CTV News | Canadians want tough action on climate: poll

Politics -   

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.''

Comments are now closed for this story

Edb
said

Wht not ask....are you prepared to be taxed into radically altering your lifestyle and having UNelected bodies redistribute your money to 3rd world dictators....?
hmmmmm, wonder what the answer would be on that one.


Red X
said

With Harper siding with Bush at the G8 I am glad that this is Bush's last summit. Baird is simply delaying for the UN meeting in Copenhagen NEXT YEAR.

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

A non-binding agreement to agree that they might consider cutting emissions by half by 2050...wow, and they said Harper wouldn't accomplish anything!

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

Harris Decima says Canadians want aggressive government action to fight climate change despite skyrocketing fuel costs and Ipsos Reid says only one in three Canadians has heard about the "green shift" plan and 60 per cent, who can recall anything about it, say it's "a bad idea.

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

I dont understand our politicians..isnt this a democracy ???..isnt our government used to be representing the 'will' of the people. How do let these guys get elected and then fail to deliver what we seek. In this case an overwhelming majority of Canadians want more action on climate change...of course Harpers' government only did get a minority electorate of 35 % or so..so I guess we shouldnt expect much from this lot. Fortunately Obama wins and Bush leaves in November, Howard has already been punted in Australia, so I guess we'll have to wait until the fall of 2009 to get a government that listens to its citizens in Canada. The last of the dinosaurs on the planet. I thought we/Canadians wanted to be a leader on the world stage !!!


Linda in Vancouver
said

Given the questions asked,the results should come as no surprise to me.But I am not convinced the results are as conclusive as the environmental lobby wants to think.
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

I'm so disappointed at the politicization of the 'global warming' issue and the gullible Canadians who are falling for the rheteric hook, line and sinker. Every discussion seems to start with the premise that 'the science is in' and CO2 is the most significant cause of global warming. For every 100 scientists that tells us we are heading for a global Armageddon, I can find another 100 equally-credentialed scientists that disagree. From my point of view, the debate needs to back up a few steps and start with an informed discussion about whether CO2 is the culprit and whether we can do any thing to prevent global warming before we destroy our economy and our way of life.

Ron


Andrew
said

What viable alternative is there to the current energy? Nuclear energy, what do we do with the spent rods? What happens if there is a melt down, what cost would that be to the enviroment? Does anyone have a viable stable alternative to replace our current carbon based fuel. Just one more challenge the replacement cannot use carbon based products to make it, transport it and it needs to be financially affordable for canadians.


Lowell
said

Dion's green shift seems to be a prudent and smart move at this juncture. Harper fiddling while Rome burns doesn't seem to be the answer. I think the liberals should make good progress with this initiative given the mood of the country.
Harper's Mr Stinky message meant to be a jibe at Dion is an insult to the intelligence of most canadians.


elderone1
said

I'm right there with most Canadians who want tough action by somebody else. I've already done my part.


Peter
said

"What we want to see is an effective agreement that will help avoid dangerous climate change," Environment Minister John Baird told Canada AM from Japan. "If we want to fight climate change, we need all oars in the water."

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

Even reading the blogs, one gets a sense that a majority of bloggers may not even agree on the the 'man is responsible' concept of global warming (or whatever title the environazis are using today).
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

Governments cannot decide when to lower a flag. Does anyone seriously think they can affect the climate of the earth. If people are concerned, they have to do their part,not wait for some unaccountable law or tax grab to solve the climate problem, if there really is one.


Bill
said

Oh Canadians are for a lot of things as long as the government is going to pay for them, in other words as long as somebody else is going to be paying for it, it is a good idea. When it hits their own pocket book it is a different story. Already in BC they are starting to deal with the reality of a carbon tax. We are less than 2% of the worlds GHG and we are going to drive ourselves into a depression. Energy costs are already astronomical, manufacturing is dealing with biggest challenges in decades...why not add one more curve just to see what we are made of. A huge cold country that is thinly populated for the most part...so lets compete with some small European country that is densely populated and not as cold.


Jim in the West
said

While I don't buy in to the hysteria, I do believe that we should be doing more to alleviate our influence on the climate.

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

Sounds like a loaded question to me.

They got the answer that the survey's designers wanted.


mel
said

My question is to the survey team. Are the phone calls made to land lines only in the evening hours, or does this include cell phone numbers, at all hours of the day. If this is only land lines, the numbers will be skewed toward a slightly older demographic, as many younger voters do not have land lines, especially if they only rent their residence, and especially in the larger metro centres. This makes the affordability issue a little off balance, since we are now talking to a majority of home - owners, who by their status in living can afford a gas price increases a little easier, along with food price increases etc.


Matthew
said

In my opinion, what Canadians need to realize is that by fighting climate change so aggressivly, a huge part of our taxes will all go to the environment; we may even see taxes rising. But what about health care, education, and the economy? Are we not going to fund these fully anymore so we do not have the other important things we need? It is a choice we need to make and I feel it is important to fund everything in moderation, and a long term climate action plan sounds like it is the best way to go.

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

Canadians always want to do the right thing.I do this pole though because it suggest we change "at any cost".I just don't see that as honest.
"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

Ontario/Quebec Harris Decima Poll + liberal press= railroaded over taxed public. What ever happened to fair and balanced reporting. Another poll today suggested the green shaft is rejected by 60% of Canadians as the wrong move!


Brian
said

It may sound simple but charities raise millions and billions of dollars, so why not have these 61% you profess to be fine with higher prices, to donate to the clean air cause.
.
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

Well then, I guess if this poll is to be believed, then 61% of the electorate will be voting for Stephane Dion and his Liberal Green Shift policy in the next election. That should equate to a landslide victory and an immediate reduction in green house gases in Canada. Yes? No?


thinker
said

Nobody asked me!I say NO to high prices for food,gas or any other consumer goods.I guess in a nutshell we keep it at what it is now just offer incentives for people recycle.For instance Quebec has had a deposit on pop cans and plastic pop bottles for years.Another option is to charge consumers the current rate for hydro and nutural gas but offer a cash rebate if they use less.If all that fails we could always burn the environmentalists for heat!


Red X
said

Gary & Linda, the World is waiting for a U$ president likely Obama who recognizes something has to be done about pollution and the environment.

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

Gary says:

"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

Why is it that the maritimes never seem to get polled. I think that people here are tired of polls that seem to reflect populace areas rather than main stream Canadians. We live in a very urban environemnt with little public transport. I don't see how carbon taxes and increases at the gas pumps are going to make our lives any easier or better.Give us a break. The doomsayers never come up with solutions to the problems. Just tax, tax ,tax.


Melanie
said

Finger pointing and blaming Harper is a bit of a stretch.McGuinty has been saying he was going to shut down coal fired generators in Ontario.That seems like a good idea.So,why hasn't he done it?? I expect he knows it will be extremely difficult to do,or afford.
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

One of the best ways to reduce greenhouse gases is through reducing unnecessary automobile-based trips by forcing densification. This does not entail tax increases which often entail negative equity and efficiency implications. Why do we as a society believe that taxation is a panacea for all our problems?? Densification makes transit investment more viable (cost-effective) and entails health benefits as it encourages walking and biking as communities become more compact.


Dane
said

"The survey indicates many Canadians profess to want environmental actions that push the country toward greener, alternative sources of energy -- regardless of cost."

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

Those statements are nebulous to say the least. You can't possibly draw any serious conclusions from those results. The fact of the matter is that both statements are more about dealing with the price of gas that dealing with the environment. If you want to find out if Canadians would be willing to pay through the nose for the basics in order to please the global warming othodoxy, ask them directly: "Are you willing to see your cost of living go up dramatically in order to allow Canada to meet it's Kyoto targets? Yes or No" I suspect that the results would be a resounding NO.


Here come the itax man
said

for years we have been warned we must change our habits and go on an energy consumption diet. Few of us did, now taxes are being implemented to "encourage" us to go on the diet.

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 said: "I dont understand our politicians..isnt this a democracy ???.."

Gary, Gary, Gary...Harper is the DECIDER, or haven't you been paying attention to Bush?


Heinz
said

There is a shroud of lies and deceit around climate change or world warming. We need politicians who are able to disect the reports and not listen to the enviro alarmists who would have us shut down industry and live in caves. If this goes on countries like China and India who have very little enviromental controls will eat our lunch.


Share with your social Network:

 

Advertisement

Contest

User Tools

About the tools

Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.

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.

Share this article with Facebook

Share this article with Digg

Share this article with Newsvine

Share this article with delicious

Share this article.
Send Email

Share this article with Twitter

Share this article with StumbleUpon

Share this article with Reddit

Share this article with Yahoo! Buzz