Cascadians on both sides of the U.S.-Canadian border share a deep connection to our temperate corner of the world. But if national polling data is any indication of regional opinion, we may not necessarily share the same views when it comes to the fate of our piece of the planet -- or even of the planet itself. Public opinion polling in the two countries shows a boundary between perceptions almost as stark as the national border drawn on a political map.
In recent polling by Gallup and Pew, Americans display little concern about the environment and global warming -- far less, as it turns out, than their Canadian counterparts.
Gallup numbers, released Jan. 25, 2007:The environment scores a whopping 2% when Americans are asked to name the country's top problem. The clear choice is Iraq: 36% of Americans volunteer Iraq as the nation's top concern. No other single problem rates above 8% as a primary concern.
Pew numbers, released Jan. 22: Similarly, when asked in an open-ended format to name the most important problem facing the country, the environment doesn't even register. And again, 42% of the public volunteers the Iraq war as their top concern.
Canadians, on the other hand, seem to have more fully grasped the gravity of the situation.
Canadians report the environment as the number one problem they face, and their concern appears to be growing:
An opinion survey by Decima Research, released Jan. 4, 2007, finds that:
- The environment has become the most frequently mentioned preoccupation of Canadians: 19% say it is the issue that concerns them personally the most (more than any other issue), followed by health care at 13%.
- Concern has increased: the environment gained 13 points since the same question was asked in September, 2006.
- The environment is rated the top issue in almost every part of the country. Men and women alike cite the environment as the top concern, as well as every age and income group. It is the number one issue for those who voted Liberal (22%), NDP (27%), Green (35%), or Bloc (30%) in the last election. Among those who voted Conservative, the environment is in second place, with 12%.
These numbers are significant considering the 21-page report on climate change (PDF) -- the result of a dozen years of study by hundreds of researchers from more than 100 nations -- released in Paris by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last week. The IPCC puts to rest the so-called debate about both the reality and the crisis-level significance of global warming. The word they use is "unequivocal."
Americans are understandably distracted by the war in Iraq, but it looks to be high time for the U.S. (the single largest contributor to global warming, producing about a quarter of the world's carbon dioxide emissions even though it accounts for about 4.5% of its population) to catch up with Canada (the world's eighth largest producer of carbon dioxide, with one half of one percent of the world's population) in taking the long view and reprioritizing our top concerns.
Comments
View as Flat
blueberrymuffin Posted 7:05 am
05 Feb 2007
Canada gets this wonderful, green image, courtesy of the small population concentrated near the border of the U.S. Ah, so much "wilderness" above it! So much untamed, untouched land. Meanwhile, Canadian logging practices are horrendous (and, yes, most goes to feed U.S. consumption; again, a function of population size). Canadian mining companies are exporting their bad practices around the world, after implementing them at home. Canadian fisheries have contributed to the collapse of northern cod, and don't forget about the seal hunting.
This is not to say that the U.S. is in any way blameless, or that Canadian individuals shouldn't be voicing their concern for the environment. But extraction practices in Canada are not necessarily better than in the U.S.: there's just more land and fewer people. When people's concern translates to better practices, then it will be time to look to Canada as an example.
Permalink
fishy eyeball Posted 11:27 am
05 Feb 2007
The very fact that we are so resource-rich has in the past made both policy-makers and the public apathetic about protecting our environment -- a lot like our American cousins. It's really encouraging that we're waking up on this side of the border. (Our involvement in the UN action in Afganistan is the other primary concern in the polls here, BTW.) You are right that it needs to translate into action. For such a small country to have such a large carbon footprint makes me embarrassed to be Canadian.
Permalink
anneerickson Posted 11:26 pm
05 Feb 2007
On a brighter note, Ontario finally decided to introduce a deposit and return system on liquor and wine bottles (as well as the tetrapaks some wine is now packaged in).
Anne in Toronto
Permalink
alonzo Posted 3:56 am
06 Feb 2007
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:04 am
06 Feb 2007
Thanks, Blueberry, for remembering the seal slaughter, which will soon begin again. Also, the Inuit have been encouraging the trophy hunting of endangered polar bears in Nunavut. Actually, I feel sorry for the poor Atlantic fishers and the Inuit. With a better, more just and humane social arrangement, they would not need to resort to such cruel and bloody business in order to make a livelihood.
That notwithstanding, the results of the opinion survey are promising. What accounts for the relative enlightenment of Canadians with respect to seeing the environment as a serious issue? How does public education in Canada differ from what we watch/hear/read in the US?
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
CrosbyMacDonald Posted 3:29 am
07 Feb 2007
Now, I would definitely like to see an improvement in some Canadian logging practices, particularly in enforcement of regulations around salmon spawning streams, etc., and the general protection of valuable habitats, but there are a few important facts...
Canada has the largest area of independently certified forest in the world, and is fifth when measured as a percentage of forest land certified. (ie. Forest Stewardship Council certified)
A report produced by the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies says "Canada has emerged in recent years as among the world's leaders in aggressively improving sustainability practices".
Members of FPAC, the forestry association representing 75% of working forests in the country, have cut greenhouse gas emissions to 28 percent below 1990 levels, a 44 percent reduction per tonne of production - 57 percent of members' energy is provided through self-generated biomass (as it should be).
Now, pointing fingers may be fun and a good way to feel better about our own countries, but let's get off our respective environmental high horses (which no one in North America really has a right to ride) and get on with spurring real action.
Economenvironmentalism
Permalink
CrosbyMacDonald Posted 3:38 am
07 Feb 2007
No doubt that Canada has exported some seriously environmentally and socially suspect mining companies around the world. It's a big issue, as mining firms based in the UK, Australia, the US and Canada run the industry, often mining in indigenous peoples' territories and running amok, causing some major sh*t for millions in shiny, shiny metals.
There were government-industry-NGO Roundtable sessions on this last year, though the prospect of the government taking real leadership and enforcing Canadian law abroad is pretty slim....sigh.
One question, what is a more "just and humane social arrangement" for the Inuit and Atlantic fishers? Should we slaughter our aboriginals like the US, or should we attempt to right past wrongs and negotiate treaties as we have been doing? Nunavut is a territory in the North, created from discussions with aboriginal peoples - that is where many Inuit live.
What's more "just and humane"? Cutting welfare, stopping our universal medicare system, and slashing social programs, hiking university tuition as in the States? I'd be interested if you could elaborate.
I don't exactly support hunting polar bears, and definitely clubbing seals isn't the way I'd spend my days, but the seal population is more than healthy, and it's hardly the most pressing environmental issue of the day.
Economenvironmentalism
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:53 am
07 Feb 2007
There surely cannot be very many US citizens that hold environmentalist values, who would blame Canadians for anything that American explorers, exploiters, developers and entrepreneurs have not already done earlier and to a more hideously huge extent.
As an admirer, sympathizer and supporter of Native Americans in this country, and as a fan of art by Canadian Inuit, as well as by First Peoples of BC, and a subscriber to Inuit Art Quarterly published in Ottawa, and a collector (in a small way) of Inuit art, I am uncertain of the direction of your rhetorical question, beginning, "Should we slaughter." Of course, I am happy, and proud of the Canadians, that the territory of Nunavut has been created; and I am happy that consultations with First Peoples seem so often to be carried on with a degree of respect and sensitivity that is extremely rare in this country. By contrast, consider the way Native Americans were abused, very recently and at very high levels of government, in Jack Abramoff's network.
On the other hand, it is worthwhile reading such things as the collection of stories titled "Our Story: Aboriginal Voices on Canada's Past" (2004, Doubleday Canada), to get a sense of what some individuals, who put themselves forth as spokespersons for the First Peoples, are thinking.
Of course I have nothing specific to recommend, even as I have nothing specific to recommend on behalf of the Native Americans in Montana and New Mexico, whom I know much better than the Inuit, on whose reservations unemployment approaches 80%. But I dislike the gap between the wealthy and the poor everywhere, in every country. Your other rhetorical question, beginning "Cutting welfare," makes as little sense to me as the first. Canadian social services are famously much more humane than what we provide in the US, and for that I congratulate you. Nevertheless, the justification for the seal slaughter which the fishers of Newfoundland give, and for sponsoring the polar bear hunts, which the Inuit give, is that they are impoverished, they are struggling desperately to make a living, and this money-making bloodshed might help.
Wherever such inequity and poverty occur, in every country, that is a sign of injustice and inhumanity. Of course I do not blame the Canadians more than anyone else. I would just ask them to remember that the most precious, the most valuable person in every society is the one who is most vulnerable, miserable and frightened.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
CrosbyMacDonald Posted 8:45 am
07 Feb 2007
Nunavut and other treaties aside, there certainly is a history of both social and economic marginalization of indigenous peoples in Canada. Residential schools, the reserve system, and systemic racism have put many peoples in a deep economic and social hole from which they are slowly climbing out.
To help in this, I think a good way forward is to give people increased opportunities to control the natural resources on their lands and practice sound environmental stewardship. First Nations groups with strong leaders have been active in acting as environmental consultants to industry. While the romantic notion that indigenous people are always more 'green' than others and won't exploit resources doesn't always hold true, their connection to the land has helped them participate in sound management in many examples.
This article talks about First Nations and environmental health, while this one talks about their efforts to establish sustainable business ventures.
These resources include forests and salmon streams, as well as the less-friendly minerals, oil and gas.
As well, they include traditional food animals, such as seals or polar bears. Though there are obviously objections to classifying them as 'resources', they are, like many fish and livestock, consumed by humans with economic and environmental consequences.
I didn't mean to endorse polar bear hunting - I would rather see it abolished, and see programs in place to help the Inuit make a living guiding people to view the magnificent bears.
With seal hunting, it is controversial because the images of the hunt are shocking, and the seals are very small and cute.
Certainly if the hunt is continued, it should be done so in a humane manner - I gather there are many hunters using guns now instead of clubs, but I'm not an expert and the media images tend to focus on the graphic (Paul McCartney's visit).
But I'd like to play devil's advocate and suggest that the seal hunt should not be viewed any differently than human killing of any other animals - including wild fish like tuna, and even domesticated animals like cows and pigs.
Would the seal hunt be alright if the seals were able to be put to sleep peacefully?
The seal population is more than healthy, and if quotas are designed appropriately, then the hunt is 'sustainable' in that the population will remain healthy for the long term. That is more than can be said about the Atlantic cod and other species which were horribly overfished to the point of collapse, largely by Canadian fleets.
So for me, I think that while the seal hunt is certainly disagreeable, there are other, far more pressing environmental problems: overfishing of deep sea species, climate change, habitat loss, etc.
Economenvironmentalism
Permalink