As of late, Gallup has been a great source of important climate related behavioral data. Here is the third survey in the series, this time taking a look at differences between top polluting nations:
These are global numbers. Equally relevant are per capita footprints – latest, 2006 data from Footprint Network:
United States 9.6
China 1.6 (and growing quickly)
Russia 4.4
Japan 4.4
India 0.8 (also growing)
Japan and the US have done a good job at educating the public. China, and even more so India have done a poor job. In both of these countries, one should consider helping with educational efforts, particularly as consumption, and the risk of associated environmental damage, are growing exponentially.
Differences in education, infrastructure, access to resources such as water, and wealth, have a direct impact on citizens’ behavior:
My main take away: people are a product of their environment. Change the environment, and you will get different behaviors. Make it hard for people to access resources as in India with water for instance, and they will use less. Give them the right infrastructure, as in recycling in Japan or the US, and they will follow.
That’s interesting info Marguerite. Thanks for searching down, and posting, and discussing, all this research. Great!
I have a few thoughts.
I agree with your point that environment/culture matters alot. That sets a stage for what some of the solutions need to be like. Policy. Incentives. Availability of good options. Some limits. Etc.
I think, of course, that your statement that the US has done a “good job at educating the public” is a bit of an overstatement! I understand the chart and what you were getting at, but (for clarification) I think the US has done a terrible job of educating the public. Also, of course, based on other research, I think it’s clear that self-reported “understanding” is often very overstated (by the respondents) and often reflects a rather low standard of the concept “understanding”.
But, more importantly, I think some of the figures point to why it’s so darn important that we take wise action in the US. WE need to act responsibly and get our CO2 emissions down. We can’t realistically and credibly complain about anyone else until we start to take big actions and get our own act together. And, the technologies and the learning we develop as we act can help other countries take responsible action and can help us help them. So, there are many reasons why we need to begin acting “first” (although the notion of “first” doesn’t really apply, literally, in many cases, as other countries are already trying harder).
Alas, these are just a few thoughts. I enjoy the information. Thanks for the post.
Cheers.
I agree with Jeff and say that America has done a terrible job of educating the public about global warming. I wonder how many of the respondents who answered that they understood global warming only understand enough to know that it exists.
I’m also thinking of a poll that I read about a month ago that showed that those respondents who believed they understood a lot about global warming were also the ones who were most likely to believe that scientists will fix the problem, which meant that they were less likely to make changes in their individual lifestyle to reduce their impact.
I’d like to see a study done on how many respondents understand global warming, and then poll them on a) some of the common lifestyle changes that reduce footprint and see if they know if and how these changes will help, and b) whether or not they have made these changes. Although this study covers reducing amount of water and recycling, what about reducing meat consumption? Cutting back on shopping? Finding non-disposable alternatives to commonly used disposable items such as razors? Because there seems to be a huge discrepancy between the supposed understanding in America and footprint size which leads me to think the American public is clueless.
And that leads me to one of the disappointing points of the “we” campaign. The commercials might be good for gearing up public sentiment, but how about doing 30-60 second public service announcements on lifestyle changes that go beyond replacing a lightbulb?
I agree with Jeff and JenRob–it is good to see all these data. I would add this brief paragraph from NOAA on April 23, as part of an update for the 2006 data above:
“Last year alone global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the primary driver of global climate change, increased by 0.6 percent, or 19 billion tons. Additionally methane rose by 27 million tons after nearly a decade with little or no increase. NOAA scientists released these and other preliminary findings today as part of an annual update to the agency’s greenhouse gas index, which tracks data from 60 sites around the world.”
The rather sudden rise in methane emissions is of particular concern to scientists, and the trend for both of these greenhouse gases is unmistakable–UP.
The good news about high oil prices (over $118/barrel as I write this) is that consumers may slow their use of gasoline as a result. The bad news is that worldwide there is a frantic search for more oil, in whatever form it can be found (i.e. not just for liquids, but for extraction from tar sands, oil shales, etc.).
The amount of crude oil in the world is finite, but we are not going to bite that bullet until we have to, by which time we may be in one hell of a fix. Here is a quote from George Monbiot that is perhaps all too common a description of and for most folks:
“The stone drops into the pond and a second later it is smooth again. You will turn the page and carry on with your life. Last week we learned that climate change could eliminate half the world’s species; that 25 primate species are already slipping into extinction; that biological repositories of carbon are beginning to release it, decades ahead of schedule. But everyone is watching and waiting for everyone else to move. The unspoken universal thought is this: ‘If it were really so serious, surely someone would do something?’”
I would have to argue that people do not really understand the greenhouse effect, how global warming works through that effect, or the implications of warming for the world. Rather, too many have been affected by the likes of Senator Inhofe and his declaration that global warming is a hoax. Americans love stuff like that!
I think the quote in Gary’s helpful post is a correct reflection of the way many people think: Monbiot observes, “The unspoken universal thought is this: ‘If it were really so serious, surely someone would do something?’”
That quote points to the responsibility that some people have, i.e., to do something, to take action, to speak out, and so forth. And, it suggests the types of things that will probably need to happen before more people wake up.
We need to think of ways to catalyze positive action and to encourage and model leadership. There are people waiting to do something, I think, but many of them are waiting for the comfort that comes with seeing other people do those things first. I don’t think we can afford that comfort.
(As I write this, I’m watching a great documentary on John Lennon. He was, of course, very good at speaking out.)
Cheers.
One part of the poll contradicts the other. If most people are unaware of problems, why then do they bother with the solutions to the problems? Either they’re lying about being unaware, or they’re lying about how much they recycle, etc.
When I was looking into how much rubbish Aussies produce, one interesting thing I ran into was that when you ask people how much rubbish they produce and of what kind, they tell you one thing; when you actually measure it, it’s quite different. For example, whoever’s responsible for the meals in the house will claim only 5-10% of food is wasted, and when measured it’s 25-40%. If you ask the other people in the house how much is wasted, they also underestimate, but they claim 15-25%, much closer.
Similarly, when you ask men and women how many sexual partners, they’ve had, you end up with men having a higher average than women. Which means that either the men are sleeping with each-other, or else men, women, or both, are not reporting their numbers properly.
A second critique is that if so many people really were making efforts to recycle, use less water and so on, we wouldn’t have environmental problems. So again they must not be reporting their behaviour accurately.
People are not very good reporters of their own behaviour, only of their own attitudes.
What I would argue is that awareness of the existence of problems is fairly high; awareness of the details of those problems is low, and knowing what we should do about them is lower still.
However, the first step – acknowledging there’s a problem – has been taken. And that’s good.
Gary, I don’t think these current prices will have much effect on fuel consumption. If you track them over the years, you find that fuel consumption basically rises and falls with GDP – total income – and doesn’t pay much attention to price. That is, what matters isn’t price but affordability. Fuel is $0.03/litre in Venezuela but you don’t see too many SUVs there; and it’s $3/lt in Denmark but you see many cars. The difference is their incomes.
The US and world will voluntarily use less oil only if the economy declines. A simple price rise won’t do it. Ten years ago oil was $10/barrel. Had you said to people then, “what would the world be like with $120/barrel oil?” after they’d finished laughing at what a ridiculous and impossible idea that was, they’d tell you that it’d be Mad Max.
Oil is simply so fundamental to our daily lifestyles than simple price rises won’t hit consumption very much at all. As JenRob said, we need to be presented with definite options.
And really this is what’s needed, both carrot and stick. For example, it’s pointless to put in public transport if fuel is cheap and there are lots of roads and everyone already owns cars. It’d be pointless to put in a hug carbon tax on fuel if there were no public transport. The options must exist, and be useful. Excellent public transport (carrot) and big carbon tax (stick) when combined would be quite effective. Alone, not so much.
You can go through lots of different issues and come up with your own carrots and sticks. There are many ways to do things. But in essence you have to offer people useful options and give them an incentive to use them.
To #5, Kiashu: I agree, in essence, with many of your points above. (I haven’t looked at all the stats that closely, but your broader comments are sound.) Well put.
Thanks all, for another good discussion.
It strikes me that what needs to be done is now pretty clear. The big question left is how to move people at all levels into desired actions?
Very good comments here.
There’s a big difference between understanding global warming and understanding the magnitude of the problem. Science and technology have solved many of our problems, but until now this has mainly be done with using ever more energy. A good example is agriculture I think. Innovating within limits is much different from innovating without.
Also, I don’t think “normal” people realize how much has to be changed to make a serious dent in carbon emissions. Recycling and some different buying habits are not going to cut it. If the surveyors would have asked how many people did away their SUV in favor of a small car or a prius, they I think in most cases they would have got a blank stare in return, or worse. Same with a basic consideration like home isolation. “You mean my home isn’t good as it is?”
Education (in the broad sense) and leadership is key. Good examples, clear alternatives, etc.
Meryn, thanks for clarifying the different levels of understanding. I do believe – and prior research certainly support it – that the majority of Americans have a vague comprehension of global warming and the fact that it is not good. Where the understanding fall short is in the areas of immediacy, severity, and responsibility.
Marguerite, many thanks for another great post with great data !
I think I will write something on those polls on elrst.com…
Keep up the good work !
Thanks Edouard. I find it helpful to go back and forth between macro and micro, world view and the individual. Also the remedial actions to be taken, need to be based on sound data, including behavioral research.