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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A tad late getting to this one.
Am I reading this right? A poll of 6,500 people across Europe & USA, is undertaken to draw certain conclusions about climate change & how it will affect those countries & the people in them. Let’s see now. 6,500 people, in round figures, representing around 650 million people, works out at around 1/100,000th of the population of those countires sampled to draw conclusions from. Seems reasonable. (Sarc). What are the odds of getting a random sampling, against those of getting a group of AGWwers of varying degrees of belief, considering the liklihood of those under 25 or even 30 would be pro AGW due to their education, backgrounds, environment, (no pun intended) political beliefs, government’s political alignment, & propaganda machine namely the EU? With my humble engineer’s brain I suggest that this survey is meaningless dribble!
“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.”
[snip]
According to a recent YouGov survey the top priorities of people in the UK are: Immigration; the EU; the recession; crime; political corruption. Despite Labour’s and the MSM’s efforts to the contrary, the importance of AGW is a long way down the list.
Back2Bat (11:35:46) :
Too bad we have a mal-educated populace
Leif Svalgaard (14:11:40) :
It shows in the science illiteracy so vividly demonstrated on even this blog.
For some reason I find this exchange amusing. Perhaps using the broad brush of generalizations we could come up with the special law of relative stupidity.
This is the state where two participants collide and produce absolutely nothing.
maksimovich (23:53:53) :
But as Alven Toffler suggested the illiterate of the future will not be the ability to read and write,but the inability to learn.
The future is already here.
MartinGAtkins (05:10:20) :
This is the state where two participants collide and produce absolutely nothing.
Well, if one brings nothing to the table, not much will be produced… Except, perhaps, as you note, some free entertainment.
MartinGAtkins 05:10:20:
“….I find this exchange amusing….”
I don’t. Especially I find the protagonists ignoring ctm’s and AW’s entreaties to give it a rest pretty insufferable.
I don’t think it is the inability to learn that is at issue. It is the unwillingness to learn and accept hypotheses contrary to one’s emotional beliefs. The worst of it is when such folks cling to ideas that require faith in the place of hard data. Even if no other theory exists that can explain what is observed, clinging to one’s pet theory by relying on faith that it is correct, harkens back to the goddess in the cave era. Taken together, if one defines “smart” by the ability to expand knowledge into areas that violate once held beliefs, and accept them anyway, than I adhere to the statement that some posters here are not very smart.
Humans have come far in their scientific knowledge not because we cling to understanding that requires faith that it is true, but because people have dared say it is highly unbelievable and that there must be another answer. But is it safe to take such a position? People have lost their lives by expressing such views and acting on them. Even now? Even now in this day and age. Including children murdered or maimed by their own parents who disallow such behavior.
The fact that we do have so many people in America that don’t believe in evolution — as if science depends upon belief — just shows us how public education has failed in this country.
One problem is the atheists who insist evolution proves there is no God. Science is agnostic. People who attempt to use science to disprove religion are no different than those who insist science must be consistent with their religious beliefs or it is rejected.
India makes clear that they will not go along with any emissions cuts. At all:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/22/world/main5409165.shtml?tag=nl.e875
Pamela Gray (06:49:29) :
: I don’t think it is the inability to learn that is at issue. It is the unwillingness to learn and accept hypotheses contrary to one’s emotional beliefs. The worst of it is when such folks cling to ideas that require faith in the place of hard data. Even if no other theory exists that can explain what is observed, clinging to one’s pet theory by relying on faith that it is correct
But if the continuation of incorrect assumptions still allows one to publish in say ”science” is it not proper process to question the science (ontogentic/metabolic ratios) and when scrutinized the original authors admit the requisite measurements do not exist,and may ne decades away.
Science 4 September 2009:
Vol. 325. no. 5945, p. 1206
DOI: 10.1126/science.1171303
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Technical Comments
Comment on “Energy Uptake and Allocation During Ontogeny”
Anastassia M. Makarieva,1,2,* Victor G. Gorshkov,1,2 Bai-Lian Li2
We demonstrate that the model of energy allocation during ontogeny of Hou et al. (Reports, 31 October 2008, p. 736) fails to account for the observed elevation of metabolic rate in growing organisms compared with similarly sized adults of different species. The basic model assumptions of the three-quarter power scaling for resting metabolism and constancy of the mass-specific maintenance metabolism need to be reassessed.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/325/5945/1206-a
Both Makarieva et al. and Sousa et al. imply that models such as ours and Bertalanffy’s are flawed because the small number of variables and parameters do not include an explicit treatment of the chemistry of the diet and metabolic pathways. We emphatically disagree that more general models cannot “shed new light on the fundamentals of ontogenetic growth.” Two parameters in our model, f and Em, are difficult to assess quantitatively with data currently available. f, the “activity scope,” is discussed above. Em, the quantity of energy used to synthesize a quantity of biomass, is a fundamental biological parameter. We find it surprising that even today there are few data that can be used to estimate the value of Em, let alone to assess how it may vary with diet, type of tissue being synthesized, taxon of organism, and environmental conditions. Indeed, most of the data used to inspire and evaluate our models of growth and by Makarieva et al. in their critique come from studies conducted decades ago. Without models that call attention to fundamental features of biological energetics, additional decades likely will pass before biologists are motivated to make the relevant measurements.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/325/5945/1206-c
My 24 hours are up so I’ll deal with Pam’s question. Leif can wait.
“Are you “wishing” it were so, like hoping it will get cold, or do you have another data source that says something different than anything I have seen about the comparison between public and private schools?” Pam
Simple logic, Pam. Nothing under educational liberty would prevent a private school from emulating a government school. If that model proved to be the best then parents could send their kids there. So, worst case we end up with what we have now and I would have no basis for complaint.
Back2Bat (21:45:26) :
Faulty logic, Pam. Nothing under educational liberty would prevent a private school from emulating a government school. If that model proved to be the best then parents could send their kids there.
Some parents cannot afford a private school.
Back2Bat (21:45:26) :
Faulty logic, Pam. Nothing under educational liberty would prevent a private school from emulating a government school. If that model proved to be the best then parents could send their kids there.
Some parents cannot afford a private school.
Leif Svalgaard (00:09:54) :
…
Some parents cannot afford a private school.
I notice that the resources to provide every American child an expensive, government education is available so it is a matter of allocation and management of resources not lack of them.
Since parents are taxed directly and indirectly to pay for the expensive government school system, it is no wonder if they can’t pay for a private school in addition.
Back2Bat (06:35:41) :
Since parents are taxed directly and indirectly to pay for the expensive government school system, it is no wonder if they can’t pay for a private school in addition.
Pure nonsense. “If they can’t afford bread, let them eat cake then”. The people that cannot pay for schools don’t pay taxes either.
Leif Svalgaard (07:40:02) :
The people that cannot pay for schools don’t pay taxes either.
When the poor person buys a loaf of bread he pay the taxes on that bread. But let’s assume he is a net tax consumer. Any school I know of would be very willing to offer a scholarship to a talented but poor child. Those who now pay school taxes could instead donate to the school of their choice.
But I am not opposed to a basic, fall back, no-frills, reading, writing and arithmetic government solution. The safety net cannot be made too comfortable, however, because then it becomes a comfortable but expensive hammock.
Back2Bat (08:19:47) :
Those who now pay school taxes could instead donate to the school of their choice.
to madrases, perhaps. No, children have the right to an education free of their parents’ prejudices. Economics often makes it difficult to achieve this in practice, which is another matter.
Leif Svalgaard (08:34:17) :
No, children have the right to an education free of their parents’ prejudices.
But what about free from yours? Is it possible you are wrong? Will not truth prevail on a level playing field? Isn’t that what this blog is about?
Tony was right to ban me for a hint of violence. But in my defense, I was accused of being an ankle biter. I just went along with the metaphor and it probably is a true one in my case. But Achilles had his vulnerable heel, if you recall. Fencing is the metaphor, I like. Elegant, fast, subtle but with only puncture wounds that should heal.
En guard!
Leif,
Here is a link that supports my statement that Earth is the only planet with intelligent life.
http://www.reasons.org/probability-life-earth-apr-2004
I highly recommend Dr. Ross. I hope you and he might correspond. He is the genuine article in my opinion.
Back2Bat (09:24:05) :
“children have the right to an education free of their parents’ prejudices.”
But what about free from yours? Is it possible you are wrong?
Science is self-correcting and children should be taught that too. Religion on the other hand is absolute truths [am I wrong on this? – should children be told that the next version of the Quraan or whatever Holy Book you prefer will overthrow the current religious paradigm?]. It is an absolute, inerrant truth that 72 virgins are awaiting me in paradise [if I blow myself up]. I can hardly wait 🙂
Will not truth prevail on a level playing field?
No, that is utter nonsense. Truth will emerge from observation and experiments, regardless of the other players on the field and on how level it is. In fact, it should be as uneven as possible, providing the maximum number of obstacles and uphill slopes for inerrant truths to climb and falter on.
Isn’t that what this blog is about?
It is what this blog should be about if we could weed out the religious nonsense.
REPLY: You two guys are at it again. Don’t make me shut down the thread. Disagree and disengage. – Anthony
Really Tony, it is not like we are going at each with guns and knives. It’s your blog, however. You remind me of my mother, all she wants is peace and quite. Poor lady!
REPLY: things you don’t consider.
1) I have to (or another moderator) read each comment and decide if it violates policy. It’s a lot of extra work to moderate personal arguments
2) If not moderated, someone will seize on the comments and use them to discredit me such as “Watts endorses violence” Don’t say it won’t happen, because it has indeed happened before and I’ve had to deal with it.
3) The headline on some other blog won’t mention the anonymous coward (you). It will name me.
So unless you want to put your name to your words (and you’ve already ducked that suggestion) my suggestion to you is to kindly shut the hell up and take your personal argument with Leif elsewhere. You are still welcome to comment on other matters provided you stay in policy. – Anthony
Back2Bat (10:00:14) :
Here is a link that supports my statement that Earth is the only planet with intelligent life.
The link makes the assumption of intelligent life even on this planet dubious.
Most of the parameters have nothing to do with life and none of them is a determining factor for ‘intelligent life’. Perhaps I missed it. Provide the number(s) that single out intelligence.
We have already observed more than 400 planets in the solar neighborhood with a fair number of them with similar composition as the Earth and with a good chance that some of them will be within the ‘habitable zone’.
Here is my name Tony.
Steven Stanley Stipulkoski.
4225 N. 1st Ave,#505
Tucson, AZ 85719
Satisfied?
Coward? You presume too much.
Leif,
My email is moonbat1775@cox.net
REPLY: The term “anonymous coward” is a net standard coined by the BBS and USENET, and commonly used automatically on slashdot.org
It even has its own Wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Coward
So I’m referring to it by definition, but nice to see you step up! Good on you. – Anthony
Leif Svalgaard (10:25:34) :
The link makes the assumption of intelligent life even on this planet dubious.
That is the point.
Most of the parameters have nothing to do with life and none of them is a determining factor for ‘intelligent life’. Perhaps I missed it. Provide the number(s) that single out intelligence.
Intelligent life is even less likely since that is an additional requirement.
Back2Bat (10:47:50) :
“The link makes the assumption of intelligent life even on this planet dubious.”
That is the point.
Means She failed.
Intelligent life is even less likely since that is an additional requirement.
almost none of the other parameters are requirements for life in general. And most of them are not independent [and should therefore not be multiplied]. To determine a universe where life can evolve only about six parameters must be fixed.
And you do not understand the difference between a priori and a posteriori probability. Last night I got a lousy Bridge hand. The a priori probability to get that hand was (52,13) = 1/635,013,559,600; i.e. so small that I could only have gotten it by divine providence [or perhaps retribution]. The a posteriori probability was 1, because I did get it. We have already found more than 400 planets around nearby stars, and the Kepler spacecraft will discover thousands more in the coming years. The compositions of those are similar to that of the solar system and about a tenth would be in the habitable zone. So, probability argues for zillions of livable planets.