World+Dog don't care about climate change, never have done
It's the economy, stupid - and it always was
Seventeen years of continuous surveys covering countries around the world show that people not only do not care about climate change today - understandably prioritising economic misery - they also did not care about climate change even back when times were good.
The new information comes in a study released by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago - a large, long-standing and respected non-profit. The results are based on surveys which began in 1993, back in the boom times, and “are the first and only surveys that put long-term attitudes toward environmental issues in general and global climate change in particular in an international perspective,” according to NORC's Tom W Smith.
According to a NORC statement issued yesterday:
The economy ranked highest in concern in 15 countries, followed by health care in eight, education in six, poverty in two, and terrorism and crime in one country each. Immigration and the environment did not make the top of the list in any country over the 17-year period; in the United States, the economy ranked as the highest concern, while concern for the environment ranked sixth. In terms of national averages, the order of concern was the economy (25 percent); health care (22.2); education (15.6); poverty (11.6); crime (8.6); environment (4.7); immigration (4.1); and terrorism (2.6), the surveys showed.
Essentially, the environment joins terrorism and immigration on the list of subjects nobody has ever been able to really give a toss about, though the compiling profs did note that in Turkey they do consider terrorism serious: the Turks rate it number one, in fact, though nobody else does.
"Terrorism’s low ranking was notable in light of the widespread attention the issue has received since 2001," comment the NORC analysts, perhaps sounding a knell of doom for environmental activists who believe they can gain support for their agenda through incessant publicity.
The NORC spokespersons add that decades of climate alarmism have had basically no effect on people's attitude around the world:
The latest surveys were completed in 2010. Similar surveys have been conducted since 1993, and little change has been noted on people’s concern for climate change ... widespread public support for current action on the issue will represent a major shift in attitude.
The full report from the NORC can be accessed here (PDF). ®
"Nice to see that Lewis has finally given up on understanding the sciency part of climate change."
But that's part of the problem. Even the scientists have pretty much given up. They've been overtaken by the hyperbole and need to deliver what politicians want.....e.g. an excuse for raising taxes. I'm not saying that climate change isn't happening, it is. Has been ever since the earth was formed. What we don't know and scientists don't seem to be able to model, is whether we're (humans that is) are having an effect and how much that effect is. They keep biasing data, keeping some data back because it doesn't happen to fit their model, predicting doom and gloom, before backtracking etc.etc.
Yes, let's have the science, but let's make it transparent and open. And let's not ignore unfortunate truths such as the last couple (ish) of decades where global warming has stopped. We need to understand what's happening before committing economic suicide in what appears to be a pretty much single handed attempt to stop it. I work for an energy company and the governments energy 'strategy' is nothing but a joke. £10-12billion (currently) on smart meters to reduce consumption, when all the studies suggest it will do nothing. Wind farms that are pretty much useless and have to be subsidised. Electric cars........not practical at the moment. If everyone had an electric car and tried to charge it overnight, the grid would melt!! And where's the electricity coming from?
We're betting on all the wrong technologies and the government is simply using it as an excuse to tax. Another unfortunate truth is that the USA has reduced its emissions from electricity production dramatically for the first time ever and without any treaties etc. through the use of gas generation. Driven by economics only, they've achieved more than most other countries by actually using a fossil fuel!! Shale gas makes this not just economic, but actually environmentally sound (from a CO2 emissions perspective) as well!!
Re: That's USA, right?
I totally agree that politicians lack the vertebra. The Middle East oil dependency could be broken by only by using fracking for oil,as well as gas. Unfortunately, as of yet, no other suitable alternative for oil (i.e. petrol and diesel) actually exists. Electric cars are simply not viable, either practically or financially. Yes, we should research and get them better, but for now, they're pretty close to useless. Electricity generation requires foddil fuels or nuclear at the moment. Nothing else has the capacity and dependability for base load, let alone financial viability (yes, I know the financials around nuclear may be dubious as well, but they're better than wind for instance).
As to the Maldives.......well, I'm afraid they'll simply have to move. The climate on earth has changed hugely over time with or without mans help. Sea levels have risen and fallen dramatically and locations like the Maldives has gone under the water before. Just because men are now on them, doesn't give it the god given right not to. That's climate change, which is a perfectly natural thing.
At some point, we'll learn it's better to 'go with' climate change, than constantly try to fight it. Nature is more powerful than humans (no matter what we think) and we'll loose in the end.
Re: Where do you get those ideas from Mike?
"Scientists don't model our contribution to climate change, they measure it."
How come they continually bang on about their climate models then? Also, they keep predicting what will happen in x years time. How do they do that without models? Science is all about models. Anything else is unscientific.
"Atmospheric temperature rises have slowed for the last decade or so because of successive La Ninas and a couple of big volcanic eruptions that tend to lower temperatures, but atmospheric temperature is only just over 2% of the planet."
Has someone actually proven this hypothesis? No, thought not. They are saying La Ninas and eruptions etc. are causing this, but to prove it, they need to wait for one to occur and then succsessfully predict using models (earlier point again) what will happen and be proven right when it does. Anyone can keep amending a model according to observations, but until you successfully predict using the model, you haven't proved it.
"It's also WRONG to claim natural gas is environmentally sound."
I never said it was. I just said that by using it, the USA have reduced their CO2 output from electricity generation for the first time. Therefore, one can argue it is less bad than say coal. I never said it was environmentally sound, but then nothing is. Even windfarms are just less damaging, not non-damaging. They do, after all, require environmentally unsound processes (such as concrete) to build etc. Even windfarms put CO2 into the atmosphere during manufacture.
"What would be good would be for subsidies to be taken off the fossil fuel industries and diverted to finding alternatives"
Perhaps you could provide a reference for this, as to my knowledge, all the subsidies are heading the other way at the moment. You might like to look at your energy bills (if in UK), as they often show the 'environmental levy' on them!!
"Breakthroughs in solar electricity generation are coming all the time and there are many ways to avoid using fossil carbon."
Yes they are. However, nothing at the moment can provide anywhere near the same generation capability and reliability. When they do, great, but that's a long way off.
"We will have to eventually, lets do it before we wreck the planet."
Finally, something you're right on!! I absolutely agree. But lets try and not put everyone back into caves in doing so.