and shelter. Environmentalism was part of a larger “postmaterialist” mind-set, focused on human self-realization and quality of life, that was naturally to be found in the world’s economically advanced societies — and especially among better-educated, wealthier citizens. Mr. Inglehart anticipated that growing prosperity, rising education levels and increasingly dire environmental circumstances would translate into the further spread of environmental consciousness in the years to come.

Well, that does tend to be true in polling, with environmental issues, especially when merged with ‘climate change’, tend to come in very, very low on people’s lists of concerns.

Thought-provoking as Mr. Inglehart’s thesis is, however, it’s not hard to identify weaknesses. Here’s an obvious one: The United States, like France, is a prosperous country with a well-educated population. Yet according to a survey conducted this year by the Pew Research Center, only 44 percent of Americans say they care a great deal about climate change.

Maybe that’s because they are educated.

More recent research bolsters this skeptical view. Work by the sociologists Riley Dunlap and Richard York, based on a wider range of data, turns Mr. Inglehart’s finding on its head: They have discovered that the publics of poorer countries facing imminent resource loss from environmental destruction often hold the strongest pro-environment attitudes. For example, the island nation of Fiji — which stands to be decimated by global warming, rising sea levels and storms — ratified the Paris climate agreement on a unanimous parliamentary vote before any other nation did.

Except, it was the elites of that nation who voted to the Paris climate agreement. It wasn’t the poor and middle class citizens doing that, though, they do seem thrilled to attempt to shakedown rich nations for that sweet, sweet, redistributed climate cash.

The notion that there are few hard-and-fast rules when it comes to public support for environmentalism has influenced the response of environmentalists to the Yellow Vest protests. While raising taxes to reduce fossil fuel consumption or fund green energy transitions is essential, they say, depending on how and when such policies are proposed, they may spur a backlash. So smart rollouts and messaging matter. Mr. Macron’s environmental policies, for example, were announced from on high, without meaningful input from all the communities that would be affected.

In other words, the rich elites who push this stuff and won’t have their own lives damaged by the skyrocketing cost of living should roll it out in a duplicitous manner, especially in their messaging. Though, let’s be honest, it hasn’t worked in the 30+ years of spreading awareness, at least in terms of most policies.

Such a perspective is comforting. But it arguably understates the magnitude of the problem the environmental movement now confronts. Yes, contrary to the theory of postmaterialism, the well-off aren’t the only ones who care about climate change and the environment.

There’s a difference between caring and actually paying for it, for living that life. I love the NJ Devils, but, I don’t have the money to fly to NJ or other cities to watch them play a lot. Many people care about anthropogenic climate change, but aren’t willing to ruin their own lives and give up their freedom for it.

Differences between urban and rural, new economy and old, college educated versus working class and cosmopolitan versus local loom larger than ever. Although the research of the sociologist Dana R. Fisher shows that in the United States, climate change activists have been working to diversify their ranks, the trust needed for truly large-scale environmental coalition building is wearing thin.

Thus a different interpretation of the Yellow Vest protest may be warranted. Without a concerted effort to address inequality — which some in the environmental movement consider someone else’s department — the bold policy changes needed to slow global warming risk never getting off the ground.

And we see that this is a political issue, with “inequality” dragged in. Which is a codeword for making massive changes to economies. The real interpretation is being missed by Professor Gross: namely that people who believe in man-caused climate change reached their boiling point of being taxed, and, unlike the proverbial frog, they noticed the water temperature and jumped out. And went on the war path against the cook.