Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
737
result(s) for
"Environmental protection -- United States -- Public opinion"
Sort by:
Pesticides, a love story : America's enduring embrace of dangerous chemicals
\"A provocative cultural history of pesticides and their controversial use and depiction in the United States. Mart contends that--despite the sharp concerns raised by environmentalists and others since the appearance of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring--Americans have not only never resolved the inherent tension between costs and benefits presented by these chemicals, but have actually grown ever more attached to them with the passage of time\"-- Provided by publisher.
Book
Environmental Policy Analysis and Practice
Pressing environmental challenges are frequently surrounded with stakeholders on all sides of the issues. Opinions expressed by government agencies, the private sector, special interests, nonprofit communities, and the media, among others can quickly cloud the dialogue, leaving one to wonder how policy decisions actually come about.
InEnvironmental Policy Analysis and Practice, Michael R. Greenberg cuts through the complicated layers of bureaucracy, science, and the public interest to show how all policy considerations can be broken down according to six specific factors: 1) the reaction of elected government officials, 2) the reactions of the public and special interests, 3) knowledge developed by scientists and engineers, 4) economics, 5) ethical imperatives, and 6) time pressure to make a decision.
The book is organized into two parts, with the first part defining and illustrating each one of these criteria. Greenberg draws on examples such as nuclear power, pesticides, brownfield redevelopment, gasoline additives, and environmental cancer, but focuses onhowthese subjects can be analyzed rather than exclusively on the issues themselves. Part two goes on to describe a set of over twenty tools that are used widely in policy analysis, including risk assessment, environmental impact analysis, public opinion surveys, cost-benefit analysis, and others. These tools are described and then illustrated with examples from part one.
Weaving together an impressive combination of practical advice and engaging first person accounts from government officials, administrators, and leaders in the fields of public health and medicine, this clearly written volume is poised to become a leading text in environmental policy.
eBook
Environmental Regulations, Air and Water Pollution, and Infant Mortality in India
Using the most comprehensive developing country dataset ever compiled on air and water pollution and environmental regulations, the paper assesses India's environmental regulations with a difference-in-differences design. The air pollution regulations are associated with substantial improvements in air quality. The most successful air regulation resulted in a modest but statistically insignificant decline in infant mortality. In contrast, the water regulations had no measurable benefits. The available evidence leads us to cautiously conclude that higher demand for air quality prompted the effective enforcement of air pollution regulations, indicating that strong public support allows environmental regulations to succeed in weak institutional settings.
Journal Article
Perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA
Given the well-documented campaign in the USA to deny the reality and seriousness of anthropogenic climate change (a major goal of which is to “manufacture uncertainty” in the minds of policy-makers and the general public), we examine the influence that perception of the scientific agreement on global warming has on the public’s beliefs about global warming and support for government action to reduce emissions. A recent study by Ding et al. (Nat Clim Chang 1:462–466,
2011
) using nationally representative survey data from 2010 finds that misperception of scientific agreement among climate scientists is associated with lower levels of support for climate policy and beliefs that action should be taken to deal with global warming. Our study replicates and extends Ding et al. (Nat Clim Chang 1:462–466,
2011
) using nationally representative survey data from March 2012. We generally confirm their findings, suggesting that the crucial role of perceived scientific agreement on views of global warming and support for climate policy is robust. Further, we show that political orientation has a significant influence on perceived scientific agreement, global warming beliefs, and support for government action to reduce emissions. Our results suggest the importance of improving public perception of the scientific agreement on global warming, but in ways that do not trigger or aggravate ideological or partisan divisions.
Journal Article
Firearm Storage in Gun-Owning Households with Children: Results of a 2015 National Survey
Data from a nationally representative probability-based online survey sample of US adults conducted in 2015 (n = 3949, response rate 55%) were used to assess self-reported gun storage practices among gun owners with children. The presence of firearms and children in the home, along with other household and individual level characteristics, was ascertained from all respondents. Questions pertaining to household firearms (how guns are stored, number, type, etc.) were asked only of those respondents who reported that they personally owned a gun. We found that approximately one in three US households contains at least one firearm, regardless of whether children lived in the home (0.34 [0.29–0.39]) or not (0.35 [0.32–0.38]). Among gun-owning households with children, approximately two in ten gun owners store at least one gun in the least safe manner, i.e., loaded and unlocked (0.21 [0.17–0.26]); three in ten store all guns in the safest manner, i.e., unloaded and locked (0.29, [0.24–0.34]; and the remaining half (0.50 [0.45–0.55]) store firearms in some other way. Although firearm storage practices do not appear to vary across some demographic characteristics, including age, sex, and race, gun owners are more likely to store at least one gun loaded and unlocked if they are female (0.31 [0.23–0.41]) vs. male (0.17 [0.13–0.22]); own at least one handgun (0.27 [0.22–0.32] vs. no handguns (0.05 [0.02–0.15]); or own firearms for protection (0.29 [0.24–0.35]) vs. do not own for protection (0.03 [0.01–0.08]). Approximately 7% of US children (4.6 million) live in homes in which at least one firearm is stored loaded and unlocked, an estimate that is more than twice as high as estimates reported in 2002, the last time a nationally representative survey assessed this outcome. To the extent that the high prevalence of children exposed to unsafe storage that we observe reflects a secular change in public opinion towards the belief that having a gun in the home makes the home safer, rather than less safe, interventions that aim to make homes safer for children should address this misconception. Guidance alone, such as that offered by the American Academy of Pediatrics, has fallen short. Our findings underscore the need for more active and creative efforts to reduce children’s exposure to unsafely stored firearms.
Journal Article
Border Walls Gone Green
How is it that self-identified environmental progressives in America can oppose liberalizing immigration policies? Environmentalism is generally assumed to be a commitment of the political left and restrictionism a commitment of the right. As John Hultgren shows, the reality is significantly more complicated. American environmentalists have supported immigration restrictions since the movement first began in the late 1800s, and anti-immigration arguments continue to attract vocal adherents among contemporary mainstream and radical \"greens.\"
Border Walls Gone Greenseeks to explain these seemingly paradoxical commitments by examining what is actually going on in American debates over the environmental impacts of immigration. It makes the case that nature is increasingly being deployed as a form of \"walling\"-which enables restrictionists to subtly fortify territorial boundaries and identities without having to revert to cultural and racial logics that are unpalatable to the political left. From an environmental point of view, the location of borders makes little sense; the Mexican landscape near most border crossings looks exactly like the landscape on the American side. And the belief that immigrants are somehow using up the nation's natural resources and thereby accelerating the degradation of the environment simply does not hold up to scrutiny. So, Hultgren finds, the well-intentioned efforts of environmentalists to \"sustain\" America are also sustaining the idea of the nation-state and in fact serving to reinforce exclusionary forms of political community.
How, then, should socially conscious environmentalists proceed? Hultgren demonstrates that close attention to the realities of transnational migration can lead to a different brand of socio-ecological activism-one that could be our only chance to effectively confront the powerful forces producing ecological devastation and social injustice.
eBook
Science under siege: behind the scenes at Trump’s troubled environment agency
Uncertainty, hostility and irrelevance are now part of daily life for scientists at the US Environmental Protection Agency.
Uncertainty, hostility and irrelevance are now part of daily life for scientists at the US Environmental Protection Agency.
Journal Article
Pesticides, a love story
\"A provocative cultural history of pesticides and their controversial use and depiction in the United States. Mart contends that--despite the sharp concerns raised by environmentalists and others since the appearance of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring--Americans have not only never resolved the inherent tension between costs and benefits presented by these chemicals, but have actually grown ever more attached to them with the passage of time\"--
\"'Presto! No More Pests!' proclaimed a 1955 article introducing two new pesticides, 'miracle-workers for the housewife and back-yard farmer.' Easy to use, effective, and safe: who wouldn't love synthetic pesticides? Apparently most Americans did--and apparently still do. Why--in the face of dire warnings, rising expense, and declining effectiveness--do we cling to our chemicals? Michelle Mart wondered. Her book, a cultural history of pesticide use in postwar America, offers an answer. America's embrace of synthetic pesticides began when they burst on the scene during World War II and has held steady into the 21st century--for example, more than 90% of soybeans grown in the US in 2008 are Roundup Ready GMOs, dependent upon generous use of the herbicide glyphosate to control weeds. Mart investigates the attraction of pesticides, with their up-to-the-minute promise of modernity, sophisticated technology, and increased productivity--in short, their appeal to human dreams of controlling nature. She also considers how they reinforced Cold War assumptions of Western economic and material superiority. Though the publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and the rise of environmentalism might have marked a turning point in Americans' faith in pesticides, statistics tell a different story. Pesticides, a Love Story recounts the campaign against DDT that famously ensued; but the book also shows where our notions of Silent Spring's revolutionary impact falter--where, in spite of a ban on DDT, farm use of pesticides in the United States more than doubled in the thirty years after the book was published. As a cultural survey of popular and political attitudes toward pesticides, Pesticides, a Love Story tries to make sense of this seeming paradox. At heart, it is an exploration of the story we tell ourselves about the costs and benefits of pesticides--and how corporations, government officials, ordinary citizens, and the press shape that story to reflect our ideals, interests, and emotions\"--
eBook
The Hazards of Correcting Myths About Health Care Reform
Context: Misperceptions are a major problem in debates about health care reform and other controversial health issues. Methods: We conducted an experiment to determine if more aggressive media fact-checking could correct the false belief that the Affordable Care Act would create \"death panels.\" Participants from an opt-in Internet panel were randomly assigned to either a control group in which they read an article on Sarah Palin's claims about \"death panels\" or an intervention group in which the article also contained corrective information refuting Palin. Findings: The correction reduced belief in death panels and strong opposition to the reform bill among those who view Palin unfavorably and those who view her favorably but have low political knowledge. However, it backfired among politically knowledgeable Palin supporters, who were more likely to believe in death panels and to strongly oppose reform if they received the correction. Conclusions: These results underscore the difficulty of reducing misperceptions about health care reform among individuals with the motivation and sophistication to reject corrective information.
Journal Article
Polarization, Partisanship, and Political Alignment Threaten Public Health: A Public Health of Consequence, October 2024
Given the political wrangling that has fueled vaccine hesitancy, additional measures of political party affiliation and partisanship, as recommended by Pacheco et al., can offer perspectives on government mistrust, individualism, public health mistrust, and antiscience attitudes that drive the ideology fueling vaccine hesitancy.4 LGBTQIA+ RIGHTS AND MARRIAGE EQUALITY During his tenure, former President Donald Trump appointed three of the Supreme Court's current roster of six conservative justices and more than 200 federal judges who the Human Rights Campaign has cited as being hostile to LGBTQIA1 rights.5 Such a partisan judiciary poses real threats to the hard-fought rights, dignity, and humanity of LGBTQIA1 people. 10 Following this ruling, several conservative Republican legislators are already spearheading efforts to strip federal agencies, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), of their regulatory authority and put it back into the hands of Congress and the courts. [...]judges and legislators that lack the scientific expertise will now have power over these regulatory statutes. [...]efforts to undermine bedrocks of our environmental protections (e.g., the clean air and clean water acts) will come under attack. CONCLUSIONS We are actively witnessing how polarization, partisanship, and political alignment across the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government are reshaping public health policy, health behaviors, and attitudes. [...]increasing partisanship and political alignment are emboldening states to follow their own health policy agendas.
Journal Article