In a new study, a staggering 77 percent of urban “elites”—defined as people with at least one post-graduate degree earning more than $150,000 a year and living in high-population density areas—said they favored strict rationing of energy, gas, and meat to fight the supposed ills of climate change.
The striking figure was revealed in a January study titled “Them vs. U.S.” prepared by the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, based on a survey conducted by Rasmussen in September 2023.
“Climate change is clearly an obsession of the very rich and highly educated,” the study’s authors wrote.
The percentage of urban elites (as defined in the survey) who said they favor strict rationing of resources to combat climate change rises to a striking 90 percent among wealthy city-dwellers who attended the United States’ top universities.
By contrast, 63 percent of all Americans said they oppose rationing of vital energy and food resources to tackle climate change.
Too Much Freedom?
Another commonly held view among urban elites is that Americans have too much freedom. Nearly six in 10 say there’s too much individual freedom in the United States, double the rate among all Americans.
“These results confirm what people have long suspected: today, there are two Americas,” the study’s authors wrote. “One is wealthier, more highly educated, and attended the best schools.”
Urban elites (as defined in the study) were also found to be inclined to put much more trust in big government “to do the right thing” and say they have been hurt far less by high inflation than those who are in lower and middle classes.
“This Grand Canyon-sized chasm between where everyday Americans stand on the state of the country, expanding government power, draconian climate change solutions, and Joe Biden’s job performance may partly explain the Donald Trump phenomenon and his high approval ratings among working-class voters, who feel wholly connected with the rebellion against the arrogance of the ruling class elites,” the study authors wrote.
‘Almost a Nothingburger’
Climate change, or “climate emergency” as many activists call it, has become a rallying cry among global elites in recent years.UN Secretary-General António Guterres made a similarly alarmist speech at the event, saying that “we are flirting with climate disaster” and that “every week brings a new climate horror story.”
But a number of experts have said that such alarmism is unhelpful and that although some aspects of climate change are a problem, there’s no need to panic.
“Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific,” the declaration reads. “Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.”
The signatories include Nobel laureates, theoretical physicists, meteorologists, professors, and environmental scientists from around the world.
Steven Koonin, a professor at New York University’s Department of Civil and Urban Engineering, pushed back on climate alarmism during a recent interview with psychologist and author Jordan Peterson.
He argued that adapting to climate change may be a challenge for humanity—but it’s far from an emergency.
“It’s an issue. It’s a long-term problem. We can deal with it. But there’s no reason to ring alarm bells,” he said.
“If I wanted to be a little snarky, it’s almost a nothingburger. The science says that, if you read the reports,” he continued. “But the detrimental effects get hyped up by various players.”
Responding to a question by Mr. Peterson about what percentage of scientists “take an apocalyptic view” on the climate change issue, Mr. Koonin said he thinks that about 95 percent aren’t in the climate panic camp.
“None of them are kind of jumping off the roof and saying, ‘My God, we’d better do something or we’re headed for the climate highway to hell' or something, which is what the secretary-general of the UN said a couple of months ago,” Mr. Koonin said, referring to Mr. Guterres’s remarks at the COP27 climate conference.
Although the detrimental effects of global warming are exaggerated, its benefits are ignored by climate alarmists, he said. For example, higher concentrations of carbon dioxide have benefits such as greater greening of the planet and increased agricultural yields.
