They say people are the same wherever you go. But attitudes towards climate change can vary place to place.
In terms of the USA, results from an AP-NORC poll carried out in June released yesterday indicate:
- 52% of Americans think their actions influence climate change (down from 66% who said the same three years ago).
- They are less concerned about the effects of climate change on them personally ( 35% in 2022, 44% in 2019).
- Fewer feel a great deal of personal responsibility to address climate change (45% in 2022, 50% in 2019).
Regarding the cooling off (probably a bad choice of words), this could be due in part to other pressures and distractions pushing climate change back down the priority line.
Australian Climate Change Attitudes
What about attitudes here in Australia? While it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison as questions and responses differ, a Lowy Institute poll conducted just as Russia invaded Ukraine found:
- 60% of Australians believe global warming is a serious and pressing problem and we should begin taking steps now even if significant cost is involved. This result was unchanged from 2021.
- 62% say climate change poses a critical threat to Australia’s vital interests in the next ten years – also unchanged since 2021.
- 77% supported Australia committing to a more ambitious emissions target for 2030; which has since occurred – even if it’s not as ambitious as some believe it should be.
- 64% supported introducing an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax (we had one around 10 years ago), compared to 40% in a similar question in 2016.
So, even with local and global events threatening to distract, it was interesting that attitudes to climate change didn’t really waiver.
In terms of actions on climate change at a personal level, results from another poll released last month indicated more than 68% of Australians considered installing solar panels “important” or “very important” in addressing climate change (a bit over half said they already had or would soon).
Global Attitudes
A little dated compared to the above and again not apples-to-apples, but figures released in July from the 2021 Lloyd’s Register Foundation World Risk Poll indicated 67% of people considered climate change as a threat to their country — a slight decrease from 2019. Among that percentage are the 41% who viewed it as a ‘very serious threat’, which is unchanged from 2019.
The accompanying report noted:
“In regions with higher educational attainment, such as Northern America and Australia/New Zealand, about half of people said climate change is a ‘very serious threat.’ This percentage varied widely with people’s likelihood of worrying they could be seriously harmed by severe weather events.”
Many people don’t just worry about it; they’ve already experienced the impacts of climate change in various forms – fire, flood, drought, storm damage, pestilence over and above “the norm”.
It’s all a bit biblical.
And as more people make the connection between the severity and frequency of such events and climate change, perhaps their attitudes to the issue will change with it.
About Michael Bloch
RSS - Posts
Part 1
For those who have the time, the Lowy poll data is quite fascinating, with 50 different graphs showing the proportion of those wanting evidence before spending money, wanting to address the change gradually as it becomes a problem, and those who believe climate change is already a major problem and money needs to be thrown at it, from 2006 through to 2022.
Overall it appears roughly half of respondents believe it a critical issue that must be dealt with today (36%-68% of respondents), roughly a third don’t see a need to rush (24%-45%), and perhaps a seventh see no need to worry about it (7%-19%).
In general the older a respondent is the less concerned they are by climate change, and similarly males are less concerned than females – averaging perhaps just under half versus slightly over.
Statewise there’s a few oddities – especially Tasmania which has suddenly become 100% believers in cliamte change armageddon.
The rural v urban divide appears to loosely follow the male v female split, with rural dwellers more skeptical about climate change than those living in concrete jungles. The Greater (capital city) v Rest of the State divide mostly parallels this – with the exception of Greater Melbourne v Rest of Victoria which has the inverse relationship, at least for the past few years.
On the education front there’s likewise a few oddities. What counts as a graduate degree? Is that a bachelors degree and up, or postgrad qualifications? I’m guessing the former since diploma\certificate is the next option. University graduates average about two-thirds believing in climate armageddon versus only about half for TAFE\trade qualifications. Year 12 graduates were following the TAFE\trade line until about 2018 and now they’re suddenly almost as terrified as university types. Those with Year 11 or less are distinctly sub-50%!
Part 2
Income seems to make a modest variation, but nothing radical, at least not compared to birthplace. Those born in the Anglosphere – not counting Australia, are about 10% more likely to be terrified than those born in Australia, at least according to the data from the last few years. Those born in non-English speaking nations appear to be slightly more concerned than those born in Australia, with Asian born especially worried.
The political divide is far more extreme. Only about a third of Liberal\National voters consider climate change to be a serious and pressing problem that needs to be immediately addressed no matter the cost. One Nation voters are similar, but more prone to wanting evidence before any action is taken to address the alleged problem. Labor is effectively the reverse – over two-thirds believe immediate action is essential no matter the cost, and the Greens are even more extreme – roughly 90% wanting immediate action no matter the cost, less than 10% wanting a gradual approach, and none questioning the narrative.
One thing that isn’t clear, at least from the graphs shown, is just how many respondents were involved, though that’s not essential.
As regards folk experiencing fire, flood, drought, storm damage, or pestilence over and above “the norm,” is it that it’s above the norm, or that the norm has been redefined? The floods here this year for instance weren’t climate change, they were simply normal weather variation, and possibly politics – government and bureaucrats deciding which areas, or voters, to protect from flooding, and which to risk. Indeed it wasn’t until after the flood waters here started to subside that the state government declared the start of a flood emergency, which is when they began to be affected by flooding. Add in the belief that natural disasters mean climate change so people are primed to blame it when normal disasters happen, plus the unfathomable logic of ever more development in flood, or fire, prone areas e.g. land that was underwater mere months ago zoned for housing, and politicians are setting people up for disaster. Why blame nature when people are a more obvious target?
Still a Skeptic
PS – Nice globe\red tide image!
PPS – Apologies for the triple post – not enough characters for a single :-|)
George Kaplan,
“The floods here this year for instance weren’t climate change, they were simply normal weather variation…”
Based on what analysis, George? Yours? ?
The NSW 2022 Flood Inquiry report, dated 29 Jul 2022, included (bold text my emphasis):
https://www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/noindex/2022-08/VOLUME_ONE_Summary_report.pdf
See also Nature paper titled Climate change impact on flood and extreme precipitation increases with water availability at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-70816-2
Mine yes, also those in my area with greater knowledge. From memory, if anything climate change as a cause was seen as a joke. Curious how the observations of those in the area are ignored, those close to politics, approved funding, or the media are the ones heard instead.
Yes the water flow through catchment areas can be modelled, so too can flood risks be modelled. Governments seem to be selective as to when to worry about flooding and climate change. Development planning? Flooding, what flooding, we don’t know the meaning of the word!
Frankly I won’t be surprised if there are a couple more floods later this year, but I won’t be surprised if I’m wrong either. Weather isn’t static so it could go either way. Government however is fairly reliable in its incompetence. :-C