I’ll have much more on this in the days and weeks to come, but for now you should read these summaries by Kate Sheppard and Joseph Romm.

Via Gallup:

Without 2009 data on the partisan breakdown we can’t say for sure, but as has been the case in other recent polls, much of the downward shift appears to be among Republicans:

A few polls I hadn’t yet gotten around to writing about:

Via Framing Science, this Stanford study (PDF) shows that the decline in concern regarding global warming some polls are finding is not entirely accurate.

Here is a video of Professor Krosnick discussing the survey:

Separately, an international survey of 9,000 people in 22 countries had the following findings:

• 83 per cent are concerned by climate change and 80 percent by the level of local air pollution.
• 77 percent are concerned or very concerned about their country’s reliance on other countries providing oil and gas.
• 89 percent think it important or very important to reduce their country’s reliance on fossil fuels.

About 16% of the respondents were from the United States.

And yet another Gallup poll shows Republicans as outliers in terms of understanding environmental issues. While Democrats and Independents think the quality of the environment has improved since Barack Obama took office, Republicans aren’t so sure:

The whole editorial is strong but I especially like the last few paragraphs:

Industrial emissions account for a third of this country’s greenhouses gases, and freezing the government’s ability to regulate them makes no sense. There is no guarantee that Congress will produce a broad bill. And even if it does, what is the harm in requiring power plants and other industrial facilities to make near-term improvements in efficiency, or switch to less-polluting fuels?

These senators seem to have bought the hype, spun by industry, that the E.P.A. will run amok. This is not the way we read the intentions of the E.P.A. administrator, Lisa Jackson, who has promised that whatever regulations she proposes will be gradual, cost-effective and affect only the largest facilities.

Nor is it the way we read Congress’s responsibility to the country. That is to address the very real danger of climate change, not deny the government the tools it needs — and legally has — to fight it.

The fact that the thinking behind Murkowski and Rockefeller’s efforts comes directly from polluting industries is an important point, and one that can’t be repeated enough as far as I’m concerned.

Here is the National Association of Manufacturers:

The EPA needs to slow down and let Congress handle this issue.

Here is Senator Rockefeller on the day he introduced the Stationary Sources Regulations Delay Act:

This legislation will issue a two year suspension on EPA regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources—giving Congress the time it needs to address an issue as complicated and expansive as our energy future. Congress, not the EPA, must be the ideal decision-maker on such a challenging issue.

The Times piece is worth reading in full.

Brad Johnson makes a great catch:

The target of this ad is the Obama administration’s effort to remove $36 billion in loopholes and subsidies for the oil industry. As it turns out, the “Americans” presented in the ad are stock photos from Getty Images

The ad is below, and you can see the stock images Brad pulled from Getty at The Wonk Room.

If so, the easiest path seems to be through Senator Lincoln’s office. The Sunlight Foundation published a massive research project yesterday in which they mapped out the connections between Senator Lincoln and various lobbyists. You can see a full visualization of this here and read the research here.

Joe Romm:

Naomi Oreskes’ upcoming book, Merchants of Doubt, explains “the troubling story of how a cadre of influential scientists have clouded public understanding of scientific facts to advance a political and economic agenda.”

The prolific UC San Diego professor discusses the history of both our understanding of human-caused global warming and the anti-science disinformation campaign in this terrific talk from last week.

Politicians and media outlets who cite a debate on the science of climate change need to choose a side.

Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones:

The House Republican caucus is launching its own effort to block the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide emissions, joining a number of other ploys to prevent or delay anticipated new rules from the agency.

On Tuesday, Republicans plan to introduce their own resolution of disapproval for the EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases are a threat to human health. The effort, lead by Joe Barton (R-Texas), has 79 Republican cosponsors. It mirrors both the Senate version introduced by Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that has 40 cosponsors, including three Democrats, and another House measure introduced last week by Reps. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) and Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.). (A resolution of disapproval is an obscure parliamentary tactic that allows Congress to override decisions from the executive branch.)

Here is the resolution:

030110_Endangerment_Resolution

In a wide-ranging Op-Ed, former Vice President Al gore pushes back against the climategate conspiracy, urges the Senate to take action and encourages the public to replace whichever public officials fail to take action. Here is the money graf:

We have overcome existential threats before. Winston Churchill is widely quoted as having said, “Sometimes doing your best is not good enough. Sometimes, you must do what is required.” Now is that time. Public officials must rise to this challenge by doing what is required; and the public must demand that they do so — or must replace them.

In a separate piece, entitled How the G.O.P. Goes Green , Thomas Friedman was able to get some choice quotes from Senator Graham:

“I have been to enough college campuses to know if you are 30 or younger this climate issue is not a debate. It’s a value. These young people grew up with recycling and a sensitivity to the environment — and the world will be better off for it. They are not brainwashed. … From a Republican point of view, we should buy into it and embrace it and not belittle them. You can have a genuine debate about the science of climate change, but when you say that those who believe it are buying a hoax and are wacky people you are putting at risk your party’s future with younger people. You can have a legitimate dispute about how to solve immigration, but when you start focusing on the last names of people the demographics will pass you by.”

Both pieces are must-read.