The BBC World Service just released the results of a poll they did of 22,000 people in 21 countries on attitudes toward global warming. Short story: large majorities believe that human beings are causing global warming, that urgent action needs to be taken to avert it, and that part of that action should be rich countries helping fund the efforts of poor countries.
Says GlobeScan President Doug Miller, "The strength of these findings makes it difficult to imagine a more supportive public opinion environment for national leaders to commit to climate action."
And yet, national leaders continue to dither and whinge. What up, national leaders?
Also: What's up with India? Clearly word has not gotten around over there. Any Indian activists in the audience? You people need to step it up.
Two more nifty charts below the fold.
Seven reasons for optimism about the Senate climate bill
Carbon poker
Boxer-Kerry climate bill: what to watch for
Comments
View as Threaded
Tom Philpott Posted 8:56 am
25 Sep 2007
Victual Reality
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 9:29 am
25 Sep 2007
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/articl ...
The emergence of a two-wheeled mating service has been one of several unintended consequences of the runaway success of le Vélib', the sturdy grey bicyclettes that the Mayor of Paris, Bertrand Delanoë, unleashed on the streets in mid-July.
"It's the perfect pickup," said Florian, a 23-year-old graduate student who was pedalling on the Boulevard Saint-Germain. "You exchange glances waiting at a light, you help her dock the bike back on to its stand and one thing leads to another."
So far the almost-free bikes, which now number 14,000, have been taken out on five million trips. More than 100,000 Parisians have paid the €29 (£20) for the annual access card despite teething troubles, including brim-full ranks in rush-hour. The scheme has doubled the number of Parisian cyclists and 6,000 more bikes are to enter service by January.
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 10:12 am
25 Sep 2007
The American Environmental Values Survey (PDF) speaks to some of these contradictions. Worth a read.
Permalink
plum Posted 10:20 am
25 Sep 2007
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 12:44 am
27 Sep 2007
Environmentalism and libertarianism are not in opposition to each other, as I see it (though unfortunately, many libertarians disagree, as you seem to). I see environmental justice as a personal health issue as much as I see it as a global issue. Therefore, it is in the best interest of an individual to care about the air that they breath and the water that they drink. As my water could come from as far away as China or India, I should also care about water quality in that place. Perhaps I simply have a broader view of "home" than most libertarians: my home is the Earth, and the Earth is a mess.
(All you non-libertarians out there should use this as an example when trying to convince your libertarian friends to be environmentalists!)
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 1:34 am
27 Sep 2007
Firstly: I wonder about translations. I have noticed that the three Spanish-speaking countries (not including Spain) have generally the same score. Is this cultural? Or, does it have to do with the Spanish translation of the survey? I think the latter. Note that the industrialized English-speaking countries all have similar numbers.
This could possibly explain why Germany (which I believe isn't that unconcerned with global climate change and environmental issues) seemed to be split down the middle: perhaps the word "necessary" or the word "soon" was poorly translated into the German!
Furthermore, when it comes to the psychology of a survey, consider how you would answer the following questions:
"How necessary do you think it is to address climate change?"
"How necessary do you think it is to address human rights?"
"How necessary do you think it is to address world hunger?"
Get the idea? Not many people are going to say they are unconcerned with an issue like this. Few people would honestly answer "not very necessary" to the question that was posed, which makes this survey's results predictable.
Permalink
trock Posted 3:07 am
27 Sep 2007
We have 4 trillion dollars in taxes in a 13 trillion dollar economy. If we are going to have taxes, at least have it on something that can do some good for having taxes on it as well as bring in money for government services. Why have taxes on things that just make things cost more without at least doing something good.
I also think these numbers of people who think that global warming is a problem and we need to do something is a mile wide, but an inch thick. Not like protecting our country, like people in Iraq feel they are doing, risking their lives and sometimes losing it. I suppose some of the stunts of Greenpeace or Earth Firsters would qualify on that. But how many are willing to work for it, whether letters to the editors, politians or influence public opinion in any way. That's harder.
Permalink
plum Posted 9:12 am
27 Sep 2007
On the India results in the survey, I took a gander at the pdf and noticed that only 48% of Indian respondents said they had heard or read about global warming (no time period asked), so I'm assuming this goes a long way to explaining why only 47% of Indians viewed human activity as a major cause of global warming.
Seems like the Indian media still may have a long way to go on this topic.
Permalink
socialscientist Posted 10:54 am
27 Sep 2007
http://www.freepublictransit.org
Permalink