International poll finds declining support for carbon reduction

Russ Steele

The  Windsor Star reports there is both growing public reluctance to make personal sacrifices and a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the major international efforts now underway to battle climate change. This according to the findings in a poll of 12,000 citizens in 11 countries, including: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Malaysia, Mexico, the United Kingdom and the United States.

•  Only 47 per cent, said they were prepared to make personal lifestyle changes to reduce carbon emissions, down from 58 per cent last year.

•  Only 37 per cent said they were willing to spend "extra time" on the effort, an eight-point drop.

•  Only  20 per cent - said they'd spend extra money to reduce climate change, down 8  percent from a year ago.

On the other hand:

Fifty five  per cent of respondents in the 11 countries said their governments should be doing more by investing in renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and wave power.

It seem evident that while the poll participants want the government to do more, they were unwilling to make a personal commitment to fund these government efforts. Where do those who support this foolishness think the government will get the funds for doing more? Magic money? I wonder how the folks in California answered the poll?  We have more magic than money.

More details on the international study at the  Windsor Star in: Efforts to support global climate-change falls: Poll

Comments

[Wade]

Of course support for carbon reduction is waning! Global temperatures have dropped for 8 straight years, proving that "more CO2 = higher temperatures" is wrong. Have you noticed that the better informed people have become those who stand the lose the most have become more alarmist? No climate change, no big funding and less political control. Follow the money. Meteorologists, whose income is not dependent on a crisis, don't believe in climate change, yet other people who have no weather credentials do and we are supposed to believe them instead. There is a reason why it is called climate change now, because climate change is unfalsifiable.

All the pro-climate change models are too simplistic and have failed to predict the weather accurately for any length of time.

[Wade]

Of course support for carbon reduction is waning! Global temperatures have dropped for 8 straight years, proving that "more CO2 = higher temperatures" is wrong. Have you noticed that the better informed people have become those who stand the lose the most have become more alarmist? No climate change, no big funding and less political control. Follow the money. Meteorologists, whose income is not dependent on a crisis, don't believe in climate change, yet other people who have no weather credentials do and we are supposed to believe them instead. There is a reason why it is called climate change now, because climate change is unfalsifiable.

All the pro-climate change models are too simplistic and have failed to predict the weather accurately for any length of time.

[Sean Wise]

Has anyone seen this article from the Times Online in the UK yesterday? (It was linked to from Icecap.)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5257602.ece

I don't think it was written by a skeptic as a condemnation of emmissions trading schemes ... but it could have been.

[Russ Steele]

Sean,

One of the most interesting quotes in the Times OnLine article is this one:

Jim Hansen, director of the Nasa God-dard space centre and a renowned critic of global measures to combat climate change, believes carbon trading is a “terrible” approach. “Carbon trading does not solve the emission problem at all,” he says. “In fact it gives industries a way to avoid reducing their emissions. The rules are too complex and it creates an entirely new class of lobbyists and fat cats.”

Not sure how our political leaders in Sacramento are going to take this Hansen position on carbon trading, which is a major leg of CARBs greenhouse reduction plan. What are the warmers in Sacramento going to do, their hero is turing on them? I wonder if Al Gore is one of the "fat cats" Hansen is worried about?

[Sean Wise]

Honestly, I thought that what Hansen had to say about carbon trading was very benign compared to some other things he's had to say. While I am opposed to both carbon taxes and the emmision trading schemes, the carbon taxes would be the lessor of two evils but it requires polititians with spine to take that approach.

The jist of the article was that do we want to put the future of the planet in the hands of the same people who just finished wrecking the economy with some fool hardy cap and trade emmisions trading scheme. Some of the upshots of what's happening in Europe seems to be that the Russians, as a consequence of gross inefficiency during the Soviet era, have excess carbon credits so not only will they sell you fossile fuel but you may pay a second time for the right to burn the fuel. References were made to carbon offsets being used to make small reductions in emmissions but most of the money went to capital projects leading to increased manufacture of other greenhouse gasses. My favorite was the Tyndall Research Group guy who feels it may be necessary to force contraction of the economy in order to save the world.

I think if more people knew exactly where the alarmists were headed, and had a better idea of what effect all the extra expense on "green" projects was actually was buying, they might re-think their support for ETS and other climate change mitigation schemes.