Hilary Ostrov writes about another Internet poll gone horribly wrong:
==============================================================
Back in March of this year, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) announced an “innovative initiative” in which participants from around the world are invited to vote on what the priorities should be in a post-2015 world.
…
From now until 2015, we want as many people in as many countries as possible to be involved: citizens of all ages, genders and backgrounds, particularly the world’s poor and marginalized communities.
…
This page also lists the sixteen choices (from which a voter may select only 6), of which two in succession were quite interesting:
Reliable energy at home
Action taken on climate change
If you decide to vote, you’ll see that each of the choices has an explanation. There is good news and bad news on the “Reliable energy at home” front. They’re not talking “renewable”, but:
This means that all family members should have reliable and affordable electricity or other sources of energy at home for lighting, heating and cooking. More of that energy should be sustainably generated
but they slipped in “sustainable” (without defining it!) … And here’s the (somewhat predictable) explanation they provide for “Action taken on climate change”:
This means that governments should take on binding commitments to reduce carbon emissions to levels which can keep the global temperature rise below 2 degrees, and invest in adaptation measures particularly involving vulnerable communities
More here: http://hro001.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/newsflash-action-on-climate-change-voted-bottom-of-worlds-priority-heap/
============================================================
I took the poll, and afterwards using the mouseover to highlight the climate change issue, the results show that climate change just isn’t a priority, especially with people that have a low HDI (Human Development Index) which is a measure of the prosperity and health of the country they reside in.
It seems concern over climate change is a rich person’s pastime, which just goes to show that cheap energy is the path forward to a better HDI, and thus a greater ability to be concerned about the environment. Translation: people just getting by don’t have time for such concerns.
Vote for yourself here if you wish: http://www.myworld2015.org/index.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thanks, Anthony! Couple of typos you might want to fix … first, I’m a one-L Hilary 😉 … and your:
s/b …if you wish …
I voted and discovered that in Canada action against climate change ranks #6. One can only vote for 6 options, and I felt like a bit of a chump leaving out education. I console myself that the way schools and universities carry on today, perhaps less politically-correct indoctrination would be better!
Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
it just goes to show that the elitists seldom know what is important to regular people.
If these polls informed people that their energy bills would increase by 25-100% ,action on climate change would be a lot lower choice.
“Sustainability” of an energy system has no particular advantages. As one fast reactor advocate has pointed out, the energy that fast reactors can generate just using our current nuclear waste stockpile would provide all the electricity we need for the next 1000 years. Also, “sustainable” power sources, like solar, are captured by very non-sustainable solar panels.They last about 20 – 25 years, or one third the lifespan of a Gen 3 nuclear reactor. ,
I gave them another option that should have been on the top of their list –
“Greater global peace and security.
The UN should return its primary focus on preventing and ending war and terrorism around the world. Dealing with the fallout from international, national and religious violence is far more expensive in both human and financial terms than addressing the violence directly. The UN is failing badly in this core area and risks becoming an irrelevant organisation.”
It seems “Peace” is a bit old fashioned for the modern politically correct UN. Perhaps they are hoping the falling mortar shells will dig those trenches for sanitation services automatically?
I think sustainable forms of energy generation are just fine on a sailboat, as they tend to supplement the need to run the diesel engine so you can get more quiet time in the anchorage. Apart from that I have very little need for them.
Is there a “None of the above, get a real job!” option? 🙂
Here’s hoping that obsessions with fixing something we never caused in the first place will wither on the vine, and serious funds will be instead put into making fracking have less of an impact on the environment.
Maybe folks are wising up to just how deceptive the term “climate change” is when they mean AGW and realize that the wise men who push it can’t do much one way or the other about the climate changing. Looks like quality of life issues take priority.
It is hard to know how to vote. Should I put a high priority on good water because having access to good clean water is something which I think is vitally important? Or should I put a low priority on it because where I live access to clean water is something you don’t have to think about because previous generations sorted this problem, and is therefore not a current high priority.
This could have been addressed if the survey had asked people what they thought their biggest problems were, rather than what they thought was important.
@mojomojo –
Not just their energy bills, the cost of everything they consume that moves by motor transport (turck, rail, air).
“Gerry Dorrian says:
June 17, 2013 at 7:45 pm
Here’s hoping that obsessions with fixing something we never caused in the first place will wither on the vine,”
Only thing is, if the UN tried to stop fixing things we never caused in the firstplace. Just think how poor the UN would be. They wouldn’t have the excuses for all their $$$ grabbing. Less jetsetting to exotic locations for UN conferences on nonsense.
All those poor out of work living high on hog UN delegates. They’d have to live in the real world and not be drinking champagne and eating gourmet meals as one of the perks and staying in top hotels.
@Mike from Carson Valley –
Let’s don’t forget that “sustainable” (i.e., non-hydroelectric) renewables are dirtier than the fossil fuels they’re supposed to replace – not to mention their actual costs which are buried under subsidies and is a substantial multiple of what is publicized – and the sheer impossibility of their ever providing enough energy to maintain a decent living standard.
The insanity of “renrewables” is that the monies they consume could be so much better spent improving conditions in poorer countries. But the wealthy CRL types say, it’s OK if you suffer and have to burn shit to cook your food, just so long as I, der Fuehrer’s crony capitalist bosom buddy, can make big bucks off fleecing you and all the other hoi polloi in the world.
No one can match the AGW crowd and their political pickthanks for callousness, hypocrisy, effrontery, arrogance, blindness, impaired reasoning ability, and just plain down and dirty meanness..
My choices and reasoning
+Clean Water: ( — without clean water, little else is possible)
+Honest Responsive Government.
+Protection against crime and violence: (at least they didn’t put in “social justice”.)
+Good Education: (….”that equips them for employment and an enjoyable life.” — all good. )(“Governments and the private sector should work together….” – better than working against each other.)
+Better Job Opportunities: (“should do more to make sure that everyone can find a job where they earn a decent wage” – Yes… do more. Not guarantee.)
+Phone/Internet: OK… a minimum level for communication and networking. Ties in with education…. And finesses the need for Reliable Power.)
What I didn’t pick and why:
– Reliable Energy at Home: ( Reliable, check. Affordable (weasel word. Subsidized? “For lighting, heating, and cooking.” Yea, but what about cooling, entertainment, social networking? And that sustainably word…. Hydroelectric isn’t counted as sustainable. Neither is nuclear. This is too agenda driven. And I realized that Phone and Internet guaranteed reliable electricity to the home without the weasel words. 7th
– Action on climate change: (“governments should take on binding commitments to “) STOP RIGHT THERE!!! Bottom of the list is too good for this.
– Freedom from discrimination: (no person …should have their economic, …. opportunities limited because… disability,…. ) Can’t go there. Someday I may go blind; I cannot pretend my opportunities won’t be more limited than today. Let’s get real. 10th
– Equalty between men and women: I was ok with it up to: “and experience the same opportunities and rewards in the workplace.” Equality of opportunity is one thing, but this is equality of results. 9th
– Better Transport and Roads…. “Better?” the USA has it pretty good. 11th
– Affordable and nutritious food: (that everyone should get the food they need. ) Too Marxist. 13th
– Support for people who can’t work: (every person should have enough money to live on, either through employment or government help.) I cringe at how this is worded. It is made redundant by “Better Job Opportunities” above. 12th
– Protecting forests, rivers, oceans. Government authoritarian from top to bottom. No hint of private property. 14th
– Better Healthcare: It’s all FREE, FREE!!! There is no free lunch. There is no free surgery. 15th
– Political Freedoms: the “free media” left a sour taste. It is a strong contender, but political freedom without an honest government is a misplaced priority. 8th
There is a rather obvious sampling bias. Hardly anyone currently without a reliable energy supply would have voted.
I recall a survey of African villagers that put an electricity supply and a school as the things they most wanted, far ahead of anything else.
I know of a village that wanted a soccer field more than a water supply. Never assume anything.
How about free money? Or at least sustainable money. No matter how much you use, it never runs out. How tough can it be? Fire up the solar powered printing presses and voila, we are all as rich as Croesus. Need something made, place an order with China. Kick back and order another Mai Tai. The ultimate sustainable party.
Philip Bradley says:June 17, 2013 at 8:37 pm
Excerpts from the “press conference” of the March launch:
Also, from the “Methodology” page on the site:
One can only hope that when the survey period is completed and the results compiled, they will be more forthcoming with their raw data – and more skilled in the application of statistics than … oh, I dunno … Mann, Briffa, Jones, Gergis, Lewandowsky, or Cook for example … so that the validity of the results can be verified.
I don’t like most of the poll’s options, they’re suggestive. Some options are about “sustaining”, as if these things are already here and all I want is them to stay (political freedoms, reliable energy), some are about “improving” as if it they couldn’t be good enough already (better job opportunities, better healthcare). In my opinion these options should be neutral.
Some are rather funny in context. For instance, the whole poll motto is “Which of these are most important for you and your family?” yet some options are concerned about the whole world (“No person in the world should be constantly hungry”). I may cosider that a priority but it’s hardly most important regarding my family. So I’m not even sure if I’m supposed to choose these options “subjectively” or “objectively”.
“… particularly the world’s poor and marginalized communities.”
Echoing much of what others said above me…
LOL. Like they could participate!
They’re all out in the back forty gathering tomorrow’s firewood, dreaming of the day they will have a new….. PAIR OF SHOES! Or, a few goats. A car? That would be like me dreaming of owning my own 747 (not that I’d want one, but, we have it so good here that it had to be that big to be comparable!).
As has been said before: WEALTH MAKES GREEN. [Peter Huber, Hard Green]
How about promoting FREE MARKETS, HUMAN RIGHTS (ooo, noo, couldn’t do that, could we — it would “disrespect the prophet of Eeeeslahm), AND PRIVATE PROPERTY, you U.N. slimeballs? Only for Kofi and the other elites, eh? What a WASTE of time the U.N. is.
Get out of the U.N. — now. We can always form a coalition-of-the-willing to get any job done we need to do (for world peace [through strength] or for promoting African free trade, e.g., getting their genetically enhanced crops to market, or combating ignorance or disease….). The U.N., the E.U., and the IRS and a whole LOAD of fly-infested alphabet soup needs to be tossed out. “Waiter!…”
*******************
Nice post, Ms. Ostrov! You write well — I can just hear your spunky, warm, intelligent, personality. You must be a lot of fun. Keep up your excellent work!
Thanks for the additional info., Ms. Ostrov.
After reading your post of 10:34PM, I can see that the whole thing is just a farce. A go-through-the-motions exercise, a make-work project in a contemptible attempt to give the U.N. legitimacy in the eyes of the world.
“Look, everybody! Look! The U.N. is here. The U.N. matters.” NOT!
arthur4563 says:
June 17, 2013 at 6:48 pm
“Sustainability” of an energy system has no particular advantages. As one fast reactor advocate has pointed out, the energy that fast reactors can generate just using our current nuclear waste stockpile would provide all the electricity we need for the next 1000 years. Also, “sustainable” power sources, like solar, are captured by very non-sustainable solar panels.They last about 20 – 25 years, or one third the lifespan of a Gen 3 nuclear reactor. ,
++++++++++++++++++++
I’ve been reading WUWT for a long long time. I have to tell you that you really hit the nail on the head. I get really peeved when people use the word sustainable with regard to energy. Now I have a really good two-punch answer.
Liberals are great at making up code words to advance an agenda.
Subsidy has been misused too. They talk about oil companies being subsidized by the tax payer because they (like all companies) can right of certain real expenses. But when solar companies get a subsidy, it really is someone else’s money…
Climate Change, that few are interested in, but no Peace on Earth, that everyone craves!
While this poll isn’t as overtly biased as some of the rubbish the UN and like organisations produce, as a poll it fails on methodology. As has already been pointed out, it references one’s own family and then mentions global aspirations which may or may not be relevant. There is no control of categories of respondents – i.e. assurance that the sample is representative. Some of the questions are really subsets of or overlaps with other questions, for example if you have good governance then concerns about personal safety or rampant sexual discrimination should be moot.
It looks like the kind of nonsense that Lewandowsky cobbles together, another “pollster” who doesn’t understand the basics of designing a valid survey.