News Sections
Climate change still a concern despite economy: poll
Font-size:
Share
Print
Comments(39)
CTV.ca News Staff
Date: Wednesday Nov. 26, 2008 8:02 AM ET
Despite the ongoing global financial crisis, a new poll of 11 countries, including Canada, shows nearly half are still more worried about climate change.
The Climate Confidence Monitor 2008, which surveyed 12,000 people around the world, found 43 per cent of respondents chose climate change ahead of global economic stability when asked about their top three concerns.
Worldwide, 48 per cent of people believe governments should be playing a leading role in tackling climate change but only 25 per cent think they are actually doing so.
"Without greater government leadership, people's individual engagement with the issue is stalling: willingness to make further changes to lifestyles, contribute more time and spend extra money are all down compared to 2007," says the report.
Researchers found the global community wants its governments to focus on "big issue" direct actions, such as increasing investment in renewable energy, halting deforestation, conserving water resources and protecting ecosystems.
The indirect activities that many governments are focusing on, such as carbon markets and taxation systems, are seen by consumers as less of a priority, says the report.
The vast majority of people, 78 per cent, want their countries to take on at least their "fair share" of emissions reductions, in proportion to their current share of global emissions.
"This sense of sharing responsibility for reductions suggests a different picture to that being played out in international negotiations," says the report.
Noteworthy numbers:
- In Canada, 34 per cent of respondents said climate change and how governments respond to it are among the biggest issues they worry about.
- Only 6 per cent of Canadians, compared to 55 per cent in China, said the people and organizations that should be doing something about climate change are doing what is needed.
- Twenty-nine per cent of Canadians said they are personally making a "significant effort" to help reduce climate change in their daily living.
- Nine per cent said they believed climate change will be stopped, compared to 47 per cent in China and 12 per cent in the U.S.
"Despite clear concern about climate change and a demonstrably fair attitude to national emission reductions, the picture that has emerged from this year's Climate Confidence Monitor is one of consumers stalling in their own efforts and not appreciating those of their governments," says the report.
"Governments and companies have a greater role to play both in creating low-carbon opportunities and in helping consumers better understand the options and implications."
The survey -- which included research in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the U.K. and U.S.A., Brazil, China, the Hong Kong SAR, India, Malaysia and Mexico -- was done on behalf of the HSBC Climate Partnership, which includes environmental groups and business.
User Tools
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(39)-
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
Concerned
said
Scene
said
Tom in Calgary
said
Surveyed in China? And quietly in the main body "34%" of Candians. If you ask me the word is finally getting out in free nationa that the astronomical community ( Maunder minimums/little ice ages, solar activity data as in real DATA ) are right and the CO2 "modellers" ( 100 year from now weather forecsts )are wrong.
New World
said
B.
said
Keep your coins, I want change
said
Use public investment in green infrastructure as a means to foster a domestic green energy industry. No sweet heart deals to crumbling domestic auto empires.
Instead, provide funding assistance for the growth of the current industry as an immediate plan, while also providing more long term research funding as part of a more broad strategy for the manufacturing sector.
No hand outs, but real support for real solutions. Like the individual carbon extraction units developed in Alberta, etc.
Without a long term vision, and more importantly resources to back up that vision, Canada will continue to be a major emmitter and bystandard in the global shift toward sustainable economics.
Why be held hostage to the private sector for jobs and growth? Public investment without corporate welfare or government waste. Is it possible?
Come on now enviroteam - be honest
said
Tom in Calgary
said
Gas engines and Diesels are 1000s of times cleaner than they were 40 years ago. Thats in terms of NOX which is really what the clean air debate needs to be about! Further, Alberta leads the nation in wind power, it was originated in the Pincher Creek area 20 years ago.
And as was just noted by Stascan last week, Alberta PRIVATE Oil Companies spent more real cash on atual capital cost emissions technology equipment 2.8$BN than our coal fired, smog ridden friends in Ontario did. Thats 3x as many polluters by population in Ontario and you hypocrites and your private sector only spent 827Million. I respectfully ask you clean up your own mess, before telling us to clean up ours.
Reece
said
Dr. T.B.
said
What is troubling is how so many unthinking people have drunk the Kool Aid and joined the Global Warming cult without doing any homework on their own.
We are experiencing a cooling trend not a warming trend and it isn't man made it is normal cyclical occurances.
Al
said
You have got to be kidding
said
Edb
said
me from here
said
Tom in Calgary
said
According to the New York Times, the last time the north pole was awash in water was 50 million years ago. We all know the Times take on things. Another big city newspapaer that knows better than us country hicks.
Fast forward to 1959 and the USS Skate surfaces thru open water at the north pole. Photos readily availble. Then lets go to 1987 and the USS's Superb, Blowfish and Sea Devil rendezvous in open water at the north pole.
But if last year was the first year... hey those pictures from those eras must be AGW proganda, cleverly preplanted before there even was a global warming crisis. Or could the Enviro doomers be mistaken on ice caps?
Its the sun guys. Its a star and any astronomer or astrophysist ( even those who agree with global warming by CO2 ) will concede no star is stable short or long term. The signal to noise ratio from the CO2 "Modellers " crowd is terrible. The signal to noise ratio measuring and monitoring the sun is awesome.
Professor M.
said
There was a brief period of cooling in the '70's because of particles in the atmosphere caused by pollution, but that minor glitch has given way to hundreds of studies done by scientists worldwide that show a warming, not cooling trend. That trend can be traced back to the industrial revolution, and correlates almost perfectly with increasing CO2, with the rise in CO2 leading the warming trend. Actually, this was predicted by Arhenius in 1880, so the claim that no one could predict the trends 100 years ago is in fact wrong.
Would you please tell us which scientific studies you are quoting, who wrote them, and who sponsored them? As far as I know, such claims are supported by large oil companies, and even they are now retreating from those assertions as the evidence has become overwhelming.
Nor can this be explained by mysterious "cycles". The only cycles we know of that affect climate occur on time lines of thousands of years, not decades. There is one case of rapid cooling during the present trend towards warmer climates, but even that took thousands of years, not tens of years.
So what source do you have for these claims? Please name the journals or papers you are referring to.
James in Edmonton
said
Those who question it, however, are afraid to speak up because of how politically charged the issue has become.
No Nose Ring
said
Wayne F
said
Yes, green house gasses rose and fell in the past, but the earth could respond to correct it. It could grow larger rainforests, and other vegetation as the climate changed and could effectively reduce CO2.
But now, the earth can't do this. There are 6+ billion humans on the earth that are forcing the rainforests and vegetation to shrink instead - all while burning fossil fuels to compound the problem.
Earth's response will not be the same. But rest assured, it will respond and in the end, the earth will still be here - but it may not be as hospitable as it is now.
I'm no environmentalist and no scientist, but I can apply some basic logic. I can also see that more than one factor can be at play at the same time. It may be true that astronomical events are affecting our climate, but that does not mean that man-made climate change is not happening. It is not either-or.
The best we can do is to look at the costs of being wrong. I think that the cost of being wrong in the do-nothing scenario are much higher than putting a serious effort into reducing our green house gas emissions.
Besides, are we that arrogant as to think that we can use up all of the earth's natural resources and leave nothing for the next generation to use? Doesn't seem right to me.
Sask Man
said
It is scary when people have taken on such a love for Mother Earth that they loose sight of what is important in this country. Enviromental stewardship is important however, we need to get through the next couple years of economical challenges. Our tax money needs to go toward people first.
Keep our citizens fed and watered.
Wayne Whig, Ottawa
said
But there are too many vested interests - like Al Gore's millions invested in this, as well as energy companies' determination to restrict the supply of hydrocarbons and thereby give them skyrocketing profits, not to mention the climate scientist are thier millions, in fact billions in grants to `investigate' a non-phenomenon - to do anything like that.
Of course, it is the global-warming realists (ie. `sceptics' and `deniers') who are accusing of `putting profit before the planet.'
No doubt, some projection going on.
re: global warming not man made
said
Look at the pure science before you jump, Chumps
said
Clarke
said
However, I do think we need to be more environmentally aware and move to renewable cleaner energy. Pumping all those emmissions into the air can't be good no matter if you believe in climate change or not.
AndyL
said
Now how many of you ..have become vegeterians?
Just a though while I am sipping coffee from my styrofoam cup.
Professor M.
said
Last year was another record breaking year for open water at the Pole. That doesn't mean that the trend hasn't been around for a while. Those subs were only able to surface at the Pole because the ice sheet was thinning due to climate change. No one is suppressing the pictures- in fact, if you'd seen Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, you'd know he discusses this in his documentary.
Nor are scientists making "billions" in grants on this. By and large they are just doing normal science, and it's leading them to the overwhelming conclusion that there's a problem, and that we're causing it. Trust me, if any scientist could show that global warming wasn't occurring, he/she would get a Nobel prize. But all of the data leads to only one conclusion. Global warming is real,and we're a leading cause.
Tom in Calgary
said
First put a call into the DRAO in Penticton. There are folks there who will explain short term solar changes on the order of 11 to 14 years. Not "1000s of years" as you seem to believe. Then just google Maunder minimum. Have fun explaining your position afterwards.
All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
The ice caps having been shrinking and expanding short term and observed to do so by europeans for 100s of years back to the Vikings settling greenland when it was much warmer than it is today.
Gail (Hamilton)
said
The case for global cooling
said
Dr. Timothy Ball.
Commoner
said
David in Toronto
said
Why don't we concentrate on reducing real pollutants instead?
Professor M.
said
So I looked into it, as you suggested.
Solar output changes in an 11 year cycle due to sunspots- but that doesn't explain the rise in earth's temperature since 1880. According to the Telegraph (U.K.) the recent drop in global temperature is due to La Nina activity, and is masking the overall impact of climate change, which they claim is .4 degrees worldwide. The Maunder Minimum took place between 1645 and 1715, and although it has implications for the sun's impact on terrestrial conditions, it has no bearing on the question of whether greenhouse gases are currently influencing climate change.
Sorry, but the facts still don't support your claims.
John E
said
lashbera
said
Nanook
said
Thirty years ago I was tickled pink when scientists claimed we're in for a new ice age. I was happy at the time, because then I could use my snowmobile sooner and longer, and our skating rink still had natural ice, so hockey season would start sooner, too!!!
What the hell happened??? Why the change in policy???
Leo
said
Unlike the Harper government he speaks the truth...
...
AndyL
said
Talk about double standards.
Munro - Brampton
said
Alex (Toronto)
said
Alberta may spend more on certain kinds of environmental remediation because its tar sands industry does a lot more damage. If you put minivan brakes on an 18-wheeler, it's still going to stop a lot slower than a compact car with compact car brakes. Ontario had to delay closing the coal plants after the 2003 power failure, but a lot of people in Ontario are not happy that so little progress has been made since. Fossil-fuel power, whether from coal or oil, can't be cleaned of carbon dioxide. We need to replace the coal plants, not improve them. We need wind turbines in Lake Ontario.
We know that atmospheric temperature has risen more than ten times more quickly over the past half-century than anything that has been observed in the natural heating and cooling cycle over the past half-million years. We know the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today is also higher than anything that has occurred over the half-million years. There is a short-term effect where global warming releases water vapor that becomes snow that increases land-based ice (Greenland, Antarctica) for a while, but we also know that is a short term effect; ultimately the land-based ice will also melt, and that's when we'll see the oceans rise.
When Jean Charest was the Conservative minister for the environment, Conservatives were credible leaders on environmental issues. Soon Canada will not be able to hide behind George Bush to cover our failure to act.