By Hayden Smith, Metro, 17 June 2010
High levels of scepticism and indifference among Britons continue to dog efforts to get the country to go greener, a Europe-wide study has concluded.
We continue to lag behind other major nations in our attitude to and appetite for tackling climate change. Less than a third of Britons believe the issue is ‘serious and urgent’ and requires ‘radical steps’.
A similar number of people doubt whether climate change is happening at all, according to the study.
This scepticism has contributed to the 2.1 tonnes of CO2 generated per house each year from electricity use – the highest of all ten countries examined by researchers at Imperial College London.
A little more than half of Britons are ‘quite’ or ‘very concerned’ about climate change. In contrast in Spain, which topped the poll, three-quarters said they were at least quite concerned. [Climate Change Minister] Greg Barker said he was encouraged by nine in ten Britons saying they would make changes if given financial support.
‘I think the British are inherently quite sceptical about theoretical politics and science and maybe a little more cautious than some countries in Europe,’ he said.
‘But I am convinced British people want to do something about it.’
Prof Nigel Brandon of ICL said the study, commissioned by EDF Energy for Green Britain Day, said: ‘It all helps to build a more complete picture of how habits follow attitudes when it comes to the environment.’
Britain came sixth in the poll of 5,700 people across Europe.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here is one more ‘graphic’ reason why the British are sceptic about the global warming:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GWDa.htm
Brittons should be proud. This is not about lag, this is leading the pack and could also be seen as an IQ test. Low percentage could be translated as high IQ in common. (Wich cant be said about politicians).
2.1 tonnes of CO2 per household. Could this be because one third of Europe has very cold and long winters and therefore has taken, for reasons not connected to global warming, but to expense, to building houses that keep in the hear. Scandinavia, Northern Germany etc. Aroiund a half don’t need any heating for most of the year and don’t use air conditioning in their homes. The Brits, Irish, Northern France, Southern Germany, the Netherlands and Benelux sit in the same region of Europe with roughly similar climates where it gets neither too hot in the summer nor too cold for long periods in the winter. Then there is the poverty gap between Northern Europe and Southern Europe, which means the Brits, with their rainy weather, will almost all have tumble driers that are in use throughout the year. I don’t know whether the report weighted these and many other factors affecting energy usage, but I wouldn’t mind betting it didn’t.
Just in case anyone anywhere is in any doubt:-
In the UK the lunatics are definitely running the asylum.
The pantomime-horse government we have is riddled with AGW true believers, only one Cabinet member has any scientific qualification or experience and all are very rich toffs. (23 out of 29 are millionaires. Already.) Several including both Cameron & Clegg have direct financial family interests in Big Wind and other greenie scams.
I don’t care a fig if Greg Barker wants to take a gay lover. If that’s what floats his boat, then fine. But to do so when he is married to a woman does suggest a certain ‘adaptability’ in his moral standards.
They have managed something which even I, cynic that I am, didn’t expect. They make the previous bunch of a**holes look slightly less incompetent and moronic than they actually were.
When are the majority of the population going to get sufficiently hacked off that they reach for the pitchforks and burning torches?
“hempen-clad crustafarian soap-dodgers” Bravo!
I have some very good friends who could accurately be described thus. I shall take great delight in doing so to their faces. BTW, These “hippy” friends of mine also have great doubts about the scientific accuracy of the IPCC projections and alarm.
They want to save the planet as much as the next man, but also want to clean up and prevent REAL polution. CO2 is NOT a real pollutant, but it is great fertiliser for their cannabis plants!
method.
Paul Clark says:
June 17, 2010 at 11:33 pm
“What I want to see is with regard to this quote:
“This scepticism has contributed to the 2.1 tonnes of CO2 generated per house each year from electricity use – the highest of all ten countries examined by researchers at Imperial College London.”
… I would like to see which countries were surveyed. Because it may not be “climate scepticism” which leads to Britain’s greater power usage but factors like economic activity and heating demands which vary from European country to country.”
Hope you’ll report back on this. Could be very interesting indeed. Could be due to the source, e.g. coal-fired versus nuclear. And it could be due to heating demands. But, given how sneaky these arguments are, who says they are even European countries? The other nine countries could be anywhere. Borneo, Maldives, Somalia?
In any case, I am 99.9% certain that it is not due to “climate scepticism.” That’s just toooo convenient and, of course, too ridiculous.
Paul Clark says:
June 17, 2010 at 11:33 pm
I’ve even read in mainstream NZ papers (online) that NZ will have their goods rejected by other nations as punishment for not pulling their weight on climate.
Would such an action be legal with no international climate agreement in force?
Maybe we should start a campaign to support those countries not falling for the climate scam by preferentially buying their goods.
“Poll question:
* If the government gives you money, will you take it?”
HELL NO!
If I do not need the money, I will not claim it. I will not be a burden on the tax payer and I am damn proud that I am self sufficient. I was eligible for working family tax credit in the UK, (until my daughter turned 18), but have never claimed it as I believe that benefits should only go to those who need them to survive. My wife and I earn enough to pay our way without benefits, so I refuse to claim them. I wish more people were like me and then my taxes might be a bit lower!
The more publicity is given to this madness, the more sensible people in the UK are starting to realise and to spread the word that the idea of catastrophic man-made global warming is being promoted as a means of taxation and social control.
I would urge everyone to tell their friends and relatives and local politicians as well as posting on skeptic websites. We will prevail, but far too much damage has already been done.
“I think the British are inherently quite sceptical”
Please continue that way, we need more Newtons, Maxwells, Huttons, Darwins, …. and less gullible-politico-scientists
On a recent visit to the UK we noticed a TV advert for EDF which lauded the ‘fact’ that that some 40% of electricity sold by them in the UK was ‘Carbon free’.
Here is breakdown (2008 tho’) of their power production. 82.9% Nuclear,9,3% Renewables including (7.3 Hydro, 3.1% Coal, 3.0% Gas, 1.4% Oil, 0.3% Others) One of the reasons we moved to France is obvious – 90% is not Carbon based (-skeptic yawn-) its Hot and Wet.
I recall that in the 1950’s the proposed opening of a cross-channel electricty link, to the Kent coast was agreed. When completed in 1961 it was was virtually opposite one of the first large nuclear power stations built in France, at Calais. A vested interest? You had better believe it!
Incidently – Layman’s SunSpot count(transition sc23-sc24) now over 850 spotless days.
“There are some very sceptical realists in the UK and I count myself as one, I was lucky, I had a reasonable education and was taught by people who were very able and wanted to teach and most objectively impart knowledge.”
Ditto. Although I hated physics at school and took great joy in winding-up my squeeky voiced physics teacher to the point of a virtual nervous breakdown, he (somehow) managed to impart the importance of the scientific method, scepticism and an open enquiring mind.
He put great importance on falsification and that a hypothesis MUST be able to be falsifiable. If the hypothesis is A+B=C, then if you measure A+B and it = F, then that disproves the hypothesis. You do not say, Oh well, that proves the hypothesis as well and change the hypothesis to be A+B=C or F or maybe Z and perhaps K and then claim that this is what it always was, it’s just that we need more money to research this further and make better models….
This is why I am so furious about alarmists claiming every bit of “extreme” weather as proof of CAGW. If it is cold, or warm or hot or wet or dry it is because of CAGW. It is not a falsifiable hypothesis. There has always been extreme weather. There will always be cases of extreme weather.
That would be an example of what I was saying in my last comment:
“a hypothesis MUST be able to be falsifiable. If the hypothesis is A+B=C, then if you measure A+B and it = F, then that disproves the hypothesis. You do not say, Oh well, that proves the hypothesis as well and change the hypothesis to be A+B=C or F or maybe Z and perhaps K and then claim that this is what it always was, it’s just that we need more money to research this further and make better models….”
They are re-coding and re-running their models to make them retrofit the data and the hypothesis so that they can claim that they were right all along.
This is an example of non-science, AKA dogma.
Britons are inherently sceptical, but quite a few Norman-Saxons seem to believe Margaret Thatcher was the first climate realist.
Lol.
It’s like watching a dance:
– Thatcher reinforced the CO2-pollution = Man-made Global Warming story, as a means of beating the miners union.
– The Lefty Eco-Greenies latch on to it as a tenet for their new religion.
-Clever industrialists realised that AGW was a godsend for Nuclear, and also funded the climatesciencebubble.
– Bankers saw a way of making huge fortunes from Enron-style Carbon Offset trading, (see Papal Indulgences), But they needed a legally-binding set of agreements; hence Copenhagen.
– The Democrats rode the thing (see Gore) for the eco-votes.
– Sadly, the greed was too much even for the scientists, who were caught cooking the evidence and the whole scam is revealed. Copenhagen collapses.
– Obama has a major problem as his party courtesy of the greenvangelist scam, are about to be wiped out at the mid-terms
– Enter shale gas technology! Soon the US will become an energy exporter. Watch oil demand shrink, and the geopolitics of the last century fall away. No need for those military adventures in oil regions. Importantly, no need for expensive/risky deep-drilling. The US merely needs to buy the oil it needs on a falling market.
– Obama sees the Oil-spill as a godsend. It becomes an ass-kicking contest, with BP having no leg to stand on, (though its actually Transocean’s fault).
Obama gets to talk righteously about pollution, and so sidelines AGW, bad-mouths Big Oil, which is in decline anyway. Nukies are shafted. Shale gas is less polluting when everybody looks into it, so he keeps the greenies onside. Even right-wing Isolationists like the idea of energy self-sufficiency. Bonus is that BP as a Brit operation can be made to pay; “them Brits got us into Iraq on a WMD lie so screw them”.
– Israel? Who needs strategic allies in the Gulf region when Oil is not strategic anymore. We don’t need to secure supplies. Everybody has massive shale-gas deposits, even India and China, so nobody has a strategic interest in the Gulf or Saudi, even for power-plays. And if Israelis wake up and act like a proper secular state rather than as a religious enclave, they could have a one-state solution tomorrow by adding Gaza and the West bank. Then, see peace and prosperity break out, even with Iran.
-Falling world energy prices? See the US economy grow! Win-Win and win the midterms, and even a second term. Obama is on a winner. And Cameron knows it. Bye-bye BP.
Check out the shale-gas thing (and the next technology along which is the coal-gas thing). It really is a game-changer.
In the meantime, we have the pathetic spectacle of British ministers bleating about how almost nobody believes them anymore when they talk about “tackling climate change”.
Quote by Ken Hall
I have some very good friends who could accurately be described thus. I shall take great delight in doing so to their faces. BTW, These “hippy” friends of mine also have great doubts about the scientific accuracy of the IPCC projections and alarm.
They want to save the planet as much as the next man, but also want to clean up and prevent REAL polution. CO2 is NOT a real pollutant, but it is great fertiliser for their cannabis plants!
Response
Well said ken, I am in the famed Glastonbury festival for the next 10 days and many many people I meet there from alternate/left wing/Trad Hippy and Green backgrounds are thoroughly fed up with being force fed dodge science and dubious facts to support a Capitalist society that having made a fortune trashing the environment, now want to make another fortune on the back of imaginary ecologcal issues. They may be wide eyed alternate society fans, but they can spot a scam just as easily as anyone else.
A report commissioned by EDF? How much does EDF benefit from taxpayer subsidy of its various alternative energy ventures?
Prof. Nigel Brandon says ‘It all helps to build a more complete picture of how habits follow attitudes when it comes to the environment’ – you mean it all helps to pay for my job in Imperial College. Thank you gullible taxpayer?
I also read somewhere that Nick Clegg’s wife owns windfarms, which I found rather depressing. All he has to do is be a good boy and believe in Global Warming and Saving the Planet and this gravy flowing into the Clegg housekeeping account will continue. In the meantime the rest of us are wondering how long our housekeeping will be able to pay for increasingly expensive EDF energy and EDF subsidies and Prof Nigel Brandon’s salary to support EDF in its quest for more taxpayer subsidies -all to save the Planet you understand. And on top of all that this is June, and it was so cold last night that we could really have done with an hour’s central heating.
“Would such an action be legal with no international climate agreement in force?”
New Zealand is a small country with a long tradition of free trade policies, and that has often been pushed around by bigger countries with a protectionist agenda on trade matters. Most big countries don’t care about the legal issues surrounding world trade. To get their way they have a long history of making up all sorts of excuses, for example by setting excessively stringent production standards on goods they import from NZ. So of course NZ politicians are running scared they will be knocked back economically if they aren’t seen to toe the line of the climate change activists that are in power, especially in the EU and US.
There are a lot of angry voters in NZ opposed to the local version of a carbon trading scheme, and who are being told by our politicians to shut up in case our economy is damaged if we are seen to be climate “skeptics” as a country.
When you are small the totalitarians and bullies of this world are not hard to spot.
Now CO2 causes ice ages in prehistory, according to the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10342318.stm
I suppose it’s one way for them to both admit that the earth is cooling not warming, but still blame CO2.
Ludicrous.
“High levels of scepticism and indifference among Britons continue to dog efforts to get the country to go greener, a Europe-wide study has concluded.”
Too much conflation of UNRELATED things:
1) “scepticism” is not the same thing as ‘non-alarmism’.
More importantly:
2) Climate alarmism is absolutely **NOT** synonymous with “green”!!!!!! (This one is unforgivably infuriating.)
Paul Vaughan, Ecologist and Parks & Natural Forests Advocate
We continue to lag behind other major nations in our attitude to and appetite for tackling climate change.
And those Nations would be who? China? USA? Australia?
In contrast in Spain
Well, since Spain is saying that……….I mean after all, Spain……..
As a physical scientist but not a climate scientist I found the climate at Real Climate repugnant, unscientific and comprised of closed minds intent on destroying dangerous questions rather than acknowledging uncertainties. I believe I am far from alone in this impression and that Real Climate has been tremendously counter-productive to its objectives.
The UK Govt doesn’t understand it’s own people any more than most other Western Govt.’s understand thiers.
The reason: They are too darned busy playing Global Govt. games than they are taking care of the business they were elected to do.
Going Green is a lifestyle choice, not a mandate come down from heaven, at the individual level.
Britons aren’t any more interested in paying a tax on a debatable problem than Americans are.
Besides all that, the very fact that a majority of industry has been outsourced to a place that is not interested in the subject means that any tax collected goes nowhere near the alleged problem.
It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it walks like a duck.
By George, it is a lame duck.
‘But I am convinced British people want to do something about it.’
Remember that football game where that defensive player picked up a fumble and started running with the ball toward the other teams goal?