The public do not accept the ideology of some climate campaigners, and hence unconsciously reject the science of climate change

The more green groups ask us to “stop flying,” the less the public believes in man-made climate change. Niel Bowerman argues there is a link.

Today is the anniversary of “climategate”. It has damaged the credibility of the IPCC, and climate science in general, and yet scientists could not be clearer that the warming observed over the past century is largely man-made.  Is it time to ask why so many people dispute a scientific theory that the vast majority of climate scientists agree with?

Could it be that some of the public’s distrust of climate science comes not from qualms with methodologies for constructing temperature records, but rather from scepticism of the ideologies of the green groups that use climate science to reinforce their campaigns?

The UK’s recent prime-time Channel 4 documentary ‘What the Green Movement Got Wrong’ was criticised by many environmental groups, not least because it contained several inaccuracies.

Many greens rightly charged the documentary with being ideologically driven, while the documentary claimed “that by clinging to an ideology formed more than 40 years ago, the traditional green lobby has failed in its aims and is ultimately harming its own environmental cause.”  As with most debates, both arguments do contain an element of truth.

The documentary struck a chord with much of the public, who are sick of a bossy, lecturing, elitist and sometimes excessively ideological environmental movement.  Unfortunately this is likely to be one of the reasons for the drop in public belief in climate change. When green groups demand that people ‘stop flying now’ instead of also working to promote viable alternatives, the public begins to reject the science of climate change outright.

If we are to tackle climate change before it is too late, the climate movement must rapidly evolve from being seen as a lefty group taking part in self-deprivation.  Green groups must become part of a larger movement for positive change that spans political boundaries and seeks to inspire and empower, not just criticise and condemn.

Younger groups are already beginning to adopt this new approach.  Ben West, Communications Coordinator at the UK Youth Climate Coalition, said: “Many of us as young people, are excited about renewing the movement and in the possibility of creating something fit and ready to overcome the big challenges of the coming decades, rather than being stuck fighting the battles and stereotypes of our parent’s generation.”

Perhaps the American climate scientists who created their ‘rapid response unit’ would have more luck convincing the public on the science if they could persuade environmental groups to say, “We’re sorry if we sometimes lecture or sound bossy, that wasn’t our intention.  We’re just trying to create green jobs, ensure energy security, and build a clean energy future; would you like to help?”

Niel Bowerman is a research climate scientist at Oxford University, and a former executive director of Climatico.

Rendering of US city under water – by TERRA-Dreams (SoftPIX_Techie)

According to a recent Gallup Poll, an increasing number of Americans believe that the threat of global warming is exaggerated. In the 2009 poll, Gallup surveyed 1012 adults by fixed and mobile phone. The results found that forty-one percent of Americans doubted the severity of global warming as reported by the mainstream media. In addition, the environmental poll found a record-breaking 16 percent of Americans reported that they believed the effects of global warming will never occur.

Gallup Analyst Lydia Saad comments that, “Americans generally believe global warming is real (but) most Americans do not view the issue in the same dire terms as the many prominent leaders advancing global warming as an issue.”

Americans ranked global warming last out of eight environmental issues to be concerned about in the poll. Of highest concern to Americans surveyed was the pollution of drinking water – pulling in 84 percent of the votes. While Americans tend to believe that global warming is real, only 34% surveyed felt that they worry “a great deal” about the issue.

The annual environmental poll shows this drop in public concern across several measures. Global warming not only ranks last among the percentage of Americans concerned either a “great deal” or a “fair amount”, global warming is the only issue to have seen a significant decrease in public concern over the past year.

What could have caused such an increase in global warming doubters?

Global warming has received a great deal of attention this past decade due to debates regarding the Kyoto Protocol and former Vice President Al Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”. However, in this past year, the global warming message may have lost some of its ground with Americans. Given the economic downturn, it is possible that some of the public concern for global warming has turned toward pressing economic issues. Additionally, other factors may also be contributing to the dampening of the global warming message.

The recent elections in the United States could have had some effect on issue. The number of Republicans to believe that global warming media coverage is exaggerated has continuously increased since 1997. However, the 2009 environmental poll also reveals an increase in independent voters agreeing with the Republicans doubters.

Heightened politicization of issues leading up to the elections – including the concern over global warming – may have altered American beliefs on the subject. Additionally, an abundant number of debates over drilling in Alaska, renewable energy and the necessity for climate change legislation may have increased public fatigue over topics related to global warming. Therefore, next year’s survey will be of further importance to determine whether the increased number of global warming doubters in America is a reaction to unique circumstances or a trend that will continue into the future.

A recent survey study, by HSBC’s Climate Partnership , noted that nearly 45%of people surveyed in India view climate change as a higher priority than economic turmoil. Furthermore, the study also revealed that 42% of Indians are looking to the government  to take a lead in climate policies. Having noted before that India’s diverse topography and demography makes centralized decision making on environmental issues difficult- the role of state governments deserves some evaluation.Often in tension with the central government which has much of the resources, state governments must work under central government directives but also protect regional interests which often include valuable natural resources. In India, central-state government relations are difficult in terms of environmental policy as certain resources are jointly managed (forests) by both levels, complicating swift, effective management/governance of such valuable resources. On the other hand, resources such as waterways fall mainly under state jurisdiction and seek centralized oversight to mitigate state -to-state conflicts.

In a report titled, “Green India Standards” published by the Institute of Financial Management and Research, Indian states were evaluated on an Environment Sustainability Index based on performance based indicators covering components such as environmental stress, environmental governance, and population pressure. Overall, only a handful of India’s 28 Indian states achieved a high ESI ranking. As climate concerns become more visible to its citizenry and the global economic advantages of turning ‘green’ become solidified, Indian states will be more likely to engage in their own climate policies.

Already, current activities seem to support some of IFMR’s evaluations. Recently, the state of Himachal Pradesh in northeast India- facing visible climate pressures given such close proximity to the Himalayas and its receding glaciers, proposed its own national environmental policy. With the assistance of the World Bank, Himachal Pradesh’s state plan is said to include policy mechanisms such as payment of ecosystem services (PES) and carbon credit marks to generate ‘green’ growth in line with India’s national policy. In the state of TamilNadu, in the past two years, efforts by forest ministry have increased forest cover  within the state.

State initiatives are a welcoming and perhaps promising path for India in climate issues as state governments are more in tune with regional contexts in terms of resources, impacts, and stakeholder issues. In addition, growing awareness of and concern over climate change impacts among Indian citizens is also a positive sign in terms of policy making in India. Perhaps with a more localized approach and understanding of problems will also generate unique solutions for India.

Photo: Luke La Hausse

It’s easy to get caught up in the infectious enthusiasm of a good march, but now the energy from yesterdays’ London climate march has subsided, now might be a good time to examine their effectiveness as a measure of public opinion.

The purpose of a march is two fold. One is to demonstrate to policy makers the level of public opinion on an issue, and the other is to and try increase awareness. Lets deal with both in tern. To identify protests of significant impact five protests were identified with the aid of google trends where the volume of search traffic in the UK for the word “protest” exceed twice the background rate since 2005.

These five protests were in turn, the fuel price protest of September 05, G8/ Make poverty History march June/July 2005, climate change protest December 2005, Petrol price protest December 2007 and the stop the Heathrow expansion protest in May/ June 2008.

So, how well do the numbers on the marches represent public opinion?

July 2005 saw one of the largest protests in recent history, with make poverty history with 225 000 people marching, yet on the fuel protests of 2007, only 10 000 people were involved. In July 2005, 7% of respondents said global poverty and inequality was a major issue (Ipsos-MORI 2005) compared with a background average for 2005 of 6.4% showing a very negligible increase. Likewise the fuel protests of December 2007 lead coincided an increase in public concern to 6% from a background of the 12 months either side of 5.4% (Ipsos-MORI 2007) although cause and effect are rather harder to untangle in that example.

When comparing these statistics with background rates and with the numbers involved in the protests, it is clear that the numbers attending do not influence or reflect public opinion.

How well do the numbers on these marches affect public interest?

In July 2005, 225 000 people marched in Edinburgh, yet 2000 people joined the Heathrow Expansion protests and the public interest as not significantly different. On the face of it this suggests that attendance numbers are not the most important factor in generating public interest. However it is important to control for number of media hours given to each.

As can be seen by the comparison of the two graphs above, the annual climate change march does coincide peaks in the numbers of people googling climate change. However, there are much greater peaks than this.

So what events cause the greatest interest in climate change?

The largest three peaks (where volume of searching for “climate change” exceeds twice background levels) were in October 2006, March 2007 and July 2007. These coincided with the publication of the Stern Review, the draft Climate Change Bill, and the summer flooding in the UK.

For those of us that marched on London yesterday, this is mixed news indeed. Collectively we will have had minimal impact on public opinion of climate change.  None the less, it is foolish to separate protest marches from other drivers of public opinion.  Public opinion is driven by perceived social norms and in a small way marches play their part in creating those.  Besides, the impacts on policy are much harder to measure, and who know what they might be

One of the difficulties with governing on the scale of the E.U. is how to accurately assess public opinion. In light of these concerns, the E.U. has been remarkably proactive with pan-Europe opinion polls. In the next few posts I’ll try to give a digest of the recent results to see how public opinion in the E.U. may influence policy.

In this first E.U. post, I want to deal with some of the basics. Across the E.U. 50% of people say that climate change is “very much a concern” for them (Gallup 2008) and 62% think that climate change is the most serious issue facing the world as a whole (E.U. TNS 2008). This last figure is particularly significant when compared to the 24% that thought the most major issue facing the world was a “major global economic downturn in May this year.

Attitudes to E.U. policy also reveal interesting results as shown in the figure below.

Fig. 1 Data Eurobarometer 2008

Interestingly, although the chart above shows 58% of citizens feel the E.U. is not doing enough to tackle climate change, this figure is much lower than that of national governments, corporations and citizens themselves (64%, 76% and 67% respectively).

The data shows quite a degree of variability between member states (see fig. 2) . It appears that the greatest levels of concern occur in Mediterranean regions (Spain, Cyprus, Malta, Greece, Portugal) and Slovenia, where as the lowest levels of concern are in the Baltic regions (Estonia, Lithuania, Poland) as well as Italy.

Fig.2 percentage respondants who list climate change as the most serious issue facing the world as a whole (EU TNS 2008)

In the next few posts I will analyse attitudes to different green policies and personal efforts to tackle climate change.

It’s not often that business executives are the focus of opinion polls, but a survey this year by Yougov highlights some truly surprising results. Yes, the sample size is small but the respondents are powerful. 200 business executives from FTSE 300 companies were polled on their attitudes to climate change in a business context, and the results make for interesting reading, especially in the context of public perception.  66% of people think that climate change will not be an important issue for businesses over the next three to four years (Ipsos MORI March 2008) but the results of this poll suggest otherwise.

The number of business executives who think that climate change is a significant issue lies at 85%, a higher proportion than the population at large (77% Ipsos MORI 2008). In fact, 66% of executives said that climate change had reached the board agenda, though 21% said it was not likely to be discussed in the near future. In total, 31% of businesses are reviewing their current business model to account for climate change and 22% are working towards carbon neutral status.

It’s mixed news in terms of office energy efficiency. The proportions of businesses employing energy saving methods in the office are high, but lagging behind the general public by a couple of years. The number of businesses recycling or using recycled products, at 77% is almost exactly the same as the population in general two years ago (76% Populus 2006), as is the use of energy efficient appliances at 67%.

Perhaps the most illuminating part of the study is the feelings of executives on what is stopping them becoming greener. 58% of executives felt that the government was not doing enough to educate businesses on how to tackle climate change, surprisingly, 25% of executives thought there was not sufficient support from employees to adopt carbon management strategies and 24% thought that the biggest obstacle was convincing partners and suppliers.

All in all it’s a mixed and confusing set of results, but it certainly highlights an area to look out for. Watch this space.

Voters think that Climate Change is a top priority, but it won’t affect who they vote for.

Part one of this post showed how, while voters were heavily concerned about climate change, it was not a voting issue in national elections. This post will attempt to analyse some possible reasons for this paradox.

Important but not the most important issue?

The most obvious explanation of the disparity is that, while people are concerned about climate change, it is not the single most important issue for them, i.e. the one that would change who they voted for. This is backed up by a survey conducted by ICM Research before Gordon Brown became prime minister, which showed that only 7% of the population thought that climate change should be the top priority for Brown when he succeeded (However, this survey was also conducted before the flooding in 2007, which is likely to have caused more responses in favour of climate change issues.)

International Problem?

Another alternative explanation is that climate change does not rank high on the domestic agenda because people believe that it is beyond the power of the government to tackle climate change without international co-operation. A 2007 Yougov poll states that 54% of voters believe that there is no point in the U.K. acting alone on climate change and that 20% more voters would support policies that forced people to change their lifestyles if other countries did it. Over 66% think that Russia, India and China would not stick to an emissions control deal and 64% think that the U.S.A would not (N.B. U.S. data is likely to have changed significantly since the recent elections).

It’s already too late?

The number of climate fatalists in the U.K. may also help explain some of the disparity. 59% of people (Yougov 2008) strongly agree or tend to agree that it is too late to stop climate change. This would explain the high level of concern yet the apparent unwillingness to make climate change the central issue in domestic politics.

Lack of trust in government

Polls such as Yougov 2007 which put 54% of people thinking that Britain should do more to tackle climate change do not specify government or popular / corporate action. 57% are not very or not at all confident that the government will “deal with climate change in the next few years”(Yougov 2006). A ComRes poll puts 40% of the population agreeing that the government exaggerates the threat of climate change and that 69% think green taxes are part of a tax-rising agenda. The combination of the lack of belief and lack of trust in the government’s climate change policy may contribute heavily to the fact that climate change is not a significant voting issue.