Over the Wire

Money Woes Turning Us into Better People?

Building on Kathy’s post from mid-February, we all consider - and occasionally make - changes to our lifestyles to save money.  In Kathy’s post, she commented about generic brands becoming more in vogue now that our pocketbooks are more in arrears.  But using the same Harris Poll from February, here are some other ways that many of us become more improved versions of ourselves when money becomes an object:

1. We cut out caffeine (21%) – and actually drink something healthier instead?
2. We decrease or eliminate our cable TV watching (22%) – and actually spend more time outdoors?
3. We use more carpools and mass transit (14%) – and actually spend more quality time with others?
4. We cancel or change our cell phone service (17%) or landline service (15%) – and actually spend more time building relationships in person?
5. We make our lunch ourselves instead of buying it (45%) – and actually eat healthier, fresher alternatives? 
6. We make “greener” choices (34% switch to refillable water bottles; 33% cancel one or more magazine subscriptions; 22% cut down on dry cleaning; 19% cancel newspaper subscriptions; 14% carpool or take mass transportation) – and actually reduce our carbon footprint?

It’s the silver lining by-product of the recession.  Has our broken economy forced you into making any better, healthier choices?

Data Snapshot

25% of Americans say they rarely think about how much electricity they are using. ---The Harris Poll, conducted online between January 18th and January 25th, 2010 among 2,576 U.S. adults 18+

OTW Birthday Week: It's Not Easy Being Green

Introduction by Kathy Steinberg, Research Manager, Public Relations Research

I'll admit it: I'm biased... As "Green Queen" here at Harris, one of my favorite posts from the past year has to do with the environment and barriers to "going green". [Note: "Green Queen" is not an official title (I wish!), but an affectionate nickname bestowed on me by my colleagues for spearheading Harris's ongoing initiatives to amass thought leadership and develop new products in environmental issues research.] 

In response to a Harris Poll which reported the extent and frequency with which U.S. adults engage in certain environmentally-friendly behaviors, my colleague from across the pond, Robert Salvoni, implored us all to "go green", not because he said so, not out of guilt, but because it's the right thing to do...it just makes sense! 

I think this is an obvious and important point that, unfortunately, has become increasingly obscured by politics. "Green" is now a label that is laden with connotations both positive and negative, depending on who you ask (liberals vs. conservatives, believers vs. deniers of climate change, etc.). But regardless of who's asking, the bottom line should be that our resources are not limitless so we should conserve them, and doing so often saves money -- a win-win situation! 

Original post by Robert Salvoni, Managing Director of Europe and Asia, October 22, 2009

The recent Harris Poll in the U.S. dramatically shows how differently we all view "green" issues. Some of us view the whole green movement with some skepticism. Others don't take kindly to being lectured (I must confess, I count myself among them!). Some feel that any small contribution they make is just a drop in the ocean and makes little difference. Then again, increasing numbers -- influenced by scientific research, reasoned evidence, and indeed, media hysteria -- are convinced into taking what small steps they can to "make a difference."

Businesses too seem to be going green en masse. Whether it is cynical "green-washing," seeking approval from stakeholders, or because of the deep-seated conviction of senior executives, they all seem to be doing it (and letting everyone know!).

So, I looked at the research and tried to work out how "righteous" I was. Funny enough, although it may seem a bit shallow, I realized that what I do is done because it simply makes sense to me. If I can save a few bucks on my energy or fuel bills, if I can improve my company's profits by lowering costs, if I can gain more revenue by working with the growing band of green-conscious businesses in raising awareness of the impact of global warming or green best practice, then why should I be concerned about my position on the "righteous" scale?

When people realize that it just "makes sense," then the inexorable move to green will become unstoppable. Our resources are not infinite, and, as any business graduate will tell you -- the rarer the asset, the more it should be valued. So go green, but don't do it out of guilt -- do it out of conviction! 

Obama's Report Card: An E for Effort?

Post by Whitney Heckathorne, Public Relations Research

How would you grade your performance at your job? A? B-minus? C-plus?

If I were just rating my performance today at work, I’d give myself an/a:

• A in productivity (I annihilated my to-do list—check, check, check!);
• B- in professionalism (managed to splatter olive oil all over the front of my button-down shirt—points off); and,
• C+ for blogging (it probably would have been helpful to have finished writing today’s entry prior to COB)…

And that’s today’s report card…though perhaps Kathy and Laura can share any objections regarding grade inflation in the comments section of this post.

However, what if your job was being President of the United States—would you be more lenient in grading your job performance? Or would you be even stricter? Obama said himself that if he were to grade himself on his performance his first year in office, he’d give himself a good, solid "B+"…but, technically, we are his bosses. And what do we think of his job performance?

According to a recent Harris Poll, about 8 in 10 Americans give Obama a passing grade (a "D" or better) while nearly half say the job he has done has been above average (i.e., half think he deserves an "A" or a "B"). So it seems America semi-agrees with Obama’s self-assessment, though there is always room for improvement.

But how can he possibly EVER earn an "A" in Americans’ eyes when everyone has different priorities? Take healthcare reform, for example. While 32% say it was given the right amount of attention during his first year in office, just over 4 in 10 say it was given too much and  nearly 1 in 5 say it was given too little attention.

And the environment? 35% say it was given the right amount of attention during his first year in office, while just under 1 in 5 say it was given too much focus and 33% say it was not given enough.

Sigh. Same pattern follows with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and foreign policy, in general.

Make up your minds, people! The truth is, Obama will never earn an "A" while all of our priorities are divided. Perhaps a goal-setting session with America is an order.

But rest assured, President Obama and America: According to an article in The Atlantic this month, among the three presidents Obama has referenced as his role models—Lincoln, FDR, and Kennedy—none of them had a spectacular first year in comparison to the rest of their presidencies. So perhaps things just have to get worse before they can get better.

What would YOU say to President Obama if you were giving his performance review?

The Global Warming Debate: Information Overload?

Post by Kathy Steinberg, Research Manager, Public Relations Research

Following up on Laura's post and yesterday's New York Times article, I thought I'd throw in my two-cents regarding the recent decline in the proportion of Americans who believe in global warming.

As Laura pointed out, there is now A LOT of information available to the public about global warming and climate change. Thanks to the Internet and the recent increase in the amount of attention paid to this issue by scientists, politicians, and the media, detailed reports about the science behind global warming can easily be accessed by the average web surfer.

Unfortunately, however, the increased availability of accurate data has been accompanied by a simultaneous dissemination of DISinformation -- false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately to influence public opinion or obscure the truth.

Princeton professor Julian Zelizer noted in the Times that "one of the main tactics of opponents of environmental regulation since the 1940s has been to challenge the science" -- such strategies are neither new nor surprising, but that doesn't excuse our complacency in allowing such propaganda. Here (as on most issues), I must agree with the late author and conservationist Douglas Adams, who wrote that "all opinions are not created equal -- some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well-supported in logic and argument than others".

In the case of global warming, logic and argument are bolstered by hard science: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which represents the consensus of the international scientific community, has concluded that global warming IS currently taking place and is very likely caused by human activities. ["Very likely" is a technical term which denotes a greater than 90% certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels.]

Yet, despite all the evidence, skepticism and uncertainty -- fueled by disinformation -- abound. For example:

• The Great Global Warming Swindle, a "documentary" that challenges the idea that global warming is man-made, is under investigation for falsifying scientific data.
• The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a group that similarly insists that "nature, not human activity, rules the planet", was recently exposed for its extensive ties to (and funding from) Exxon-Mobile.

Now, the recent Harris Poll data reveal that much of the decrease in the percentage of Americans who believe in global warming (71% in 2007 vs. 51% in 2009) may be attributed to an increase in the proportion who are "not sure" (6% in 2007 vs. 21% in 2009).

So, in my opinion, the declining belief in global warming suggests not that there is too much information available, but that the wrong information is being disseminated and, more dangerously, touted and perceived as accurate.

That being said... how could we possibly decide where to draw the line? Is the risk of disinformation the price we pay for freedom of speech and freedom of press? And is it worth it?

Data Snapshot

Nearly 3 in 4 Democrats (73%) believe in global warming, compared to 49% of Independents and only 28% of Republicans.---The Harris Poll, conducted online between November 2nd and 11th, 2009 among 2,303 U.S. adults 18+

Is Ignorance Bliss?

Perhaps we are stymied by all the information available on climate change and the health of our planet...but Americans seem more confused and/or skeptical about global warming than ever before. According to a Harris Poll released yesterday:

• Only 41% of Americans think global warming should be treated as a "very serious" problem, compared to 47% in 1997. And Americans are twice as likely today to say global warming is "not a serious problem" at all -- 22% compared to 11% in 1997.
• When asked directly if carbon dioxide and other gases being released into the atmosphere (if unchecked) leads to global warming and an increase in average temperatures, only about 1 in 2 Americans say yes -- a HUGE drop over the past decades when the figure hovered around 70-75%.
• Almost 3 in 4 Americans are unsure or incorrect about what is being discussed at the international conference in Copenhagen next week (correct answer = global warming and climate change).

I will leave the interpretation on the decline in attitudes yet pervasive lack of awareness (is the available information considered confusing? conflicting? monotonous? irrelevant?) to Kathy Steinberg, our resident "Green Queen" here at Harris. More on this from Kathy tomorrow...

***

Addenda:  See NYTimes article for added perspective on the Harris Poll data and the partisan divide around climate change.

Data Snapshot

Only 28% of Americans are aware that global warming and climate change is the main topic of the upcoming international conference in Copenhagen.---The Harris Poll, conducted online between November 2nd and 11th, 2009 among 2,303 U.S. adults 18+

The Eco-Water Bottle Is Half Full

Al Gore’s pedagogy didn’t do it.  And, my husband’s and friends’ and green Harris team members’ imploring didn’t do it.  And my concern for my kids’ future planet didn’t do it.

But the spinning-out-of-control economy did it.

Today, I am more thoughtful about turning off the lights in my house; driving my car; buying a newspaper; and drinking bottled water than I was one year ago. 

Now, my Econ 101 class more than 20 years ago hasn’t prepared me to be an economist – not even an armchair one.  So, I will leave the commentary to others on what the following figures mean for consumerism and hopes for a rebound.  And instead, I will focus on the thin silver lining on our economic thundercloud… because it strikes me that what is bad for our economy is actually good for our planet.

According to a recent Harris Poll, in the past six months, millions of Americans have done the following to save money:

• 36% switched to refillable water bottles instead of purchasing bottled water
• 34% cancelled one or more magazine subscriptions
• 22% cut down on dry cleaning
• 21% cancelled a newspaper subscription
• 14% began carpooling or using mass transit

We (as companies and consumers) do what makes sense for our bottom line.  So, what happens to our children’s future planet when a recovery allows for lavish spending again?

To Copenhagen And Beyond...

Post by Kathy Steinberg, Research Manager, Public Relations Research

According to the most recent Financial Times/Harris Poll, Europeans care more about climate change than Americans do.

The survey, conducted among adults under the age of 65 in the U.S. and in the Big 5 European nations (France, Germany, Britain, Italy, and Spain), revealed that American adults are less likely than most of their European counterparts to believe that...:

• Climate change poses a large threat to the world;
• Signing a new treaty should be one of the top priorities at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen; and,
• Developed countries should give more aid to developing countries to help them deal with climate change.

Though the environmental movement was born in America with the publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring in 1962, it seems our eco-consciousness has waned. But at least we Americans know that there's still much more work to be done: U.S. adults were most likely to say that their own country needs to reduce its oil and natural gas imports.

Do you agree? If so, how should we go about it? Do you think Obama's energy plan would effectively reduce our foreign oil imports? Let us know your thoughts!