Roy Morgan released a phone poll on perceptions of global warming and public approval levels of the CPRS legislation – it came with a relatively small sample size of 687 for an MoE that maxes out around the 3.7% mark, and which consisted of the population aged 14 or higher. The first question asked was interesting as the same question was also asked in 2006, 2008, May of 2009 and again last Wednesdasy/Thursday – giving us a look at how opinions have been changing over time.
While the view that the need to act on global warming is still, by far, the majority opinion on the issue, that majority opinion has been slowly eroding over time. The largest change in opinion however, has been in the proportion of the population that believe global warming “concerns are exaggerated” – having roughly doubled over the last 3 years.
Morgan also asked two additional questions on public perceptions of global warming. First up, whether people believe that carbon emissions are a contributor to global warming:
Again, the overwhelming majority of the population comes in on the Yes side. Those respondents that answered “Yes” were then asked an additional question:
60% of the total population believes carbon emissions are a major contributor to global warming, 17% are of the view that it’s a minor contributor, 6% can’t say while 17% of the population weren’t asked as they either answered “No” or “Can’t say” to the preceeding question.
This is interesting in that even though the proportion of the population that believe we need to act now to combat global warming has been decreasing, a clear majority of the population still have the strongest response – that carbon emissions are a major contributor to global warming.
The final question asked related to public views on the current CPRS legislation:
Again, a clear majority approve of the government acting on carbon emissions, but acting on it with this particular legislation before Parliament (although a large majority of this would probably have the same views for any piece of legislation packaged as reducing carbon emissions).
Also noteworthy is how 1 in 5 of the population are effectively undecided – even if they all broke towards the negative (which is pretty much impossible anyway), the government would still be holding the majority block of public opinion.
UPDATE:
There’s now some breakdowns by voting intention for the poll:
37 Comments
Is there any data on how these views track with voting intentions?
There probably is, but it wasnt released.
I think the last question was poorly phrased.
Had I been asked to respond, it would have posed a dilemma and I genuinely wouldn’t have known how to vote.
On the one hand, I disapprove of the weakness of the Rudd Government’s policies on greenhouse, including (but not limited to) the rorted ETS is proposes to introduce. That would incline me to vote DISAPPROVE. On the other hand, I wouldn’t have wanted my vote to count as support for inaction. That suggests an APPROVE answer.
The question – and response options – would more usefully have been framed to disaggregate supporters of stronger measures from opponents of any effective measures. The public might also have been asked about alternative proposals/schemes (e.g. carbon tax).
As it is, the final question framed the options as ETS: take it or leave it (with provision only for people honest enough to admit they’re confused or ill-informed).
I suspect that’s about exactly how KRudd and Penny_Wong would like the options perceived and portrayed in the current debate.
Should Roy Morgan’s line of questioning really be so kind to the Rudd Government?
Good point Syd. I would like to see a poll that splits out each of the components. e.g. funding of renewables, agricultural emissions, energy, coal, industrial household, permits vs a more gst style system etc. as well as the overal concept. Might as well throw in baseline vs all emissions and overseas permits vs home-grown action.
Final Q: Do you think the Government’s proposed ETS and the associated targets are a) not necessary at all b) too high c) too low d) not sure e) I’m Andrew Bolt
Possum, what does the Australian public think of the GST? My initial hunch would be it’s now widely accepted as a way of life, if not greatly liked.
I ask this because, rather than a CPRS, what if the GST was replaced by a value-added tax that took environmental impact into count? It’d be simple to explain: double the GST, then give discounts based on the environmental impact of the class of product or service. The devil, naturally, would be in the details though.
Personally I will start worrying about climate change when we start seeing things unprecedented in the climate record, such as C02 at 7000 parts per million and a temperature rise greater than 3 degrees over the current average. Until then this is just normal fluctuation.
I am neither right wing, religious, stupid or in denial. I just see nothing out of the ordinary in this whole thing. Instead of worrying about a trace element and minor greenhouse gas we should be putting our money where it really matters, reforestation and saving species and various endangered ecosystems.
By the way, by climate record I mean the geological record of climate dating back 500 million years, not our own little modern time slice of 200 years which passes for the climate record in the public consciousness.
That should be nor in denial, too.
Flocci, I think the concern is the rate of the change.
Also, one should note that in the past 500 million years, there were a few oceanic anoxic events that would end our civilisation as we know it. They were caused by natural fluctuations. As such I’d probably be a little more cautious about wanting to see something unprecedented before deciding to take action.
I presume that Floccinaucinihilipilificator at post 8 was joking when he wrote
“I will start worrying about climate change when we start seeing things unprecedented in the climate record, such as C02 at 7000 parts per million and a temperature rise greater than 3 degrees over the current average.”
During the last ice age the average global temperature was a “mere” 4 degrees cooler (”Collapse” by Jared Diamond). It is simply untrue to say that climate science is only based on “200 years” of history. I don’t know whether you sensibly can use the arguments of one Adelaide based geologist to refute the views of 98-99% of serious climate scientists (Sir David King, former British Chief Scientific Adviser). Or maybe you just read “The Australian” too much.
Alex way back a 1.
There is voting intention data with these questions, but not for the whole series through time.
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2009/4406/
Just adding my two cents on the pollytics involved.
I am increasingly worried that this issue will run out in a similar manner as the Australian Republic debate 1999. That is, wide public support which does not translate into a ‘yes’ vote (whatever that is), primarily due to the issue’s detail and complexity (which may tempt obsfucation and misinformation from certain parties).
Poss, are there any similarities in polling trends between the lead-up to the Republic vote and this issue?
“Is CO2 a major contributor or a minor contributor to global warming?”
Oh dear, oh dear what a question to ask in a survey! While they are at it, why not get to the heart of some other burning scientific questions? Righto Morgan, next up why not try these puppies:
“Is string theory the best candidate for producing a qauntum gravity theory?”
“Which of the following retro-virial carriers is most likely to lead to a cancer cure?”
“Are carbon nano-tubes able to be produced cheaply enough to construct a space elevator?”
Actually, the possibilities are endles, Roy Morgan is a genius! Why waste money on educating researchers and funding their research when the answers you seek reside in the collective conscience of the general public? I think we’re on the verge on the next scientific revolution here.
Or not.
@11, by Adelaide based geologist I assume you mean Ian Plimer? I have not read his book, nor do I intend to (the only reason I think he is whom you refer is I caught the start of an interview with him on Lateline. He was not particularly impressive.). Nor do I read the Australian, beyond Jack the Insiders blog.
The facts I speak of are universally accepted, 500 million years ago atmospheric C02 was at 7000 parts per million (or thereabouts), it has steadily declined since then, sometimes spiking upwards again, then continuing downard. Whether humanity is forcing the upward trend or not and whether we can force it to go up in spite of possible future downward trends is more than I know.
Isn’t it a little problematic to track the shift in ‘concerns are exaggerated’ over time because the level of concern expressed in the public domain has been increasing over this time period? If the reference point has been shifting this would confound a robust interpretation of these numbers in representing a shift in absolute (rather than relative) opinion over time.
The clear downward trend in support for the scientific consensus on global warming is surely a result of the efforts of the climate chamge “skeptics”. They have become increasingly well organized and focused in their attempts to forestall regulation of greenhouse gases.
The Australian Climate Science Coalition (a creature of the Australian Environment Foundation) has sponsored “skeptic” lecture and media tours (by Bob Carter and Heartland Institute’s Jay Lehr) and so-called “grass roots” pressure campaigns, all in an effort to derail the CPRS.
In New Zealand, the ACSC’s sister organization, the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, has allied with the ACT New Zealand fringe party with the similar intent of derailing carbon regulation in that country.
See http://www.deepclimate.org for details on the NZ effort and stay tuned for revelations about the Australian skeptic movement.
“Personally I will start worrying about climate change when we start seeing things unprecedented in the climate record, such as C02 at 7000 parts per million and a temperature rise greater than 3 degrees over the current average. Until then this is just normal fluctuation.”
You won’t need to worry when that happens, you will have been long dead.
I was too cryptic in my last comment: I didn’t mean those condition won’t happen for a long time, I meant if they do arrive Flocci and all of us will be dead because of them.
Floccinaucinihilipilificator at #15 said “The facts I speak of are universally accepted, 500 million years ago atmospheric C02 was at 7000 parts per million (or thereabouts), it has steadily declined since then, sometimes spiking upwards again, then continuing downard.”
You’re quite right Flocci, but you have to bear in mind that 500 million years ago the Earth was significantly younger (we’re talking geology folks). Due to this, the Earth experienced significantly more volcanic activity then it does today. Moreover, the Earth (which is presently celebrating over 4.5 billion years in existence) has been gradually being hit by less and less asteroids (largely due to there being less and less space junk zipping around our ageing universe). When asteroids the size of Ireland slam into the Earth’s crust, it kicks up large amounts of CO2 (which stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years). To see a more graphic version of our planet’s geological history I would direct you to a user friendly summary at wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology (there are many others but I find wikipedia’s pretty user friendly).
Furthermore, as the scale of the planet’s biology has built up over billions of years on the planet Earth, it has begun create is own cycles, which themselves have helped form the planet’s biosphere (which have helped regulate the planet’s own climate). Agan, for a user friendly summary of this, I would direct you to wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth.
Science is by nature objective. 15 years ago this year, tobacco lobbyists were tellling the US Senate that science was insufficiently conclusive to prove that nicotine was addictive – see 7:30 report at http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:iBnz8WJFTGsJ:www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2002/s509448.htm+tobacco+nicotine+US+senate+and+%22not+addictive%22&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au.
If people said that science was “inconclusive” about the risks of smoking and nicotine a mere 15 years ago, what does that tell you about those that doubt the findings of 98-99% of global scientists today in relation to climate change?
The issue is not how the earth was half a billion years ago, of course it was very different. but the trend is clear, there has been a consistent downward trend in carbon since the beginnings of a breathable atmosphere.
This does not mean that we should be focusing on renewable, ‘green’ energy and doing our best to stop environmental degredation. But the billions upon billions of dollars we are spending fretting over a small increase in a trace element with no link to warming (correlation is not causation, and the correlation breaks down as you go back further in the climate record) is not helping us combat deforestation, depleting fish stocks, urban sprawl, salinity, acidification etc. etc.
As to the 98% of climate scientists supporting climate change, here is a petition of 31,000 American scientists which reject man made climate change.(http://www.oism.org/pproject/) I’m not saying they are right, but can you furnish me with the names of the three million American scientists who must therefor support man made climate change? It is not just crackpots no one has ever heard of either, Freeman Dyson (if you do not know who he is you then you need help) has expressed his skepticism (of the modelling, not the fact that humans do have an impact on climate) and his dislike of the way the climate debate is being held.
I want to make it clear that I am not denying climate change, or that humans are having an impact. I am merely pointing out there is not a consensus, even if there were it is irrelevent as science is not run on consensus. Humans may well be forcing climate change, or we may not. Given that nothing we are seeing is without precedent, and observable evidence trumps computer models, I remain on the fence. I am whole heartedly disgusted with the way skepticism is seen as heresy as opposed to an integral part of the scientific process. I am disgusted with the way opposing scientists are slandered as taking money from oil and coal companies, while the billions in government funding and from green energy lobbies goes unremarked. Money corrupts, and we are expected to believe that the science used to force an immense new energy industry isto remain uncorrupted by all that money(http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Republicans-who-helped-pass-cap-and-trade-benefitted-from-environmental-donations-49385812.html)? Why should I believe a scientist recieving funding from a green energy lobby (like James Hansen) as opposed to a scientist working for an oil company? Why should I believe political donations from a mining commpany are evil whereas those from an environmental group are noble? I’m sorry of this seems rant-y, but as someone who was brought up to believe in the purity of scientific endeavour. and whom holds the natural environment dear, it disgusts me to see religious style fervour and dogma flooding such a vital issue.
I eagerly await your summary dimissal of what I have said as coming from a denialist, heretic, skeptic, Andrew Bolt* wannabe etc. etc.
Maybe we should follow the French model, nuclear power with one fifth of the carbon emissions of the similarly sized coal and gas fuelled German economy?
By the way, niccotine addiction is not the problem, smoking is the problem. A large study of 300,000 heavy snuff and snus users in Sweden found that they showed no more negative health effects than the regular population. Though some studies have found the rate of pancreatic cancer can double in heavy snus users, from 3.9 to 8.8 cases per 100,000, so there is no consensus on this issue as well. Incidentally the first reports (that I’m aware of) of negative health effects from smoking date to around 1706 (or was it 1716, I can’t find the damn book).
*Say this to my face and I’ll rip your throat out.
Total CO2 emissions by all human activity is less than .06% a year. Not enough to change the climate. This is just a way of raising taxes and making us feel good about being slaves.
I think I remember Richard Branson (of all people) saying that:
“…without action on CC the planet will not survive. Well actually, the planet will survive but we won’t. Well actually, we will survive but our civilisation won’t.”
Third time lucky…
‘Incidentally the first reports (that I’m aware of) of negative health effects from smoking date to around 1706 (or was it 1716, I can’t find the damn book).’
Actually King James VI of Scotland (later James I of England) was querying the health effects of tobacco in the 1590s.
Not sure what this has to do with Climate change, though.
Nor do I calyptorhynchus, Mr Pablo brought it up. Thank you for mentioning James VI/I, I am aware he queried it, but in 1706/16 are the first medical queries, as I understand it. Though it does illustrate nicely how a multi billion dollar industy can corrupt science in its own interests.
Hello again Flocci at #21. You’re right, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have stabilised today compared to what they were hundreds of millions (or even billions) of years ago. In summary, this is because the Earth’s climate has experienced hitherto unprecedented stability over the last several hundred million years. This is due to the build up of the biosphere, which was facilitated by the reduction of volcanic activity and reduced incidence of asteroid impacts (both of which were responsible for causing large amounts of carbon to be emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere). This stablised climate has been predicated on a stable cycle of carbon emissions and carbon capture by plants and oceans. Since the Industrial Revolution, humanity has thrown this cycle out of whack by emitting (in the form of fossil fuels) huges amounts of carbon that was removed from the atmosphere hundreds of millions of years ago. Again a user friendly summary of the biosphere can be found at wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere.
The reason I brought up the tobacco lobby in the mid 90s was that its an earlier example of how a lobby group, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence about the harmful effects of its product, continued to deny that the science was conclusive. If tobacco CEOs could testify in front of the US Senate in 1994 that they didn’t believe (despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary) that nicotine was addictive, then don’t you think you should question the science that comes out of the fossil fuel lobby and their apologists in the press?
I take the view that if 98-99% of scientists are telling me that rising CO2 emissions will result in cataclysmic and permanent climate change, then prudence tells me I should listen to them rather than bet that 1-2% of scientists might be right. For you to suggest that the science underpinning climate change is funded by the “green energy lobby” is laughable. The green energy lobby is insignificant compared to the size of the fossil fuel lobby, but neverthless the overwhelming majority of science agrees that climate change is happening; indeed, the IPCC reports reflect the world’s most serious attempt to detail an objective account about climate change.
Are you seriously suggesting that the world should do nothing about climate change until we have something approaching 100% of scientists in agreement that it is ocurring? This is a reckless proposal for anybody to make. The only way science can be close to a 100% view of anything is in retrospect. Thus, the only way a doctor can be 100% sure of his diagnoisis is after the post-mortem.
I tend to think that precaution is prudent.
I’ve not suggested we should do nothing, nor do I think prudent precaution is unwarranted. I merely said that I am not convinced and find much of the debate (from both sides, I might add) distasteful, and that I personally am not worried. I do not believe, nor do I deny, I am merely skeptical of everything (not just CC/AGW/etc).
I quite agree that we should question anything a scientist in the pay of a vested interest says, be it oil, coal or green. While it is true that the fossil fuel industry is far larger than green, we are still talking billions upon billions of dollars, on top of many billions more in government funding. More than enough to corrupt, particularly a scientist anxious about mankinds undoubted detrimental effect on the environment.
Did you read that link I pasted by the way? Tens of thousands of dollars in green lobby money going to republican senators, with that being a mere 6% of the total green lobby donations to American politicians, the rest going to democrats. How is that any more insignificant or less corrupting than oil money?
I see no reason why we should not try and curb our emissions, and I think nuclear power is the best way to do it based on the French experience. Does a little bit of nuclear waste outweigh millions of tonnes of C02? It makes double sense in Australia with our abundant uranium.
I reject the idea that 98% of scientists agree by the way, climate scientists might but that is a fledgeling field compared to the monumental weight of geology and physics, and it is worth noting that many prominent geologists and physicists are avowed skeptics.
As to the IPCC, they have been heavily criticised from without and within, I know of at least one scientist listed by them as a prominent supporter who rejects utterly that humanity is responsible for the lions share of climate change. http://www.nzcpr.com/guest147.htm
I’m not saying they are wrong (how dare I?) but neither will I glibly take their word.
I also see no reason why we should not have an carbon trading scheme, although if the predictions of this turning into a multi trillion dollar industry are true, there is yet another source of corruption.
Floccinaucinihilipilificator you may wish to check the authenticity and credibility of that petition you cite which purports to have so many ’scientists’ rejecting AGW.
The wiki link below has evidence that all is not from what it claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
Interesting, they should at least do more to filter their signees. I will not dismiss an entire petition based on a few issues raised, nor will I dismiss the IPCC based on similar questionable acts.
I find the media debate about global warming a tad depressing, in that it does not reflect well on the general level of science education. My science ended in high school, and I find it adequate to understand the basic thrust (although not the complexities) of the link between increasing levels of CO2 and warming. The possibility was pointed out well over a century ago, and the basic physics of how CO2 (and other greenhouse gases, and the related increase in water vapour) cause warming is understood down to the level of molecular physics. If this physics is wrong, then we would have serious problems in building planes, refrigerators or power plants that worked. In this sense the basic science tells us that warming will occur if CO2 level rise unless there is some negative feedback mechanism – the contrary would be a really major surprise. And the measurements tell us that warming is in fact occurring.
That it is this basic is reflected in the arguments of the sceptics – some (very few, and no physicists) say that CO2 does not cause warming, some say that it is something else (eg cosmic rays), and ignore that this implies (contra well-established physics) that the increased CO2 is not doing anything, and some say that it is warming, but this is a natural fluctuation, or that the measurements are unreliable. In short, they are all over the shop – there is no coherent body of opposing opinion. Numbers are irrelevant – as Einstein remarked about a list of scientists opposed to relativity, one would be enough if the argument was good. That one has yet to appear.
To judge by the adoption of resolutions by major scientific bodies, the consensus in support of warming and the level of concern about the effects has strengthened steadily over the last 20 years – something the media noise levels on both sides do not reflect.
As far as the lobbyists go, the parallel with tobacco is close – a good many have switched from denying the science to arguing for adaptation, or for geo-engineering, contradicting their earlier stances. Speakers from the Heartland Institute are now arguing for massive engineering to prevent a problem thay have spent a lot of time and money arguing did not exist.
Twenty years of looking for feedbacks have found a few negative ones (eg increased plant growth), but more positive ones – hence the stronger statements from the IPCC. And it’s still hard to say exactly what the effects will be, and how fast warming will occur – a good deal depends on what we do (but the signs are not good).
That journalists seem unable to grasp the very basic science at the core of this, or communicate it to the public, and that the government does not grasp it either, suggests we ought to brace our grandchildren for an unpleasant time.
Apologies – reference above to Heartland Institute should have been to American Enterprise Foundation.
Firstly, I’d like to say that I have no great issue with anthropogenic climate change. Indeed I’d be the first to suggest that Cory Bernardi be subjected to high levels of CO2. There are some really great unresolved scientific issues that you can get your teeth into. Check out the nitty gritty details of how they calibrate satellite based sea level measurements and you’ll see what I mean. But there is no doubt that C02 does force climate and that we have changed the level of C02.
Having said that, there are some questions we currently don’t know enough about to have a good answer for.
Like, given that we have the power to set the global thermostat, what would be the best setting? As I’ve remarked to friends (and not always entirely in jest), a few degrees of warming would make Tasmania habitable
More seriously, leaving aside the issue of climate refugees and the sheer rate of change, now that some changes are inevitable, its time to consider for instance, where we want to build new cities in Australia – just for an example.
The other weird thing about the whole debate is that its seen in the press, and by people in general that treaties and ETSs and so on are the be all and end all, whereas in my perception the trends that matter are technological and that alternative energy, and efficiency in general, now has a momentum of its own. In other words, while I support an ETS, ultimately it isn’t as important as some think.
@Possum 12
The Roy Morgan polling data is really interesting. The Nationals are at 55% “if we don’t act now it will be too late” – 10 points higher than the Libs. It’d be interesting to see what the LNP polling data on this question in QLD is, and what (if any) effect they would have on Barnaby Joyce.
Where did you get the Nats cross-tabs result from? (I must be blind!)
The results from the country vs. city split got me thinking about agriculture – which I just put up in a new post.