Politics -
News Sections
Canadians want tough action on climate: poll
Font-size:
Share
Print
Comments(33)
The Canadian Press
Date: Tuesday Jul. 8, 2008 7:41 PM ET
OTTAWA Most Canadians still want aggressive government action to fight climate change, in spite of skyrocketing fuel costs, a new poll suggests.
The Canadian Press Harris-Decima findings appear to fly in the face of the notion that Canadians, shocked by record-high oil and gasoline prices, won't stomach environmental policies that drive up their cost of living even further.
The poll results were published Tuesday as leaders from the Group of Eight industrialized nations, including Canada, issued seemingly conflicting declarations at their meeting in Japan.
One statement endorsed cutting the world's emissions of greenhouse gases in half by 2050, while another called on oil-rich states to ramp up production to reduce fuel prices.
The survey indicates many Canadians profess to want environmental actions that push the country toward greener, alternative sources of energy -- regardless of cost.
Respondents were given two options: Did they support a more cautious policy approach "so that we don't drive up the cost of fuel and the cost of living even further?'' Or would they subscribe to the view that "the rising price of fossil fuels is a reason we must move even more aggressively to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. . . .''
Sixty-one per cent said an aggressive approach was more logical, while just 27 per cent said governments should move more slowly in light of the rising costs of oil and gasoline.
Environmental advocates cited the survey as yet another indication that Canadian popular opinion is outpacing more cautious politicians when it comes to climate change.
"It confirms for me that . . . Canadians know we are living in a time of climate chaos,'' Beatrice Olivastri, CEO of the environmental group Friends of the Earth, said Tuesday.
"The plans to date by the government are woefully inadequate.''
At the G8 summit in Hokkaido, Prime Minister Stephen Harper heralded the leaders' climate-change statement as a major breakthrough in getting the United States and Russia to accept long-term cuts to carbon emissions.
But the declaration isn't binding, meaning none of the G8 countries -- Canada, the United States, Japan, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Russia -- would be required to halve their emissions by mid-century.
That's a huge disappointment to environmentalists, who were hoping for hard targets for reducing emissions.
"As the heads of eight of the world's biggest economies, the G8 leaders could have used their summit to give real momentum to the UN negotiations on a global climate deal,'' Arthur Sandborn from Greenpeace said in a statement on behalf of Climate Action Network Canada.
"Clearly, the G8's leaders still have not grasped the urgency of combating climate change.''
The Harris-Decima survey of just more than 1,000 Canadians conducted July 3-6 found majority support for more aggressive environmental action spanned all regions, income groups, ages and genders.
The telephone poll is considered accurate within plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times in 20.
Four of five supporters of the Green Party favoured moving more quickly, the most in the poll. But even in oil-rich, Conservative-heartland Alberta, 59 per cent of respondents rejected the premise that rising fuel prices should slow the costly push for greener fuel alternatives.
The poll also asked whether Canada should increase its use of nuclear energy to combat rising oil-and-gas prices, while curbing greenhouse-gas emissions.
Nearly a third of respondents, or 29 per cent, said they preferred increasing nuclear energy use while 34 per cent favoured less use of the power source. Roughly a quarter of those asked said Canada should neither increase nor decrease its nuclear power-generating capacity in the future.
Harris-Decima asked respondents to choose which of two statements most closely represented their views:
- "Some people say that the high cost of oil and gasoline is a reason why we should take a slower, more cautious approach to dealing with environmental issues such as climate change, so that we don't drive up the cost of fuel and the cost of living even further.''
- "Others say that the rising price of fossil fuels is a reason we must move even more aggressively to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and find alternative sources of energy that are also less damaging to the environment.''
User Tools
Related Stories
User Tools
About the tools
Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.
-


Font-size
Print Article
Comments(33)-
Feedback
Share it with your network of friends
Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.
Most Viewed News Stories
Most Talked about Stories
I applaud the budget, even though Health Care and education may stay unscathed. Sadly this cannot last and I worry to later this year where cuts will become enviable. If anything, this provides the Wildrose Alliance plenty of ammo when an election is called.


Comments are now closed for this story
Edb
said
hmmmmm, wonder what the answer would be on that one.
Red X
said
Canadians know that we have the technology and alternatives for change. We waste so much of our energy by maintaining the status quo. AT LEAST, talking about a green shift will hopefully yield some behavioural changes on a personal level. Don't hold your breath for this government's Made in Canada solution with targets decades away...
Reece
said
On that note, I agree to consider not to lie on my taxes when I turn 65 - but then again, I'm not promissng you squat, just that I will consider it. Yo, Harper, I like your style.
The Grumpy Voter
said
Hmmmm, who to believe.... hmmm.
Maybe Harris Decima should do an iron glove cage match with Ipsos Reid to settle Canadian's untenable philosophical position regarding the environment.
Gary
said
Linda in Vancouver
said
What's missing from most polls are questions about what they "do" want for energy sources.Most people want a better environment,but say "No" to damming rivers,and "no" to nuclear,etc,etc.
And,I seriously doubt the polls included the actual costs of "clean" energy.If you ask people if they would pay a little more for clean energy,they will almost always say "yes".
If you tell them their energy costs are going to double,and that higher costs will inflate the price of everything they buy,I expect some to think twice.
Pollsters on those environmental lobby groups almost never quantify what "paying a little more" really means.
Ron
said
Ron
Andrew
said
Lowell
said
Harper's Mr Stinky message meant to be a jibe at Dion is an insult to the intelligence of most canadians.
elderone1
said
Peter
said
I wonder whether John Baird knows what an oar is able to do? . . . it can move large objects, but you have to keep your head out of the sand.
John Baird would be the prefect example in Noah's time: Dance and party until the flood comes; but than you drown . . . is that smart?
Dawn of another day
said
The Harris-Decima pollsters must have used the phone list for the Climate Action Network Canada as the population to canvas. Although, it is possible that the mebership of this organization may hold its meetings in a phone booth (if one can find such a facility today).
These enviro extremists need to stop, take a breath and look at what activities have already been undertaken by MAN. Look at the unintended consequences of these activities, which have been hastily implemented.
Biofuels = 75% increase in the cost of food, adding 100 million people to below pverty level.
Wind power: the full impact of this implementation has yet to be reaped. The windmills are decimating the bird populations. The insect populations are increasing. The insects will decimate the food crops.
Hydro power from new dams = decreases habit for animals and increases the water surface level on earth. water surface level is the largest cause of global warming (CO2 is only 2% and man's contribution to CO2 is 2% - UN committee).
The G8 have got it right. We need to slowly change our use of energy and energy sources, otherwise other catastrophic consequences may be inflicted on MAN.
No new taxes are required.
Let innovation happen.
Glenn Pope
said
Bill
said
Jim in the West
said
That said, I do NOT support Canada taking any action that limits our economy while leaving China and India to pollute without restriction simply because they're economies aren't as well developed at the moment.
John in London
said
They got the answer that the survey's designers wanted.
mel
said
Matthew
said
I will also add the "global warming" made from the Al Gore and David Suzuki point of view allows governments to tax us fully with the reasons these people present, which I must say not all scientists agree with. We need to all gather together and accully solve this problem starting in our own lives not through things like carbon taxes.
I'm only fifteen and I realise these problems in front of our eyes and I do not want to spend my entire life hearing governments use this "global warming" as reasons to tax the entire country while nothing truly is being done.
Doug BC
said
"Red X" is under the impression we have the technology to change our economy to "clean" energy.There is little evidence of that.If it was so,there would be costed and detailed plans as to how we are going to proceed,and how much it will really cost.
Regarding governments obligations,they are obligated,above ALL else,to provide security for their citizens.An obligation that would include not devastating our ability to earn a living.
And finally,those who think Canada can "lead the world" on this issue are simply out of touch with reality.We are a very small fish in this barrel.Get used to it.
These polls mean nothing until they are attached to an actual plan.With the costs and benefits of that plan easily understood by everyone who is polled.
And finally,if the answer is "NO" to fossil fuels,please tell us what fuels will get us a "yes".
Any fool can identify a problem.But we are short of people with real solutions that can really work.
NO GREEN SHAFT THANX
said
Brian
said
.
All those in favor add your name and comments below, starting with the so called activists you quote are ready to start paying.
Roadrobber
said
thinker
said
Red X
said
When Dion was Environment Minister, Canada went down some 10 million tonnes of emission. Those programs were eliminated by the Conservatives or renamed under their program. A change in leadership will be required here. The green shift still needs to be explained and understood and maybe some NDP and Green Party members will strategically vote. Unfortunately, Elizabeth May will be less visible on this issue.
Also, people who like nuclear should consider that radio active waste last forever...
jj
said
"I thought we/Canadians wanted to be a leader on the world stage !!!"
Right. And I wanted to be a 6-foot tall sports idol.
Ain't gonna happen.
DB
said
Melanie
said
Energy experts can easily cost each and every project that will move us closer to clean energy.And they know how much each Kw hour will cost.So,why don't they raise the rates now,and use the money to pay for the projects?
That should get the attention of those who think in terms like "at any cost".Especially when poverty spreads as we all starve or freeze in the dark because we have no jobs,and can't afford decent food.
Our only option is to go forward steadily,but prudently.
Avi
said
Dane
said
I didnt see that in the question especially the "regardless of cost part"
For one the questions were very vague, I think many Canadians believe we should change from fossil fuels to more renewable fuels yes the rising fossil fuel prices are a reason we should move to reducing our dependence on fossil fuels I dont see how this warrants the title "most Canadians want tough environmental action"
Mike Webster
said
Here come the itax man
said
As much as I don't like the high gas prices or having to pay a carbon tax I appreciate the costs are having the affect of forcing us to diet.
The biggest problems with the price of gas is not the price but rather most of the excess money is going into oil companies profits and then to international shareholders, at least a carbon tax would spend some of the money here.
Reece
said
Gary, Gary, Gary...Harper is the DECIDER, or haven't you been paying attention to Bush?
Heinz
said