Americans & Canadians Diverge on Climate Change
A new study provides an interesting public opinion comparison between Canada and the U.S.
Of the 11-page report, Tim Scolnick at Desmogblog says
perhaps the most surprising feature is that in Canada, in spite of the fact that the Conservative Party has held power for just over five years, all the while opposing any action to cap carbon emissions, 70% of the population still feels that their provincial government should take immediate action.
Huh? I take that to also mean that 70% of Canada must not feel all that strongly about climate change, since the ruling Conservative Party has not paid a price at the poll for taking a stance diametrically opposite to the majority of the populace.
No, what you are observing is the split of the Canadian left into three parties, for complicated historical reasons including Quebec nationalism, allowing the conservatives to dominate elections despite the fact that a majority of the public dislikes them.
The Canadian public, as with the public in most other countries, put fears about global warming well down the list, so although 70% may say they have concerns, the concerns pale againts economy, health, education needs, as well as other environmental concerns.
Not to mention its been so damn cold and we’ve had so much snow. this winter.
What Michael said. Imagine if Nader had actually created a stable political party and you begin to see the same thing in the u.s. In Canada, you’ve got 3 parties on the left plus a large regionally based party that is very left on climate issues (i.e. the Bloc Quebecois). The current situation clearly shows how dysfunctial first-past-the-post electoral systems are when you have more than two parties.
But on climate change you’re partially right Keith. The latest polling results in Ontario, at least, put environment as the top issue for a mere 4.7% of the electorate. Suprisingly, health care dominates over jobs/economy/taxes by a very wide margin (31%).
Interesting to see what people say about how they think.
What is more real is what people do.
And I don’t see any evidence of people de-carbonising themselves and their families.
I enjoyed table 13 that implied 58% of Canadians were willing to spend $58 a month for cap and trade/carbon tax but then followed up with this little note:
Note: Support levels represent the percentage of respondents who indicated that they either
“strongly supported” or “somewhat supported” the policy option.
Contrast that with table 11 “Willingness to Pay for Increased Renewable Energy Production In the United States and Canada”:
$500 or more a year = 7%
Looks like a text book version of Pielke Jr’s Iron Law if you ask me.
Canadian support for anti-GHG measures is a mile wide and an inch deep. The libs lost the last election after running on a carbon tax.
Canada as a whole gets 75% of it’s electricity from either hydro or nuclear.
7 of 13 provinces have no coal fired generating capacity.
The providence of Alberta accounts for 45% of coal generated electricity and 30% of natural gas generated electricity. Alberta accounts for a little more the 10% of the Canadian population.
I’m usually all for ‘making other people pay’ to solve some problem.
David Miller the very very green mayor of Toronto decided not to run in the last election. He would have faced an humiliating defeat. He as replaced by the very un-green Robert Ford. Ford has declared tht Miller’s war on the car is now over.
Toronto is that lst bastion of the Liberal party in Canada. If Toronto rejects a green mayor so overwhelmingly then you have an idea of how much support these AGW issues have in Canada.
Tobis is wrong yet again
Don’t know why Canadians would worry about climate change. On balance, warmth would probably be beneficial to Canada.
JD
@Tom Gray – “Tobis is wrong yet again” — no! Tobis is very right, indeed. The Harper led Conservatives have managed to stay alive within a minority government simply because the left/center-left parties are splitting the vote and allowing the Conservatives to govern… most assuredly, the majority of Canadians do not support the Conservatives.
It’s bad enough trying to link unrelated provincial and federal politics/parties. Extending that to the Toronto municipal level shows just how weak your presumptive position is.
@JD Ohio – it’s called permafrost… the infrastructure and ecosystem impact concerns of melting permafrost are dramatic and significant, notwithstanding the disequilibrium to offshore permafrost. You suggest, “on balance”, climate change will be beneficial for Canada – what skewed balance do you base your projection on?
Here’s a thought – perhaps a portion of that Canadian concern/worry you speak to, reflects upon Canadians being less insular… more worldly thinking, eh?
Table 12 says it all Keith. Notice there is nothing about AGW, it’s all about GW. Athough we haven’t warmed for 16 years according to Phil Jones, some people believe we have, but not all agree man is responsible. With the planet having a cold PDO, and experiencing a severe solar min, I’ve thought about what my take will be if the earth has warmed within the next 5 years. I will say man has a huge influence and we need to do something about it. Have the believers thought about what they are going to say if the earth cools? Do James Hansen, and “The Team”, get a pass? Or do they get the backlash they deserve, for destroying peoples faith in science?
I know nothing of Canadian politics. OTOH, 70% seems a huge majority – like really big; really really big. So, arguing that, in the Canadian system, the will of 70% of Canadians cannot be realized, is a tough sell.
I watched MSNBC when Scott Brown was elected to the senate. Rachel Maddow argued that voters were punishing democrats for not moving aggresively enough on Obama-care by electing the candidate who promised to squash Obama-care (remember that Brown was the key vote; I’ll not comment on the legislative shenanigans that followed). That was also a tough sell.
I think the lesson is that people have a remarkable ability to rationalize.
@Keith Grubb – your intellectually dishonest distortion of the Phil Jones BBC interview sets the rest of your blathering up quite well
Petee #11
Apparently, you haven’t noticed that the vast majority of Canadians live in the warmer areas close to the U.S.
JD
the interesting question, which aught to be the focus of the discussion, is why does climate change not follow the same partisan lines in Canada that it does in the U.S.? While it is true that Canadians have largely given up on federal action on climate change (and thus look to their provincial governments), it is nonetheless the case that politicians on this side of the border aren’t passing resolutions denying basic climate science. Why is that?
@JD
Arguing about climate impacts on balance is a precarious moral proposition, wouldn’t you agree? Or should we be prepared to compensate island states for rising sea levels, northern indigenous populations for vanishing permafrost, etc.?
OTOH, I think a reasonable case could be made that Canada won’t fair as badly as most parts of the world in the decades to come. But I’m not sure that’s something to cheer about.
My bad PeTee, let me be itellectually honest about the interview. According to Jones, 1995-2001 we warmed at a rate of 0.24 per decade (yeah right), 2002-2009 we cooled at a rate 0f 0.12 per decade (whatever). How’s that? Now have you thought about what you’re going to say in 2015 when we’ve cooled even further?
Marlowe Johnson Says:
March 22nd, 2011 at 9:28 am the interesting question, which aught to be the focus of the discussion, is why does climate change not follow the same partisan lines in Canada that it does in the U.S.?
If you break down US voting patterns by county/precinct the ‘partisan’ lines in the US are basically rural vs urban. The view of humanities impact on the environment is quite different from a rural perspective vs an urban perspective.
In an urban environment discharging untreated sewage into the environment is a problem. In a rural environment people have septic systems within a few hundred feet of their water wells.
M Johnson: “Arguing about climate impacts on balance is a precarious moral proposition, wouldn’t you agree? Or should we be prepared to compensate island states for rising sea levels, northern indigenous populations for vanishing permafrost, etc.?”
Allocating the burdens and benefits from any program dealing with global warming would be extremely complicated. However, I would point out that island states have benefited from energy derived technology, and the benefits derived from energy would have to be balanced against the detriments. For instance, I believe a very good case could be made that 80% of the people living in island states now would not be alive if they had used 1830s quality medicine from 1830 on.
JD
@harry
Aren’t you just dodging the question? Why are beliefs about climate change so closely coupled to political ideology in the U.S. compared to other western democracies like Canada? I agree that the urban/rural situation closely tracks party affiliation (the same is true in Canada).
Sorry JD i’m struggling to understand your logic. Is your contention that medical advances over the last 180 years are the result of coal-fired electricity and SUVs?
@Grubb #17: you could fess up and advise why you insist in ignoring all other temperature records… why you’re concentrating solely on CRU data/records. Why does your intellectual dishonesty compel you to ignore the other record/processing that does show the 95% statistically significant warming over that purposeful cherry-picked interval – right? You could also advise why you can’t even be truthful about what Jones actually did say in that BBC interview.
Specifically, “BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
Of course, over that purposefully cherry-picked interval, statistical significance was at the 93% level… add another year, start at 1994 and the 95% level is/was realized with CRU data. Denier is as denier does, right Grubb? Your other short-term cooling reference is simply… nonsense. What’s that you say? Warmest decade on record, you say?
#20 Johnson
“Sorry JD i’m struggling to understand your logic. Is your contention that medical advances over the last 180 years are the result of coal-fired electricity and SUVs?
I am saying that medical advances are a product of advanced economies and advanced economies are based on high energy usage that involves the heavy use of electricity and large energy expenditures for transportation. I think Europe and the U.S. have historically led in medical research, as contrasted with low energy users such as Africa or even China or India until recent times. Maybe you can cite a country or area with low energy usage that has developed advanced medical care.
JD
Petee,
You and I have gone completely off topic, and our comments should probably be snipped. Keith Kloor moves fast, so he may not even notice. Just in case here’s my take. Unlike you (world thinker), there are very few things in life that I’m certain about. What I am certain about is that I’m not going to change you from being a “Follower”, and you have no chance of changing me from being a “Denier”. As I have already stated, what will change me, is if we warm in the next five years or so. My question is, is there anything that will change you from being a “Follower”? Oh by the way, I check in on AMSU on a daily basis, and no I don’t follow the “Teams” (GISS) temps at all.
Grub… enjoy! http://bit.ly/fZG8tu
Fwiw, the supposed off-topic was at your instigation. But really, c’mon – what self-respecting denier even questions warming today. Clearly, you’re on the fringe of the fringe. You need to step it up a bit – sensitivity is your real target!
Hey now! Word on the street has it that the Koch bros are not at all happy with the results of BEST. Kind of puts another crimp in your baseless challenge to the surface temperature records, eh?
PeeWee…take another one
As soon as you went into weird world you lost me bro.
Grub, I accept your unconditional surrender!
Yeah…as soon as u mentioned Koch, I was beat. I look forward to future battles. Again, I know you’ve thought about what you would say if the globe cools in the future. If you can rationalize it, I would love to hear it. The rationalizing part might be what’s holding you up.
Keith – I think as soon as you lied about what Phil Jones said, you were beat.
JD Ohio has something of a valid point that Canada may benefit from some additional warming. Of course, Canada isn’t isolated from the rest of the world, which as a whole, won’t.
I hope Canadian liberals can get their act together. The conservative lack of action on climate aggravates me.