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.
I don’t know if this was a good idea, but I just went to harrispollonline.com and registered to be polled in the future.
Perhaps we can influence public opinion by expressing opinion. (Foolish but true, I’m afraid.)
Myron Mesecke (09:48:38): “Once the MSM disappears how will governments manage to create orchestrated stories of doom and gloom and of the necessity of controlling everything?”
The U.S. government is already hedging their bets by creating a program that will require private sector computers and systems connecting to the Internet to be operated by a government certified licensee whom I presume answers to the government’s whim or is out of a job. This is only the first step:
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2009/September/New-Bill-Could-Give-Government-Control-of-Internet/
As the modern solar maxima comes to a close, and the snow piles higher, the ice gets thicker, the number of people who believes man causes global warming sinks to 36%. NOTE: The word “believes”, as in religion.
This is going to be a hard winter for the hoaxers.
When Governments cease to listen to the voice of their people, freedom is at risk.
Yesterday, the European Union has agreed on a Climate package to be offered at the Copenhagen Climate Meeting.
The package contains:
80 to 95% reduction of CO2 Emissions by 2050 based on 1990 levels.
An unknown financial contribution (at least 15 billion Euro per year) to prevent the Developing World from “developing”.
So, no mater what the poles state, the economic suicide of the EU has become a fact.
The other fact that the Copenhagen Treaty will include the establishment of a Totalitarian World Government is kept under the table.
The draconian measures necessary to enforce the legal aspects of this treaty will result in a suppressive regime which at best can be described as “Communism on Steroids.
Because the true objective of the UN and it’s collaborators is aimed at the reduction of the world population to 1 billion inhabitants, they have to eliminate the moral and legal conscience of humanity, which an integral part of the “Free World”.
Otherwise they risk prosecution for genocide.
As soon as the Free World will cease to exist we will experience a policy that combines intense propaganda with a slow removal of our rights and the introduction of individual carbon credits. After some time this controlled process will collapse after which we will find ourselves back in a “slaughterhouse”.
We will see severe disruptions in our food chains (because starvation will be the preferred tool of population reduction) and violent confrontations between law enforcement and civilians.
You can read about the entire scenario at http://green-agenda.com
A more detailed view about what’s currently happening in the USA can be found here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/us_sovereignty_and_the_climate.html
I could care less either way…..
Well people see the cold weather stories and they’re like, is AGW really happening or is it just the alarmists?
Considering that, the oceans are still in heat release mode and El Modoki’s strengthening a bit which Tallbloke himself said was kicked on or caused by this longer period of inactivity by the Sun, the Europeans who don’t read this blog might not know that though and just see warm oceans.
For those that responded in favour of reaching an agreement in Copenhagen, but against paying extra tax to curb emissions, I wonder if they realise the contradiction in their position. Perhaps they believe that for a “postage stamp a day” civilization can painlessly decarbonise.
They will be in for a rude awakening if they get their wish. As Obama has said, elections have consequences, and so too do binding treaties.
As someone on the North side of age 65, I am curious about the exclusion of those older than age 65 in the poll results. As far as I know, individuals over age 65 still vote, still pay taxes, still consume, and will mostly still be around for quite a few years yet. I can understand why certain groups would want to exclude them based on recent election demographics however.
Despite what the ever fair media would have you believe, Americans aren’t dumb enough to fall for ignorant socialist mitigation strategies.
Just a point about a new person on the block that is a skeptic. That is Steven Levitt. He is young and brilliant and a great thinker. I’m sure you heard that his new book superfreakonomics has stirred up a hornets nest in the “progressive” world after having been a darling. His credentials are: MIT PHD in economics, a full professor at the U of Chicaog after two years, one as assistant, second as Associate with tenure and Full on year three. He received the John Bates Clark award for oustanding economist under 40 and is line to get a Nobel prize at the rate he is going (now 43). He is in line at U of C to be the heir to Milton Friedman.
In his book he says things like “C02 increases follows warming, the models are simplisitic, warming in the 70’s 80 was partially a result of particulate reduction — quotes approvingly of Myrvold who says AGW is not believable and another scientist who says it is water vapor that is the thing we have to look at and we have very little measurement tools today to do so ” Levitt is attempting to bring rationalisty into the debate.
Levitt and his co-author are being attached by everyone in the AGW camp. And you can see their fright.
The writing is really on the wall now!
http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming
The number of “prominent” scientistr dissenting will now skyrocket just watch by the end of 2010 AGW will certainly be a dead duck LOL
I don’t know why so much faith is put in polls, the respondant base is far too small to be representative of a countries population and weighted towards those with a predisposition to while their evenings away by filling in these forms.
To have taken part in the poll you would have to be already registered as a member with Harris and have these questionaires emailed to you on a regular basis.
The random selection of respondants is limited to those already registered with Harris who could be bothered to reply.
Interesting though that the majority of Americans believe that, when governments meet in Copenhagen, “signing a new treaty . . . on climate change” should be one of the top priorities.
Hhhmmm I would not validate this personally.
If the US signs up to the new world government, I am sure they will fulfill their duties with enthusiasm.
Can you see Obama launching cruise missiles at the coal fired power stations of countries that fail to meet their emissions targets?
It helps to have some facts. Anthony the link to “press release” doesn’t work for me.
However, Monday’s FT contains an article headed: “Public backing for deep CO2 cuts from China”. The article contains two of the questions asked in the Harris/FT poll, both of which are designed to lead to an “agree” answer.
The first was: “Do you agree that, since China is the biggest carbon emitter, it should cut its emissions the most.” Between 60% and 80% of respondents US, UK, France, Germany, Spain and Italy agreed!
Now, if the question had pointed out that China has vastly lower carbon emissions per capita than the developed world and was moreover the workshop of the world, I suggest the answer would have been totally different. The reported answer certainly does not justify the headline.
This is extremely disappointing from a heavy newspaper with a reputation to protect.
Regards
S
If the US signs up to the new world government, I am sure they will fulfill their duties with enthusiasm.
Can you just see Obama destroying those power stations of countries that fail to meet their emissions targets?
Kitzbuhel ski resort just had their earliest opening ever, the second year in a row.
From skiinfo:
“Kitzbuhel is often referred to as a ski area likely to suffer froim global warming but it has produced figures showing snowfall averages have not declined and it keeps opening earlier each winter season”
http://www.skiinfo.com/news/detail.jsp?product.skiinfo.DESTID=EATXKITXBUHEL&aic=171622
Well, stupidity cuts both ways. Too bad we have a mal-educated populace but a few years of especially cold weather should do the trick even if it is “only weather.”
It is true that European newspapers are just a collection of stupidities whenever it concerns the climate. And what is worse: These articles are usually written by just one person, a journalist with the initials AP. He must be the dumbest European of them all.
I have been a long time lurker on this site and would like to applaud it and all its good works.
One aspect of the disparity between the US percentages and the European percentages is not mentioned here. Although the old media and BBC etc are almost all pro-AGW, what is not often realised is that the official government brainwashing starts in primary school. There has been at least a decade of this, possibly more. It starts early, it is part of the ‘science’ curricula, you would be marked down for an opposing position in an essay, and critical thinking has been more-or-less expunged. ‘Climatology’ in Geography is more about pictures of polar bears rather than saturated or dry adiabatic lapse rates, relative humidity or dew-points. I know my kids got marked down, but they are out of the school system now and in a freer environment in University science departments. I would hate to bring up young children in the ‘young communist’ or ‘hitler youth’ style of naked propaganda of today’s school system. Teachers are equally brainwashed and are drawn from a segment of population usually referred to as ‘Guardian Readers’.
I am sure you are all now depressingly familiar with the recent government sponsored advert on TV which was pure propaganda.
Keep up the good work.
Many Americans still have an independent spirit. Many Europeans are caught up in group think, where not at least implicitly endorsing the perceived majority opinion is frowned upon. This same attitude is prevalent in American schools and mass media as well.
Me, I’m from Missouri, so you have to “show me.”
I bet if you polled all those earning less that any given salary, they will all ‘feel’ they should have more money. I know I do.
So, when a picture is painted that poor innocent polar bears are dying, glaciers are melting (that’s a bad thing, right?), and sea levels are going to flood our coast, I’m sure most people will ‘feel’ those are not good things, and ‘feel’ that something should be done about it.
Such people are ripe prey: invariably, such people are told that their feelings are natural, understandable and not their fault.
I had an idea for a ‘reality’ show:
A petition is circulated asking what people would do to possibly save a polar bear. The sacrifice would be to have their house buldozed, lose their job and all their savings (and have their retirement savings put into a government bond. heh.). All hypothetical, of course. The mark signs up to ‘potentially save’ the polar bear.
Then, they come home, just in time to see the buldozers lined up on their front door. It’s explained that this polar bear (Picture of said polar bear given to home owner) will be saved by their generous sacrifice.
Lawyers are on hand to allow them to conveniently sign over their bank accounts to the Polar bear in question (They named him Simon, by the way. He’s very grateful). Their reduction in dangerous poison will greatly help Simon and his kin, while the funds will be used to offset their past indiscretions. The ‘mark’ can now live their life guilt free.
Of course, the lawyers can adjust the contract to have their neighbors house buldozed instead; if they just sign here…and here. The neighbor (in on this setup) comes home to see their home being flattened; everyone points to the ‘mark’ as the cause.
I wonder how they ‘feel’ about global warming now. Since ‘feeling’ is the only thing that counts.
John Galt (11:55:12)
So, in such a spirit, the common sense people of the whole world sincerely hope to watch you americans solve this crazy problem, ” a la Far West” best style.
Good luck!
If you want to be really worried about the state of science in the UK have a look at http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx – courtesy David in tips.
They conducted an online poll. Extremists swamped the poll skewing the results which do not reflect true public opinion.
Adam from Kansas (11:10:07) :
“Well people see the cold weather stories and they’re like, is AGW really happening or is it just the alarmists?
Considering that, the oceans are still in heat release mode and El Modoki’s strengthening a bit which Tallbloke himself said was kicked on or caused by this longer period of inactivity by the Sun, the Europeans who don’t read this blog might not know that though and just see warm oceans”.
You are wrong Adam,
I am sure Anthony can provide you with detailed figures but I think that 40 maybe even 50% of the visitors here are situated outside the USA.