Global opinions on climate change

[Saigon]

Obviously public opinion doesn't prove anything, but I do think it is interesting to look at where the debate is at in different parts of the world, and to get some idea what people in different countries think about the issue.

I've compiled this from half a dozen different research projects, all linked below.

In a remarkable piece of research, an EU survey asked people from 30 European countries to name the three greatest global threats.

Of 20 listed responses, the most 4 problems mentioned were:

1) Poverty 66%
2) The economy 52%
3) Climate change 50%
4) Terrorism 42%

The highest % of people mentioning climate change were:

Sweden 72%
Cyprus 71%
Finland 67%
Germany 66%
Austria 63%

The lowest % of people mentioning climate change were:
Portugal 30%
Turkey 32%
Poland 33%

Of all respondents, 67% said that climate change was a very serious problem, and 20% said it was a serious problem. Only 10% said it was not a serious problem.

The two groups most often mentioning climate change were management and students.

Another World Bank surveyed asked people around the world whether human acitivity caused climate change.

The highest % saying ’yes’ were:

South Korea 92%
Japan 91%
Greece 84%
Argentina 81%
Brazil 80%

The lowest % saying ’yes’ were:
Tanzania 15%
Uzbekistan 18%
Pakistan 21%
Botswana 26%
Senegal 27%

According to Pew Research, across 51 nations, 69% of people are concerned about climate change. The highest level of concern is South America (90% concern) India (86%) and Europe (68%). The lowest is UK (48%) and US (52%). China and Russia are also quite low.

What is interesting is that countries which are most concerned about climate change tend to be those where the effects are strongly visible (the Andean countries, India, small island states and Scandinavia) with less concern in countries with perhaps less visible evidence.
It is also interesting that concern is high in very well-educated countries (Japan, Sth Korea, Scandinavia, NZ, Germany) and lower in some less-educated countries (Senegal, Uzbekistan). In both China and Russia, heavily dependent on oil and goal, government policy tends towards denial, resulting in higher levels of (public) scepticism. Research in the US produces vastly different results, showing anything from 37% to 64% belief in climate change, making it difficult to draw any real conclusions.


http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_313_en.pdf

Public perceptions of climate change | Talking Climate

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd says, "Yea, its a good thing for climate change or dat meteor dat hit Russia mighta come down in Milwaukee...

Climate contradiction: Less snow, more blizzards
Feb 18,`13 WASHINGTON (AP) -- With scant snowfall and barren ski slopes in parts of the Midwest and Northeast the past couple of years, some scientists have pointed to global warming as the culprit.

Then when a whopper of a blizzard smacked the Northeast with more than 2 feet of snow in some places earlier this month, some of the same people again blamed global warming. How can that be? It's been a joke among skeptics, pointing to what seems to be a brazen contradiction. But the answer lies in atmospheric physics. A warmer atmosphere can hold, and dump, more moisture, snow experts say. And two soon-to-be-published studies demonstrate how there can be more giant blizzards yet less snow overall each year. Projections are that that's likely to continue with man-made global warming.

Consider:

- The United States has been walloped by twice as many of the most extreme snowstorms in the past 50 years than in the previous 60 years, according to an upcoming study on extreme weather by leading federal and university climate scientists. This also fits with a dramatic upward trend in extreme winter precipitation - both rain and snow - in the Northeastern U.S. charted by the National Climatic Data Center.

- Yet the Global Snow Lab at Rutgers University says that spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has shrunk on average by 1 million square miles in the last 45 years.

- And an upcoming study in the Journal of Climate says computer models predict annual global snowfall to shrink by more than a foot in the next 50 years. The study's author said most people live in parts of the United States that are likely to see annual snowfall drop between 30 and 70 percent by the end of the century. "Shorter snow season, less snow overall, but the occasional knockout punch," Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. "That's the new world we live in."

MORE

 

[S.J.]

So what's your point, that the world is full of suckers who believe everything the liberal media tells them?

 

[Saigon]

So what's your point, that the world is full of suckers who believe everything the liberal media tells them?

No, not at all.

I think there are very few gullible "suckers" who believe whatever nonsense they get off blogs - it's only that we have a half dozen of them here.

My point is that around the world, the overwhelming majority of people do understand what is going on around them.

 

[S.J.]

So what's your point, that the world is full of suckers who believe everything the liberal media tells them?

No, not at all.

I think there are very few gullible "suckers" who believe whatever nonsense they get off blogs - it's only that we have a half dozen of them here.

My point is that around the world, the overwhelming majority of people do understand what is going on around them.

So why don't they cooperate with your agenda?

 

[Saigon]

S.J. -

There is no "agenda". This isn't a movie, dude.

 

[S.J.]

S.J. -

There is no "agenda". This isn't a movie, dude.

Ok, then why don't the "majority" of the world population stop driving cars and start riding bicycles?

 

[Saigon]

S.J.

Why would anyone stop driving cars?

 

[S.J.]

S.J.

Why would anyone stop driving cars?

Well, gee, I thought burning fossil fuel was one of the causes of "global warming".

 

[Saigon]

Of course it is, SJ, but in the real world no one is going to stop driving cars or flying by plane or re-charging their phone and no one is asking them too.

That just isn't what the debate is about.

What the debate is about is producing more fuel efficient cars, getting industry to operate more cleanly and efficiently, and producing elecricity through means (like nuclear) which don't emit CO2.

 

[S.J.]

Of course it is, SJ, but in the real world no one is going to stop driving cars or flying by plane or re-charging their phone and no one is asking them too.

That just isn't what the debate is about.

What the debate is about is producing more fuel efficient cars, getting industry to operate more cleanly and efficiently, and producing elecricity through means (like nuclear) which don't emit CO2.

I have no problem with all of that, IF it's done through private enterprise, not government mandates, and NOT at taxpayer's expense. Government is made up of politicians and politicians act in their own best interest, not everyone else's.

 

[Saigon]

S.J -

Agreed, but the thing to keep in mind is that there really are no Soviet-style dinosaur governments out there anymore. Even here in Europe, left wing parties are smart enough to know telling people not to drive cars isn't exactly a vote winner, so the policies barely touch the lives of ordinary people at all.

Here the left wing has promoted the use of public transport, which is smart, but it is mainly about electricity production and getting industry to clean up their act a bit. Most companies are keen to do that anyway, as it is good PR and usually saves them money in the long term.

There will be some government mandates on pollution, but it needn't be any major burden for anyone, because right around the world every government knows they need to focus on jobs.

 

[S.J.]

S.J -

Agreed, but the thing to keep in mind is that there really are no Soviet-style dinosaur governments out there anymore. Even here in Europe, left wing parties are smart enough to know telling people not to drive cars isn't exactly a vote winner, so the policies barely touch the lives of ordinary people at all.

Here the left wing has promoted the use of public transport, which is smart, but it is mainly about electricity production and getting industry to clean up their act a bit. Most companies are keen to do that anyway, as it is good PR and usually saves them money in the long term.

There will be some government mandates on pollution, but it needn't be any major burden for anyone, because right around the world every government knows they need to focus on jobs.

Let me be clear on this. I don't buy the notion that global warming (IF there is global warming) is cause by man. However, I am not opposed to having a cleaner environment (cleaner air, etc.). But as long as people like Al Gore, the self-appointed guru of global warming pollutes more than almost anyone on the planet, do you really expect anyone to take it seriously?

 

[Saigon]

S.J. -

I don't know anyone who takes Al Gore seriously - the guy's an idiot.

But he's an American politician, and only has a high profile in the US anyway. Nobody in Europe cares what Al Gore has to say.

As these polls say, people around the world DO take it very seriously, and most people seem clear that humans play at least some role in climate change. And as you say - cleaner air can't be a bad thing for any of us. I don't think phasing out polluting coal mines is really going to do anyone any harm. Not when you look at the air pollution in places like Shanghai. It's definitely a plus for society to use clean energy.

 

[S.J.]

S.J. -

I don't know anyone who takes Al Gore seriously - the guy's an idiot.

But he's an American politician, and only has a high profile in the US anyway. Nobody in Europe cares what Al Gore has to say.

As these polls say, people around the world DO take it very seriously, and most people seem clear that humans play at least some role in climate change. And as you say - cleaner air can't be a bad thing for any of us. I don't think phasing out polluting coal mines is really going to do anyone any harm. Not when you look at the air pollution in places like Shanghai. It's definitely a plus for society to use clean energy.

Ok, but don't you think there should be another form of energy developed before you phase out current sources of energy?

 

[Saigon]

S.J -

For electrical production we already have numerous forms of energy available. Nuclear, hydro, tidal, wind, gas and solar will also be in use for the next 50 years, anyway.

For transport it is probably more a question of efficiency at this stage. If we look at the difference in miles per gallon between a 2013 model and a 1973 model, that it quite some saving.

 

[S.J.]

S.J -

For electrical production we already have numerous forms of energy available. Nuclear, hydro, tidal, wind, gas and solar will also be in use for the next 50 years, anyway.

For transport it is probably more a question of efficiency at this stage. If we look at the difference in miles per gallon between a 2013 model and a 1973 model, that it quite some saving.

I'm all for cleaner sources, IF they can be made available and at a competitive cost. Why doesn't one of those rich advocates of "cleaner energy" take charge and make it happen?
I submit to you that they don't WANT to make it happen.

 

[Saigon]

S.J -

If you are asking me why we don't have a better engine than the internal combustion engine, I have no idea. Perhaps, as you say, companies have more interest in not inventing one than inventing one.

As for cleaner power systems, I think we have plenty - but in the US it cannot be stressed enough that the impact of denialism on the general business culture has been immensely damaging. In some fields (i.e. tidal power) the US is a decade behind other countries, and it is purely and simply because of denialism. That decade means thousands of jobs and millions of dollars end up in South Korea, Germany, Scotland and Japan - and not in the US.