Most Americans believe climate change is harming national parks, according to a new poll/Kurt Repanshek file of Glen Canyon NRA
A strong majority of Americans believe climate change is harming the National Park System, according to a poll conducted for the National Parks Conservation Association.
The poll found that nearly nine in 10 of those surveyed said climate change is negatively impacting national parks. And most Americans, regardless of political party, would be more likely to support a representative who supported a bill that was designed to reduce the impact of climate change on national parks, the park advocacy group said.
The NPCA poll was conducted online by The Harris Poll among 2,064 adults, ages 18 and older, at the end of January.
“We know climate change is the most serious problem our national parks face, wreaking havoc on so many things we love,” said Theresa Pierno, NPCA's president and CEO. “As the worsening climate crisis continues to threaten our health and our communities, this poll shows national parks unite us and offer solutions for addressing it. With visitation to our parks at an all-time high, Americans are seeing the impacts firsthand with parks burning, flooding, melting, and eroding. We all agree. We cannot and must not wait.”
Ten questions were asked of Americans around topics such as the last time they visited a national park and the importance for moving forward with climate change solutions. Key findings include:
- Across all political spectrums, an overwhelming 88% of Americans say climate change is negatively impacting national parks.
- When breaking it down by political affiliation, a majority of Democrats (95%), Republicans (80%) and Independents (88%) say climate change is negatively impacting national parks.
- A strong bipartisan majority of Americans (84%) see U.S. national parks as an important part of the solution to reducing climate change by protecting lands and waters that remove carbon from the atmosphere. With 92% of Democrats, 75% of Republicans and 84% of Independents agreeing that protecting park lands and waters can help address climate change.
- Forty three percent of Americans are very likely to support efforts to reduce climate change. When thinking specifically about the impacts climate change is having on U.S. national parks, 55% say that it is very important that the country move forward with climate change solutions.
- A majority of Americans (83%), regardless of political affiliation, would be more likely to support their representative in Congress that supported a bill that was designed to reduce the impact of climate change on U.S. national parks.
To learn more about the poll and how NPCA is working to address climate change at national parks across the country, please visit www.npca.org/parksunite.
Comments
How remarkably unsurprising. You repeat the Big Lie often enough, refusing to make the essential distinction between "Climate Change" and MANMADE Climate Change, and then you find that people not only believe the Big Lie but the even larger /inferred/ lie? The world is not warming in any unprecedented fashion, and it is certainly not doing so because of fossil fuels. OK, bring on the denials. Prove to me what the global temperature WAS on this day in 2121.
So 90% say climate change is hurting national parks. How many of those 90% have actually been to a National Park to formulate an opinion? More rubbish from the NCPA.
Yawn. More nonsense posted from the right-wing troll.
dClimate warming, yes, but cause isproblematic. Sunspots vary, the suns output varies , what can be done about it ?? Man has never been able to control the climate, the weather, the rain, the storms, Mother Nature way stronger than man. But man dreams up control possibilities, always very expensive , always changing his culture, but man controlling worlwide climate warming ? No way.
Do any of the foolish folks who have allowed themselves to be deluded by oil and coal industry propaganda remember the OZONE HOLE?
Remember how the problem was solved and our atmosphere is now recovering, albeit slowly?
What was the difference?
Simple. The people who made the stuff were willing to look research objectively and realized it was correct.
They made an effort to learn the truth and then went to work to help find a solution.
They succeeded.
What's the difference?
Money.
And the fact that the chemical companies went to work and sought a solution that would work and not break their banks.
Solutions may be tougher when oil or coal are involved, but what might have happened if the biggies in those industries had sought solutions instead of fighting against good common sense?
VERY flawed analogy. The cause of the ozone hole was proven by laboratory experiment and followed very closely from the simple laws of physics and chemistry. And there were available alternatives to CFCs. "Manmade Global Warming" ("Climate Change" isn't science because the ONLY solid science we have-- Arrhenius, 1895-- supports only warming) isn't science because the "experiment" needs to run for another 80 years or so to prove the "theory" that total CO2 controls global temperature (highly unlikely, given the physics and chemistry), and even THEN you would need to somehow prove that fossil fuel CO2 was the principal component of total CO2, which it most assuredly is NOT.
I like the poster who suggested that "Climate Change" was actually GOOD for the parks, and vice versa, because more tree growth was taking CO2 from the atmosphere and trees are pretty. And when the glaciers retreat (I saw this in Glacier Bay), we find the stumps of old trees, meaning the world was significantly warmer in the past than it is today. We can adapt. What we CANNOT do is PREVENT something that is, until proven otherwise, entirely natural.
Sounds like the right wing trolls are fairly experienced at their blather smokescreen. Sounds pretty much like their arguments are tailored by the petroleum industries that are largely responsible for the harmful effects of the manmade portion of climate change.
AND... here come the totally irrational, science-denying left-wing trolls whose only "proof" is to try to discredit those who have facts, logic, and actual data. Until they can tell me what the actual results of the "experiment" that proves the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW, its official moniker) ARE, in the year 2100, everything else is just unscientific conjecture-- at best.
Oh, and by the way, what IS the "manmade portion of climate change"? Trot out the real numbers, if you have any clue what they are.