« Libya and Defense Spending | Blog Home Page | Smart Power »
March 30, 2011Millennials and Climate Change
Greg Scoblete noted an interesting Brookings study of Millennials' views on foreign policy and the world. Not surprisingly, they are a bit toward the isolationist side of things. Somewhat surprisingly, they correctly identify China as a significant threat for America in the long run - I'd have thought Iran, North Korea and other nations punching outside their weight class would've been the prevalent choice.
But Greg noted one stat which surprised me even more:
Among the top challenges for the future, Millenials identified terrorism at the top (31.6 percent) followed by climate change (12.8 percent), nuclear proliferation (11.5 percent) and global poverty (10.7 percent).
I actually said "Wow" when I read this. That's incredibly low for climate change and global poverty, particularly when you consider how much talk of global warming dominated the political discussion just a few years ago. What happened? Well, the economic downturn made carbon taxes less appealing, the loss of several key political leaders blunted enthusiasm, movement leaders lost steam post-Kyoto and, of course, the number-fudging scandal in the UK (which did more damage than some in the green movement are even today ready to recognize).
I think, however, that there might be something more fundamental going on here. Katherine Miller, one of the most perceptive Millennial social critics - and happens to be an actual member of the generation (an essential qualifier) - noted in response that one shift we're seeing is that the climate issue was absorbed into a larger holistic approach which localized the issue. She maintains that the "issue went mainstream, in bite-size everyday chunks where your favorite restaurant boasts green practices," creating a positive payoff at the local and personal level.
This would be both a fascinating development and a depressing lesson for the groups who argued in favor of egregious anti-market steps at the broader level (a great example comes from this week in the UK, where the country scoffed at EU demands that they eliminate cars in all cities by 2050). I recently had a fascinating discussion with a green movement scientist working within the energy industry in Australia, and she told me the support has collapsed for incentives from the government, when just a few years ago they were being promised the moon. A major reason could be what Miller points out in this study on corporate engagement and instant gratification: why do the hard things, forced by artificial government policies, when you can instead help to save the planet by buying local? It's much easier, and has a much more immediate psychic benefit, to just buy the thing with the tree sticker on it and feel like you've made a difference.
When the green groups tried to make everyone in the West prioritize this issue, they thought they were broadening their base. It may turn out that instead, they were transforming their issue from a foreign policy issue into a cultural shibboleth.
One last note: I'd argue that, in reality, a major difficulty for the two groups (climate and poverty) are essentially at odds on policy, considering what most climate change political responses would mean for the developing world. If the factions are really that small - 12 percent vs. 10 percent - then we'll have to wait and see who gains a foothold if Millennials' see a diminished threat from terrorism in the future.
Share