Poll: Nevada skeptical of global warming

Nevadans are cool to the idea the planet is getting warmer and to a proposed government fix, according to a new poll.

Fifty-five percent of respondents believe global warming is "unproven and subject to debate," compared with 35 percent who consider it "a scientifically established reality," according to the poll by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research. The percentage of skeptics is up 11 points from a similar survey in 2008.

Although public sentiment doesn't melt glaciers or evaporate Colorado River water, it does affect the way Nevadans view legislation aimed at reducing the rate of planetary warming. Fifty-five percent of respondents oppose legislation to restrict carbon gas emissions, while 37 percent support it.

While some scientists say the legislation is key to slowing a warming trend, opponents say it would increase the cost of doing business. "Politically, I think, there has been a shift on the issue because of the economy," said Brad Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon. "If it is going to raise their taxes or raise the prices of goods and services in a bad economy, people aren't as enthusiastic about it."

The poll commissioned by the Review-Journal included responses from 625 registered Nevada voters, 44 percent of them Democrats, 38 percent Republicans and 18 percent independents. The poll, conducted Tuesday and Wednesday, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Since the 2008 poll, there have been some major political and scientific developments, including a national debate over federal climate legislation and a controversy over global temperature data.

In June, the House of Representatives narrowly approved a bill that would cap the level of carbon emissions from American sources and allow firms to trade carbon production allowances. The Senate has yet to take up the legislation.

Proponents of so-called "cap-and-trade" legislation say it is a market-oriented solution to reduce the level of carbon in the atmosphere. They also point to provisions in the legislation aimed at boosting energy production from sources that don't produce carbon, such as solar, wind and geothermal, all abundant in Nevada.

"We have an opportunity to create good paying Nevada jobs and protect our state's outdoors by creating new clean energy industries," said Jon Summers, a spokesman for Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Opponents derisively refer to the proposal as "cap-and-tax" and depict it as an attempt by President Barack Obama and leading legislative Democrats to shift money and power from the private to the public sector.

"In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan," former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin wrote in a Washington Post editorial on the subject.

The latter argument has shown greater resonance in public discourse as the nation's economy struggles and fears of immediate job losses in the United States overshadow concern about broad, long-term consequences of an increase in global temperatures.

In addition to shifting public sentiment, other legislative priorities have surpassed the climate issue in Congress.

A legislative battle over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act commanded much of the spotlight last year and early this year. And the retirement announcement by Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens means the Senate now must consider a nominee to replace him on the bench, all before members turn their attention to re-election concerns.

Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and independent Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut plan to unveil a climate change bill April 26, according to reports earlier this week. But that doesn't mean it will pass, especially if it differs substantially from the House version.

"I think you'll see a lot of noise, but I don't know anybody who believes it is actually going to happen this year," said Jennifer Duffy of the Cook Political Report.

In the months since the House approved its version of cap-and-trade legislation, there has also been controversy over data maintained by leading climate researchers at the University of East Anglia in Britain.

E-mail messages among scientists leaked to the public suggested global temperature-tracking data from thermostat readings and tree ring studies had been manipulated to exaggerate the rate of global warming, according to skeptics' interpretation of the "climategate" scandal.

"I think it has had an influence on how people perceive the issue," David Pierce, a climate researcher at Scripps Institute of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif., said about the controversy.

An inquiry by the Royal Society -- the United Kingdom's national academy of science -- into the alleged manipulation showed "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice."

Pierce said perception of global warming is particularly important in Nevada because so much of the population is dependent on a shrinking water supply from the Colorado River.

He said research suggests the temperature in the Colorado River basin could increase 3 to 6 degrees Celsius by the end of the century and contribute to a decrease of 20 percent in the river's water supply, mainly because of evaporation.

"There is no doubt that if we started reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, the rise in temperatures would be reduced," Pierce said.

It will take money and political will to offset the consequences of more heat and less water, Pierce said, both of which are influenced by public opinion.

"A lot of what is going to happen to Las Vegas is going to depend on legal decisions and political decisions," he said.

Contact reporter Benjamin Spillman at bspillman@reviewjournal.com or 702-477-3861.