From Greenbiz, I learned about a recent survey from the UK Co-op amongst its 100,000 members. The survey provides a very telling picture of people’s mindsets relative to all things green. Because if its scale – 100,000 members polled, the findings are significant. Co-op shoppers were asked the following question: what is your top ethical priority (when shopping for food)? Here are the results:
Ethical trading 27%
Animal welfare 25%
Environmental Impact 22%
General animal welfare issues 21%
Fairtrade 14%
Food Quality, Diet and Health 12%
General environmental impact 9%
Community Retailing 9%
General ethical trading 8%
Packaging and waste 8%
Sound sourcing (inc child labour) 5%
Animal testing 4%
Climate change 4%
Sustainable sourcing 1%
Other 5%
A common interpretation of those results has been that ‘Brits Care More About Animals Than Climate Change’:
Paul Monaghan, the Co-op‘s head of ethics, said the group believed that consumers’ apparent indifference to climate change was likely to be the result of believing they have little influence to force change: “They may believe they are powerless on climate change. People can choose to buy Fairtrade or Freedom Food labels, but there is no carbon label yet. We think shoppers see climate change as an issue for corporations and governments.“
This is consistent with most of the research we have seen so far. Climate change is perceived as a global issue, to be addressed globally. Until it is made personally relevant and people are given the solutions to address it, it will most likely remain so.
La Marguerite 
Marguerite, that’s a very thought-provoking post.
A few thoughts . . .
First, coming from a background that includes a lot of market research, I couldn’t comment on what the research might actually suggest without knowing the exact methodology and without listening (myself) to many of the respondents directly, i.e., using a decent combination of good quantitative research and qualitative research, i.e., some well-done focus groups and so forth, perhaps including in-person individual interviews. The view of the person you mention in your post sounds possible, and perhaps reasonable, but I’ve heard a lot of possible and reasonable views that were based on poor research and/or were not correct in the end. I’m sure you know what I mean.
That said, the question you are exploring is not an easy one to figure out, of course. In certain contexts (such as shopping and food), some issues may be more top-of-mind, or obvious, than others. And, as the post points out, there’s the question of how much control a person thinks she/he has. And, some issues are viewed as very important but not urgent, or not perceived to be as urgent, while other issues may be a bit less “important” but feel more urgent. And so forth. Judging only from the list of results, even though the sample size is huge, my guess is that the research was not really done in a way that would allow someone to have confidence in the answer regarding this particular issue.
But, to the extent that global warming is not perceived to be of high importance (or not among the top five issues at least) in the US (rather than in the UK), I think the media must share a big part of that responsibility. We get (or don’t get) most of our information from the media.
Finally, I agree with you that there is a sense in which people understand that large changes (at the government and corporation level) are needed and that individuals can only do so much. As you know, that’s why voting for the right person is so important.
Cheers. (and sorry for length)
Hmm…how do you think the animals will fare under global warming?
Actually, we already know. Just spend some time with a small child and you’ll likely have the misfortune of having to answer questions like, “How come we don’t see salamanders anymore?” “What are the polar bears going to do when the ice melts?” “How can we help the animals?”
It is profoundly sad.
Lynn
http://www.organicmania.com
Jeff, your comments complement La marguerite so well. like a bonus track. and the effect of this accidental collaboration invite others to add to the engaging discourse…may i?
humans identify with animals, empathy, sympathy, safety..so if the serious environmentalists tap this emotional source, they will arrive at an open field of trust.
when people realize that what happens to their animal friends, happens to them also, they will turn the page to voluntary conservation. institutionalization has deluded society into governmental reliance.
next step–devising simple icons to help consumers to choose low carbon products. no text, no lectures and full page ads, just a little logo.
so grateful for the questions and specific topic, marguerite.
Thanks Jeff, Lynn, and Nadine for such rich comments. Of course, I agree with all. Humans respond first and foremost to emotional messages, not science facts. And communication, whether through advertising, or in personal relationships, starts with empathy. What’s fascinating to me, is how, if one is careful enough in reading all the data that’s pouring out, people are telling us how they want to be related to. We need go no further than ourselves, for that matter.