UPDATE: Related, a Pew Poll says fewer respondents also see global warming as a very serious problem; 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008.
From a press release by the Harris Poll sponsored by the Financial Times
Fewer Americans than people in 5 largest European countries give “green” responses in 6-nation Financial Times/Harris Poll on climate change
New York, NY — October 22, 2009 — A new Financial Times/Harris Poll in the United States and the five largest European countries finds that Americans under 65 are less likely than Europeans to see climate change as a major threat, to see the need for a new international agreement on climate change as a top priority or to favor increased aid to developing countries to help them deal with climate change. However, most people in all six countries agree, when asked, that signing a new treaty on climate change should be one of our top priorities.
These are some of the findings of a Financial Times/Harris Poll conducted online by Harris Interactive among 6,463 adults aged less than 65 in France, Germany, Britain, Spain, Italy and the United States between September 30 and October 7, 2009.
While there are a few exceptions, smaller proportions of Americans than of Europeans under 65 seem to be worried about climate change or to support policies to address it.
For example:
• While large majorities of people over 65 in all six countries see climate change as posing a threat to the world, fewer Americans (27%), than people in Britain (31%), France (46%), Italy (49%) or Spain (35%) see it as a “large threat.”
• In Europe, between 60% (in Britain) and 89% (in Italy) believe that, when governments meet in Copenhagen, “signing a new treaty . . . on climate change” should be one of the top priorities. In the United States, a lower 53% feel this way.
• Majorities of working people in France (67%), Spain (67%), and Italy (57%) believe that their employers “should be doing more” to “reduce their environmental impact.” Slightly less than half of workers in the United States (45%), Britain (44%) and Germany (48%) feel this way.
• Not many people under 65 in any of the six countries say they would be willing to pay more taxes to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and on this question the United States (21%) is in the middle of the pack, below Spain (29%), and Italy (23%) but above Britain (16%) France (15%) and Germany (15%).
• Far fewer people under 65 in the United States (12%) and in Britain (12%) than in Spain (36%), France (30%), Italy (26%) and Germany (20%) would like the products they buy to have labels showing “the amount of carbon emitted in the course of their production.”
• Americans (20%) are also much less likely than the Italians (54%), Spaniards (53%), French (52%) or Germans (51%) to support additional aid to developing countries to help them deal with climate change. The British (31%) are somewhat closer to Americans on this issue.
• Majorities in all five European countries, 51% in Britain and more than 60% in France, Italy, Spain and Germany believe that the world will be in a worse position “if there is no agreement at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December.” In the United States, a lower 45% believe this.
There is one related issue, however, on which Americans are more likely to feel strongly. Fully 83% of Americans under 65 believe the United States needs to reduce oil and gas imports from other countries. Those who feel this way in the other five countries vary from 50% in France to 71% in Italy.
So what?
In the early days of the environmental movement, following the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, Americans were probably more concerned about the environment than people in most, possibly all, other countries. This poll shows that this is no longer the case. This is important because democratically elected governments are responsive to public opinion, even if they do not always do what majorities would like them to do.
Having said that, it is important to note that majorities, mostly large majorities, in all six countries including the United States, believe that signing a new climate change treaty should be “one of the top priorities.”
Note: The full questions asked can be seen here
Methodology
This FT/Harris Poll was conducted online by Harris Interactive among a total of 6,463 adults aged 16-64 within France (1,151), Germany (1,033), Great Britain (1,126), Spain (1,076) and the United States (1,017), and adults aged 18-64 in Italy (1,060) between September 30 and October 7, 2009. Figures for age, sex, education, region and Internet usage were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online.
All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments. Therefore, Harris Interactive avoids the words “margin of error” as they are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.
Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult populations of the respective countries. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.
These statements conform to the principles of disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls and of the British Polling Council.
Heh. The headline makes it sound like the poll question was, “What do you care more about – Climate Change, or Americans?
🙂
“Just the facts” (#1 commenter): the quote you copied,
“The number of Americans who believe there is solid evidence that the Earth is warming because of pollution is at its lowest point in three years.”
is interesting by itself because it is designed to create the impression that the steady decrease has bottomed out. Surely, no statements about the temperatures are being formulated to lead the readers believe that the temperatures have already peaked.
Well, I think that the decrease is pretty much guaranteed to continue for a few years, and when it gets below 20% in the U.S., the official AGW orthodoxy will became unsustainable at the level of politicians and research grants.
Justin Ert (08:41:47) :
Slightly OT…
And in the UK, the home of extreme climate politics and behavioural modification par-excellance, the Act on Co2 government propoganda machinery has lanuched another attack to labotomize the public perception:
http://www.actoncopenhagen.decc.gov.uk/content/en/embeds/flash/4-degrees-large-map-final
The met office in its notes to this end of century (N.B.) temperature map admits that the model runs that produced the map provide them with a variety of results which they group into low, median, and high temperature regimes. They also admit that there is no basis for selecting one of these regimes over another.
I am not offering any prize for guessing which one they have chosen to display… oh, and you only get one guess.
@adolpho. Your comment about the European genes in South America parallel a line I frequently used while debating in the community centers (pubs) of East Anglia, to wit: “Everyone here with any get up and go got up and went two centuries ago, which means you are the produce of a depleted gene pool.”
I strongly advise that you wear running shoes and be keenly aware of the location of the nearest exit before uttering this remark.
Range is correct, but also not just in the Pavlovian response, like many media organisations, ours is simply a printing press for marketing organisations. As we discovered during the parliamentary expenses corruption scandal, “journalists” mooch about, printing whatever the spin doctors ask of them, in return for special access, interviews and so on. Environment correspondents are even worse, often not having a scientific background. No questioning goes on, in fact I doubt the correspondent even reads the journal; having the scoop on Doomsday is everything and environmental campaigners are all too willing to provide the copy. There have been some truly idiotic articles published in the press about “climate change”, many of which I would be too embarrassed to associate myself with.
That’s why when I heard Richard Lindzen (in reply to a question as to where sceptics can find resources to counter the propaganda online) say effectively that to counter the propaganda you have to become a Climate Scientist (reading a lot), my heart sank. The issue here isn’t one of science, it’s one of marketing. Us sceptics are a disparate bunch and we don’t really have any articulate, charismatic pin-ups out there getting our point of view across in the media. We need to offer up scary frightening stories showing what may happen if the Environmentalists succeed in rolling back the industrial revolution (which surely must be their intention, as it was Konrad Lorenz’s attack on Technocracy that was one of the things starting the whole green movement off in the first place). The Environmentalists are very good at all of this and that is why if and when scientists such as Lindzen kill off this particular scare with Science alone, the next scare won’t be too far behind.
When I see an old, crusty scientist, who’s point of view may be right, against a young, bright-eyed and assertive enviro-marketing wiz, in TV debates (on Newsnight for example), I’m struck by how ineffective the counter-position is in articulating its view.
@ur momisugly Range (09:07:44) :
I am from the Netherlands, Europe, and I think you’re right. I have got the same impression. I think the European written, traditional press generally wants to be “correct”, and in the meantime forgets investigation journalism.
A lot of people over here do regard the written, traditional press as an old fashioned institute, called “dead tree” news.
The general opinion is that in the next decade very few “dead tree” newspapers shall survive, which means that people will gather their information from the internet. This is going to be a very fascinating time!
I agree, the media is a big part of it.
Here in the USA, network news, most sympathetic to AGW, is watched by an declining and aging demographic. Older folks also tend to get their news from traditional newspapers versus online. This probably accounts for much of the difference with older voters.
As for Great Britain, the BBC has lost all sense of objectivity on this and they are a very strong force. They have no Rush and they have no FNC.
The last few elections we had a choice between a Democrat who accepted AGW as fact and a Republican who accepted AGW as a fact. No wonder people’s views on AGW are not reflected in elections. Reagan was the only one who simply mocked the very idea of AGW with a very ahead of his time joke that cow farts were more influential than industry.
That said, it could be that the election of fanatics is the one thing that will save the USA, but not Europe, from the passage of any real legislation at all. Draconian measures are more likely to fail than a series of half measures put in place by wimpy conservatives. The only thing that has allowed the election of a fanatic is the Republican slide away from conservatism.
Sarah Palin qualifies as a conservative. One problem though: her understanding of science is so poor that she made fun of medical research based on the most important organism of all time, the fruit fly!
Put simply, in the UK people in general, but children in particularly, are being brainwashed with the pro-AGW message through all components of the media, but especially television. In addition, our education system has been dumbed down and no longer puts a premium on the teaching of mathematics. Unsurprisingly therefore, science and engineering talent has fallen by the wayside.
To understand the arguments of the AGW problem one needs to be able to analyse and to be aware of the need for independent and rigorous testing of cause and effect; i.e. the scientific method. So, as we are no longer encouraging enquiring minds when people are asked to respond to such a poll, sadly, the brainwashed message is what you get.
OT: RealClimate Dr Michael Mann is sinking to new lows by advertising the racist, delationist garbage of Hoggan and Desmogblog! And what is so funny is that in true team spirit, he choses Bob Gelbspan’s comment about the Hoggan book to confirm his own review… No doubt a fixture of Desmogblog like Gelbspan will offer an independant, unbiased account… just like team reviewers of Mikey’s papers… LOL
The 5th bullet should start “Far fewer people under 65” (not 65%).
[Fixed, thanks. ~dbs, mod.]
“Lex (09:27:14) :
The general opinion is that in the next decade very few “dead tree” newspapers shall survive, which means that people will gather their information from the internet. This is going to be a very fascinating time!”
Could the death nell of traditional news media be a partial reason for such a massive push to get government control of everyones lives? Once the MSM disappears how will governments manage to create orchestrated stories of doom and gloom and of the necessity of controlling everything?
Richard deSousa (09:06:28) :
I feel sorry for the Europeans… they’re being taxed to death and now they want more taxes heaped on them… of course if they can some how wrangle a deal to have the USA pay for global warming instead of the Europeans, they will approve.
Maybe we’d regard it as payback for having to buy all those houses for your loan defaulters.
I don’t think much of these polls. Phone a random stranger and they will answer any question without more than 5 seconds thought. People who vote have to care enough about an issue to be registered and actually cast a ballot. That is a completely different set of people, in both Europe and the USA, and they count. These folks who were polled don’t.
The Harris and Pew polls confirm that AGW is more a political issue than a scientific one. However, improving a person’s understanding of the science might be easier than changing the person’s politics. Time and the probabilities of climate should be allies in this effort.
BernardP (08:45:13) : “(in Europe) there generally is more control of the media by the State.”
Not if Obama has his way. The decimation of unbiased US news outlets has already begun with his assault on Fox News. How is this not evidence of totalitarian intent?
interesting piece here. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-10/uota-wai101909.php
It is possible that Americans pay more attention to weather and climate than Europeans, and so are less likely to believe exaggeration. The Weather Bureau dates back to colonial times, iirc. It’s hard to imagine the weather channel having started in europe – it’s just not such a big deal there.
Perhaps the numbers in some of the other questions are skewed because the questions ask about change relative to current policies. Many Europeans are already spending much more than the U.S. on climate change, for instance, so asking people there and here if their government should spend more is comparing apples to oranges.
On the subject of foreign aid, here in the U.S. we still have a strong sense of “Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute”. Third world climate extortion is a non-starter here.
Kevin (09:19:56) :
Heh. The headline makes it sound like the poll question was, “What do you care more about – Climate Change, or Americans?
You must be English. There is another question in the poll, “Which one, if any, of the following countries do you think is the greatest threat to global stability?”
Our close friends, the Brits, responded that the U.S. was the second biggest threat following Iran, but a larger threat than N. Korea, China, Iraq and Russia.
Thanks for the support.
I have a slightly different view than Pielke’s interpretation of this Pew polling data, but I certainly appreciate his tabulation of the results, including changes since 2006.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/10/public-opinion-realities.html
Independents swing national elections, and the Obama administration ought to pay attention. Independents showed greater declines in the belief of human caused global warming since 2006 than either Republicans or Democrats.
Independents dropped 21% (from 54% to 33%)
Republicans dropped 13% (31% to 18%)
Democrats dropped 7% (57% to 50%)
Only one-third of Independents now believe in human-caused global warming, and that belief declined even for Democrats.
You can reduce consumption of fossil fuels in two ways . First by direct intervention of goverments , ie legislation for smaller cars , insulation for houses, direct rationing of fuel – or secondly push the price up with carbon taxes on electricity and petrol or cap and trade systems. Cap and trade has the same effect as carbon taxes ie energy gets more expensive . More expensive energy makes people use less. The essence of the copenhagen meeting is to impose a cap and trade on western nations. Therefore the above survey shows that many people do not understand the essence of signing at Copenhagen . That is – much higher energy costs.
So there’s your demographic! Grauniad & Times group readers.
DaveE.
I don’t think it’s sound to base your opinion of how Americans feel about the environment on one poll relating to the a single subject. That (in my opinion) is a bit narrow-minded.
The fact is that America has some of the strongest and most complex environmental laws of any country in the world from the federal level down to the State and on to the local communities. Take it from me, an Environmental Scientist who spends my time doing environmental permitting for a variety of industries.
This is definitely a political issue.
I have a nephew that used to work in New York, but following the 911 attack decided to move to Europe to work (his office was in WTC north tower and all his co-workers were killed). He ended up working in Switzerland, and in a letter to me, he noted a totally different mind set in the Swiss than in Americans that was something of a shock to him.
He told me that, the Swiss tended to assume things were not allowed unless told otherwise, and Americans assumed actions were allowed unless told otherwise. The consequence of that mind set, was that they looked for official confirmation that behaviors were “ok” and tended not to step out of line and find new and different ways of doing things. They were much more comfortable following long established procedure rather than trying to improve an old process.
In that sort of world view, incessant propaganda is probably more effective than here in America. We tend to be suspicious of any authority that is “trying too hard” to get us to do something, I call it the used car salesman response. The best way to get a lot of people in America to look behind the curtain, or set off alarm bells is if they decide they are getting pushed into taking an action, like the used car salesman that tells them they have to sign right now as he has another customer who wants the car. This is why folks are getting so upset about the rapid fire passage of some recent major legislation like Cap and Trade. That full court press legislative agenda my very well prove to be the straw that broke the camels back.
If my nephew asked his co-workers why they did something the way they did when they could improve things by doing it a different way, their immediate response was to suspect that that change would violate some regulation. Rather than investigate if it was legal, or take the initiative, they would stick with tried and true methods.
In America you are more likely to find someone who believes in the old military axiom — “it is easier to get forgiveness than to get permission” and take the risk of doing something new that they believe will get the job done rather than get lost in the bureaucracy trying to get permission to try it.
General Patton depended on that sort of attitude, he would tell his junior commanders to give orders that demanded an end result, not a method, as they would be surprised at how ingenious they would be to get the job done.
Larry
tallbloke (09:49:09)
Very scientific remark. Don’t forget to mention the housing market in Spain, the Baltic republics, the UK and Ireland, the Netherlands. Who is defaulting, you say?