(Cross posted from What the people want) Only 38% of Australians favour passing the government’s proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) before the Copenhagen climate summit, with 46% opposed. 42% of Australians are absolutely opposed to the CPRS, while only 40% support it.
This is the quantitative result of our online survey of 1022 Australians on global warming. The sample was balanced to reflect the voting patterns of Australians at large.
The survey provides a deep insight into how people view the global warming issue. We first asked questions to ascertain whether respondents thought that CO2 was a greenhouse gas, whether they thought man’s production of it was causing climate change, and whether they thought there was an unacceptable risk of catastrophic climate change.
When asked whether increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase earth’s temperature, 62% agreed, 23% disagreed while 15% neither agreed nor disagreed or were unsure. Effectively less than two-thirds of Australians believe or are sure that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
The next question tried to determine how many believe that man’s emissions of CO2 are having an effect on the environment. In this case 58% agreed that they are while 28% disagreed.
The third proposition asked the “so what” question. Do “increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere pose an unacceptable risk of a catastrophic change in earth’s temperature in the future?” In this case 55% agreed with the proposition while 31% opposed it.
When the data was further dissected it became clear that voting intentions were highly predictive of belief or skepticism of catastrophic global warming. 93% of Greens believe that there is a risk of CO2 induced catastrophe, compared to 82% of Labor voters, 17% of Liberals and 5% of Nationals. (Table figures are slightly different to those above because minor parties are not represented in the dissection.)
Age was also a factor in whether respondents believe there is a significant risk of catastrophe.
Income was mixed. Those earning $75,000 p.a. or more were less likely than average to believe in a potential catastrophe, as were those earning $35,000 p.a. or less.
The controversy over whether there is a scientific consensus was also partially resolved by this research. 72% of scientists agree that there is an unacceptable risk of catastrophe.
There was also an industry split with those in Wholesale Trade least likely to see an unacceptable catastrophe coming (64%), followed by Mining (58%), and Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing (49%). Educators (75%) were the most likely to see the risk of catastrophe as unacceptable.
Attitudes to the CPRS varied in some significant respects to what might be expected given the figures above. Only 40% support the CPRS while 42% oppose it. Strongest support comes from Labor voters (70%). Only 42% of Greens support it, 5% of Liberals and 2% of Nationals. This means that a significant number of those who believe there is an unacceptable risk of catastrophe do not support a CPRS.
The same holds true for the issue of whether to delay legislation until after the Copenhagen Summit. 46% of respondents believe it should be delayed.
The two tables below dissect these two propositions. 13% of those who strongly believe there is a a risk of catastrophe oppose the CPRS, and 22% support delaying the legislation until after Copenhagen.
October 23, 2009 | Graham
Global warming quantitative analysis
6 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
As I’ve said before Graham,let Kevin and Wayne bring on the carbon tax but every cent must go towards alternate energy technology and putting solar panels in every household.
Kevin and Wayne have seen this as an opportunity to increase taxes to pay for the unnecessary debt they have created.Increasing the GST would have seen them expelled from Govt.
Comment by Arjay — October 24, 2009 @ 7:22 pm
According to Professor Schellnhuber (Director, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research):
“We’re simply talking about the very life support system of this planet … A recent comprehensive study confirms this in showing that we are going beyond the limits of the Earth … we are still chugging along like we have no need to solve these issues any time in the near future. We are not even near the reductions that are necessaryâ€
http://ecoworldly.com/2009/10/02/is-the-us-climate-illiterate/ http://www.nature.com:80/climate/2009/0911/full/climate.2009.106.html
When a patient’s body temperature rises above 40oC it needs to be brought down urgently, lest oxygen does not reach the brain, then the correct antibiotics needs to be administered at the right dose at the right time … if the patient is to survive.
It is the same with the climate.
Time is running out. Governments can not continue with business/politics as usual, they need to focus on the next generation rather than the next election.
Andrew Glikson
Earth and paleo-climate scientist
Climate Change Institute
Australian National University
I see the issue as over and above politics.
Comment by Andrew Glikson — October 26, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
Andrew, please, since the planet’s health depends on it, let’s leave no stone unturned. Demand immediately that all global data used at the East Anglia CRU be made available – so the results can be checked and verified; that Nature uphold it’s own standards of free access to data; that the IPCC consider all the evidence; that someone somewhere finds THAT mystery paper which has empirical evidence that carbon dioxide causes a major change to our climate.
$79 billion in funding for climate related science and technology ought to have produced ONE paper in support. Where is it?
Simulations of the climate are not The Climate. Models are based on assumptions and estimates and raised to the power of a good guess. Models are extraordinary, but their task is huge. They are unverified, and there are gaping holes in their predictions.
We are simply talking about the life support system of science… that science is based on observation, not opinion, not authority, and not on hidden data, hidden adjustments, or “simulations”. We are talking about the right of citizens to expect their governments and government scientists to make decisions based on logic and reason.
With major financial institutions standing to make billions in profits from a carbon market ought not the citizens of Australia have the right to be protected from exaggerated claims?
Carbon trading world wide in 2008 was $126 billion. The forecasts suggest it will become THE largest “commodity” traded. All the more amazing since it isn’t a commodity, but a government “permit”. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
Our very democracy is at risk. We hand over control of our economy to an unaudited unelected committee in Geneva.
Comment by Jo Nova — October 27, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
Jo Nova ,you are 100% correct.Al Gore and all the other Ponzi trading scammers see this as an opportunity to create another derivative in which they can cream it off from every tax payer.
Kevin Rudd gets his back door increase in GST under the noble guise of climate change and the market scammers get more than their pound of flesh for doing nothing!
We are onto to them and this will be a fight to the death.
Comment by Arjay — October 27, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
yes CO2 is a green house gas, most of us are not in argument over that. I have a problem with people and governments who think the only solution to the problem is carbon based.How can we put in a carbon output based solution without accounting for total population growth?, if six billion people have done this damage what will twelve billion do?. Our global economic system has shown its shortfalls in the last two years, how do governments think this quite fragile system will react to limiting economic growth?. At the moment international companies are lucky that they don’t have to travel far to the markets they play in, what will happen when the second world catches up with the first and the third is now the second and we have a true global market?, How much carbon tax will a bottle of longlife orange juice sold in Somalia but produced in brazil have on it?. What Im trying to say is the more we try to manipulate economics, the more confused the outcomes may become.
Comment by C Mckee — October 30, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
Why people still make use of to read news papers when in this technological world all is existing on web?
Comment by Exercises To Increase Vertical Jump — April 19, 2013 @ 7:12 am