A recent Morgan Poll paints an interesting picture of shifting public opinion on global warming.
The poll shows that since 2006, and especially over the past two years, the percentage of respondents sayng that concerns about global warming are exaggerated has grown from 13 per cent to 31 per cent, whilst the percentage saying that “if we don’t act now it will be too late” has fallen from 67 per cent to 50 per cent. The percentage saying that “it’s already too late”, after dipping from 15 per cent in 2006 to 11 per cent earlier this year, has returned to 14 per cent.
The really interesting part comes when the figures are broken down according to Federal voting intentions.
Whereas a majority (69 per cent) of Labor voters believe that “if we don’t act now it will be too late”, a majority of Coalition voters (51 per cent) and 70 per cent of National Party voters, believe that global warming concerns are exaggerated. Further, between November and December, the percentage of Labor voters in the “act now” camp rose by 5 per cent whilst the percentage of Coalition voters in the “concerns are exaggerated” group also rose by 5 per cent.
When we compare the latest poll with the April 2006 Morgan Poll on the same issue with the same questions, we find the following:
* Amongst ALP voters, the percentage saying “act now” was the same in 2006 (69 per cent) as in December 2009, whereas the percentage saying “concerns are exaggerated” has risen only slightly (9 per cent to 14 per cent).
* Amongst Coalition voters, the percentage saying “concerns are exaggerated” has risen from 18 per cent to 50 per cent whilst the percentage saying “act now” has declined from 71 per cent to 34 per cent.
In other words, the growth in public “scepticism” about global warming consists almost entirely of the growth of such opinion amongst Coalition voters. This is not what one would expect if public opinion was shifting in response to new information about, or reconsideration of, the science of the issue. If this were the case we would expect to find a growth in “sceptical” opinion across the party-political spectrum.
I would suggest that the shift in opinion reflects a shift in the partisan cues coming from the Coalition parties and Coalition politicians since 2006. Remember that in 2006-2007, the introduction of an emissions trading scheme was official Coalition government policy, the public position of the Coalition was that climate change was a real problem which required attention, Malcolm Turnbull as Environment Minister was actively promoting this view, and public denialism by Coalition figures was confined to backbench mavericks like Dennis Jensen.
Since then, as we know all too well, the Coalition in opposition has opposed Labor’s attempts to introduce an emissions trading scheme, open denialism by leading Coalition figures has been increasingly common, and Tony “the world is cooling” Abbott has become Federal Liberal leader in a leadership contest which was in large part a fight over beliefs about global warming.
The role of partisan cues in shifting voter sentiment on policy issues is an interesting and important question for political scientists and practitioners alike. Would, for instance, the republic referendum have been carried in 1999 had John Howard campaigned for a “Yes” vote? We’ll never know, but if the Morgan Poll figures are reasonably accurate it would appear that one-third of Coalition voters (roughly 1.8 million Australians, and about 14 per cent of the electorate) have shifted their opinion on climate change in response to the increasingly denialist partisan cues coming from the Coalition in the past two years.
Update: As of 8:45am on 18 December comments are closed as (a) I will be offline for the next fortnight and (b) some commenters are behaving like silly big kids.
I wish i could say that I was at all surprised.
The other Norton came to a similar conclusion: http://andrewnorton.info/2009/12/13/party-polarisation-on-global-warming
Meanwhile, if you want a Christmas chuckle, read Dennis the Shaman today on Abbott’s “Churchillian” qualities:
Linked text
Virgina Trioli was struggling not to laugh out loud at this on ABC2 this morning.
So people are turning to politicians (POLITICIANS!) to help them decide what is factually true or most-likely true …
Maybe our species is too stupid to survive.
I’ve noticed this myself, and commented on various fora in the following terms
1. AGW “sceptics” are selectively sceptical – no such “scepticism” was shown by them wrt to claims of WMD in Iraq (and certainly in the blogosphere there appears to be a 1:1 relationship between AGW “sceptics” and Iraq “urgers”)
2. This group (both groups?) seem to be remarkably impervious to actual evidence and its implications.
3. In the case of AGW, there seems to be a conviction among the denialists that if only they could win the arguments (rhetorically ?) then the whole nasty business of AGW would just go away, and we could then carry on with “business as usual.”
Bit of a pity, really – looks like partisan politics combined with ignorance are going to lead to the destruction of our civilisation at the very least.
Hope the cockroaches can do a bit better
My money’s on the octopodi, Pterosaur.
Anyone else amused by the Mad Monk’s muttering about Direct Action?
http://directaction.org.au/
Like the others I’m not surprised. It makes sense that higher proportions of a consitutency relying substantially on those who are clueless, sociopathic, anomic or some combination would eventually come to attach themselves to this idea mnore readily than people at large or those who are not.
Still, to hear Tony Abbott this morning on Fran Kelly declare that he accepted AGW and would do a better job of tackling it than Kevin Rudd means that this poll is disastrous for him. He is reaching out to the Greens he says, but his own base thinks he shouldn’t and he himself has hitherto said it was crap. And he wants to fight an election on this?
He really is mad.
Pterosaur — I’ve been saying for over five years that the AGW scare was similar to the terrorist scare. Sure, there is some truth to the problem… but then fear-mongers and government-lovers have exaggerated the problems to justify a huge government intervention costing over a trillion dollars which is unlikely to make much difference.
Comments about the “destruction of our civilisation” are so far from mainstream science and analysis that it is hard to take you seriously. Though, given your comments about “impervious to actual evidence” perhaps you were being intentionally ironic.
I’d say the big win for the other side was to instantly shout loudly the meme that Climategate was proof positive that it’s all a fraud.
And what can those on the left do?
Instantly say “No it’s not” which is dishonest without analysing the evidence and arguements.
Or parse the emails and the different arguements about the context of the emails and the content by which time the meme is unstoppable.
I really really hope that the Blair’s and Bolt’s of this world are right.
Terry -
“Virgina Trioli was struggling not to laugh out loud at this on ABC2 this morning.”
I’m still laughing. I’m betting there is some nervousness about the next Newspoll at News/Party HQ and Dennis got a talking points memo last night exhorting faithful soldiers to do their best for Tony’s numbers over the next few days. Expect equally transparent/risible headlines tomorrow and Friday
This report prepared by Sustainability Victoria (the government agency) provides some hard data about Victorians views about environmental issues. I have hardly skimmed through it, and I’m sure there’s puffery/propaganda in there, but generally strong support for more action on the environment.
tssk@10
The claim was so ludicrous that dignifying it with detailed analysis would have been ill-advised. The capign was designed to such the oxygen out of the room in the run up to Copenhagen.
The data for anthropogenesis can’t be refuted by a handful of snarky emails cherry picked from 13 years of correspondence.
If the filth merchant fraudsters can come up with a single measurable reason for thinking either that the world is not warming, or that something other than accretion of Co2e is responsible, then this will require analyisis, but until then, these people are simply trying to keep the world’s most reckless lunatics in the driver’s seat with their foot on the fossil combustion throttle as we head into uncharted climate territory.
JH @9
So, you don’t think that a combination of :
Economic collapse
Social collapse
Ecosystem collapse
Sea level rise
Major loss of food productivity (globally)
will threaten our civilisation ? I beg to differ.
You also have some pretty strange ideas as to what constitutes “mainstream science” if you think that the factors I have listed (and the list is not exhaustive) are not imminent.
Perhaps you get your mainstream science from Ian Plimer ?
I think we ignore the power of talkback radio to keep people misinformed at our peril. Conspiracy theorists like Brian Wilshire wield enormous influence. Wilshire seems to have a direct line to Lyndon Larouche.
Pollyanna.
Shorter Morgan poll: Boredom wins.
Jonh Humphreys, if you’re not as worried about the future as Pterosaur (and me), you really haven’t been paying attention.
Our civilization depends, to a huge extent, on the energy from cheap fossil fuel. We can’t afford to burn any more of it.
Additionally, we’ve already probably got enough warming locked in to:
. destroy the Great Barrier Reef;
. destroy the Murray-Darling basin (where about 40% of Australia’s foos is grown apparently);
. ensure the rivers that water southern China, Inochina, Bangladesh, India and Pakistan dry up (when the Himalayan glaciers retreat) thus causing massive misery and starvation; and
. drown Bangladesh (particularly) from rising sea levels.
We’re also hitting peak oil (did I mention how much we depend on fossil fuel?) and peak phosphorous, so industrial-scale agriculture will probably be a thing of the past. Add to that the projected population of the world in 2050 (half as much again as now), which we may have some trouble feeding in a warmer, drier world.
What I’d like to know is why you aren’t worried.
Taking a dry, political view of things for a moment, it does show that, in respect of his own party, Turnbull was quite out on a limb.
Don’t worry about Humphreys usual hit and run – he’s a glibertarian.
That is – he’s a conservative that has a bunch of rational (to him) excuses for always siding with other conservatives. Actual argument you won’t get.
I think a good metaphor for civilization is it’s like a really large boat. It’s very very hard to stop or turn quickly.
Some up in the lookout tower think there are icebergs ahead. But since we haven’t hit one yet (or in some cases avoided them by turning in time) there are some who are more concerned about getting to their destination and damn it we don’t need to stop for anything. Besides, isn’t the ship meant to be unsinkable or something?
They will of course be the first people elbowing the women and children in the face if the rush for life rafts were to happen.
to John Humphreys
The impacts of climate change are already impacting significant numbers of communities from Nepal to Bangladesh,in terms of physical security and food production, while nearer to home the Torres Strait region is facing the impact of rising sea levels.
Meh. The libs and denialists are wanna be Republicans. They haven’t got an original idea amongst themselves.
It is all parroted off the rightwing teabagger ‘where’s your birth certificate’ greed is GOOODDD quick buy up all the guns nutjobs from the good ol US of A.
Wish they’d just move to goddamn America and be done with it.
Hit and run glibertarian. Heh, I like it Ute Man.
TIME TO PANIC: this-faux-’conservatism’-has-to-GO! and Tyrannosaurus Abbott knows it won’t survive in the 21st century unless some serious rebranding is done.
Accepting these fascists amongst us makes as all culpable: demanding that the developing world put the brakes on because the developed world has noticed a problem with the weaponisation of their societies is divisiveness in its most nakedly intense form!
I thought we were the lucky country?!!? Why all the crying victim then?!!? The blue-blooded creatures that count other peoples pennies have to be shunned into submission or we are looking at a very disgruntled set of billions of people!
Don’t the worlds religions teach compasion?!!? Well let’s start with focussing on the hypocrisy of those who preach the bible! HEY: why stop there?!!? Let’s look at hypocrisy in all its forms before we start a war with some of these so called developing countries: the hypocrisy in our own back yard is just astonishing!
*** Wake Up People! *** [...give me another beer before then, tho, won't you! Hey let's just watch sport and drink beer and demand that China gets it act together...oh, and those Indians: someone needs to put a rocket up them{hic!, ....fallsover!!}]
John @ 9, the models are breaking down: they don’t know what’s going to happen but they are fairly sure something is up!
sometimes my thoughts take me to places i would rather avoid when i witness the willful arrogant stupidity of the bolts,blairs and minchins of the world.the only consolation i have is imagining them in their dottage,parked in some nursing home,sitting in a recliner with a full and urine soaked incontinence pad and being “cared” for by some angry resentfull young person whose future they have so assiduously worked to damage.
Nobby refused to go to the next step of self referencing…Nibble Nobbies Nuts!
Costello got it pretty much spot on in the Age today when talking about the result in Higgins.
‘Greens preaching lost on the ordinary people of Higgins’
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/greens-preaching-lost-on-the-ordinary-people-of-higgins-20091215-kudu.html
The comments on this short post are an interesting microcosm of the problems the world faces with climate change. Too many extreme views on both sides. Too many fanatics jump and down and are quick to shout ‘denier’ when any part of the climate change gospel according to the Greens is questioned. Too many right wing nutbags see reds under every bed and claim that climate change is a left wing conspiracy to de-industrialise the globe.
The science on climate change is over-whelming. Yes the planet is warming. Yes, greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are contributing. But no – that doesn’t mean the end of civilisation or that Australia should adopt some form of carbon tax or ETS. This is a global issue and will require a global solution. Let’s hope something sensible comes out of Copenhagen – unfortunately I don’t think it will. Which means adaptation rather than mitigation maybe where we should be spending our dollars.
Thai temple going under water: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/vanishing-thai-temple-drowns-warming-doubts-20091215-kukj.html
Incidentally, how DO denialists explain the rash of these developments, including in our own Torress Strait?
Andrew said this above:
.
Simply bizarre and, I suspect, disingenuous. Nothing sensible can come out of Copenhagen that does not produce a cost on carbon dioxide emissions and the capacity for the less developed countries of the world to develop low cabon-emitting economies.
The last sentence is an appeal in practice for pollution-as-usual and let the chips fall where they may. What Andrew advocates is for the world to agree at Copenhagen that large swathes of humanity can can suffer and die so that we privileged people can avoid trimmiong our lifestyle.
Very ugly Andrew. Dishonest and sociopathic, really. It just goes to show how much pressure is coming from the filth merchants on this issue.
They don’t LeftyE – just had an ongoing long running thread on a games forum shut down by admins as I was being offensive for demanding evidence to incoming assertions lifted from denier feeds.
Oh man, I’m glad that’s over – I provided links to lectures, climate textbooks, journals yadda yadda (although I’ve always been impressed with Brian and RobertM who post here – and have borrowed their links on more than a few occasions – thanks guys) – but it mattered not – no amount of evidence satisfied.
But on their side, demands of evidence was seen as inflammatory – admittedly, at the end my disdain for wilful ignorance became evident – the last post “evidence or reference of claim that ‘CO2 is 97% natural’ or I’m calling pants on fire” was enough to make the idiot cry or rather feign mortal offense.
I’d love to know how they actually think the world operates – I mean I don’t know, but I’d go to a textbook or a few to find out – not make stuff up on the spot and then assert it’s true.
Another that got me was the accusation that all climate scientists are bent and corrupt their findings for apparently all funding is only given out to those proven bent scientists. They defame people they’ve never meet without feeling the need to provide cause. Amazing since it’s scientific advancements that have prolonged their spiteful lives yet only to snarl back at the scientists.
More and more, I feel revulsion to these people and glad I’ve stopped engaging them as I’ve no doubt they have mental issues that I cannot address. It was good in a few respects – I felt the need for a subscription to Nature journal that I’ll continue to enjoy. Read a few texts that is never a load to carry. And seen some great posters on the net – Brian and RMerkel here, a John Mashey that gets about, just to mention 3 greats of many – and I so get http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/
Lefty E @28, MWP?
Fran – what????? I said nothing of the sort! I actually hope that Copenhagen produces a rock solid and legally binding global commitment to whatever reduction in emissions is necessary to avert the worst outcomes from climate change. Where do you get off calling me disingenous and dishonest when you’re the one who’s putting ugly words into my mouth.
How do you get from what I said – which is that I think Cophenhagen will be a failure – to a comment that I’m hoping large swathes of humanity suffer and die?
That’s the complete and utter BS that is polluting this entire debate that I referred to in the opening paragraph. Fran – with comments like yours you are part of the problem. Leave the emotional cr*p out of it and start trying to be part of the solution.
If Copenhagen fails (as I think it will) – we need to work out what we’re going to do. Putting a tax on carbon in Australia is not going help one jot.
I hope I’m wrong – I hope the globe gets its act together and comes up with binding commitments to reduce emissions.
@Jane
MWP = Mediaeval Warm Period
I suppose this post just adds to the old adage about lies, damn lies, and statistics. The author claims that shifts in public opinion have no validity. They are merely dunderheads taking “partisan cues” from the incorrigible “denialists”. And yet the history of the last 100 years clearly shows it is the Left who specialise in bigotry in the face of evidence, inertia, and continuing to defend the indefensible, long after it had become tragic.
The opinion polls might just as likely be telling us that the Left has not changed its spots.
After all, how many of the bloggers who spend 24/7 spilling bile and hatred at the “loopy denialists” actually know ANYTHING about science? From the blogs I read, it’s definitely low single digits in % terms. Just like they were led by blind faith last century.
SA
“From the blogs I read, it’s definitely low single digits in % terms”
you should get out more then, obviously.
Did you also somehow miss the facts that the works of tens of thousands of scientists summarised by the IPCC also seems to conclude AGW is real, happening and extremely threatening ?
You also seem to have neatly demonstrated @ 35 the point made in the post.
Well done
I said nothing about the “reality” or otherwise of AGW. The “scientists” you genuflect in front of are not the people who live on these blogs. I merely commented on the shallowness of interpreting an opinion poll, and linked it to the fact of the history of left wing group think
Andrew said:
You were the one who
1. opposed a price on carbon, without which a robust program of mitigation on a world scale will in practioce be impossible
2. proposed adaptation rather than mitigation
In short, Abbott/Lomborg.
You can retract your words but you can’t assail me for relying on them.
This tells us everything we need to know about you.
Andrew @ 33 – I agree that Copenhagen is most likely to fail. The leaders of the poor nations of the developing world won’t go home content unless the developed world agrees to stump up hundreds of billions, with no strings attached, to compensate for their being shut of out the carbon emissions space. This the west won’t do for fear of an electoral backlash and, just possibly, a certain discreet sense of moral revulsion, given what Sudan, for example, or Zimbabwe, are likely to do with such monies. As for AGW mitigation: even if it is happening, any optimism that the UN, which on this occasion could not even organise a conference on climate change effectively (let alone prevent – mitigate? – genocide in Sudan), will be able to do anything material about it seems to be somewhat misplaced.
Back on topic, I wonder whether there is another possible explanation for the change in sentiment Paul?
While it is reasonable to think that some people take cues from political parties on issues they haven’t thought deeply about, it is also reasonable that they take cues from their lived experience of the weather itself. The link below (if it works) is to the Sydney Catchment Authority’s water storage and supply report. There is a graph toward the bottom showing water storage levels in Sydney since 2001. The period where the first Morgan poll was taken was the nadir of water storage levels in Sydney. Although there is considerable variation in storage across the state and the country, in many parts of Australia the 2005-06-early-07 period was the worst of the most recent drought. Indeed, you can take it from me that Rudd’s political strategy in 2007 on climate change and water was to take advantage of the drought to connect it to the need to act quickly and concertedly on climate change.
Of course, the danger of such a strategy (connecting short-term climate variation with the need to act) is that when the short-term climate moves in the other direction (more rainfall), a bunch of people that don’t understand that what is important is the longer term trend, become less concerned about the issue. That is especially the case if one party more or less legitimises that attitude.
So, I put it to you that a bunch of coalition supporters were only ever marginally committed to the view that climate change was a serious problem and subsequent events and their political framing have made it easer for them to reverse their positions.
Please note that I am not saying that this attitude is the right one, nor that there aren’t still serious water shortages in many parts of the country, nor that the Murray Darling basin is not still under threat.
http://www.sca.nsw.gov.au/dams-and-water/weekly-storage-and-supply-reports/2009/water-storage-and-supply-report—10-december-2009
Fran – read the post again and stop jumping to hysterical & emotional interpretations. I oppose a carbon tax in Australia if there is no global solution. A tax (or ETS) does nothing here if we don’t get a global solution out of Copenhagen. Frankly – I’m pessimistic about Copenhagen achieving anything.
I hope I’m wrong – but we probably need to start thinking about how we adapt to climate change now.
I’m more than happy to pay more for everything if it means we won’t have to deal with climate change. I’m not happy about paying more for everything and ending up with having to deal with climate change anyway. There is absolutely no sense in Australia rushing ahead of a global consensus on what to do. We are a price taker on this one.
1. I don’t oppose a price on carbon. I oppose a price on carbon in Australia if there is no global solution.
2. I don’t ‘propose’ adaption rather than mitigation. Clearly mitigation is better. But if we can’t mitigate (because there’s no global consensus) then we’d better work out how to adapt!
At no stage in my post did wish for suffering and death for swathes of humanity – cut out that pointless and emotional rhetoric and try to be part of the solution.
Paul, you say:
‘…it would appear that one-third of Coalition voters (roughly 1.8 million Australians, and about 14 per cent of the electorate) have shifted their opinion on climate change in response to the increasingly denialist partisan cues coming from the Coalition in the past two years.’
Yet the election of the pro-ETS Malcolm Turnbull as leader of the Opposition and his performance over 15(?) months may have sent the exact opposite cue. It makes me think we should look elsewhere for an explanation of the shift in opinion of coalition voters.
As Clive James so beautifully put it – its now a dialogue rather than a monologue.
Andrew wrote:
Ah, here’s your problem: you think “pay more” when what is really required is that we need to change our behaviour. Everybody does. “Pay more” is supposed to be a signal to people to stop doing what they are doing. It’s a substitute for explicitly telling people what to do. But that doesn’t change the fact that we can’t continue emitting c02 in the volumes that we do. If you don’t stop, who will? If the rest of the world doesn’t think we’re acting in good faith, why would they?
Uteman – Ah so there’s your problem. You think we need to change our behaviour whereas I think we need to find solutions that maintain or standard of living, ‘Paying more’ for carbon is supposed to be about raising revenue to pay for new and cleaner sources of energy. I agree that we can’t keep emitting CO2 in the volumes that we do- so we need to raise the cost of emitting CO2 so that we can use the money to invest in alterbatives.
Uteman- I also don’t buy the noble ‘let’s make a sacrifice so the world will follow’ argument. That’s a very arrogant view of ourplace in the world. We need to act in good faith yes – but who are you kidding if you think that Australia will hold global moral sway on this!!
So how long before Abbott’s “good girl”, deputy Julie Bishop, will tell us how Rudd is making a fool of himself “strutting the world stage” and how he should “get on the phone” and fix “this mess” in Copenhagen?
Carn Bish, Abbott got your tongue?
Once we might have expected a Loyal Opposition to tell our PM, whatever his colours, that “we’ve got your back”, when he is representing our country overseas.
Not these rabid dogs.
Global moral sway? Are you going to tell me that our 100 or so years of active involvement in wars, international courts and foreign aid was just for the LULZ?
Of course you don’t buy it – your reaction is purely tribal, but how do you square it with our “moral sway” shooting at darkies in Iraq and Afghanistan? Since we have no “moral sway”, we send our soldiers on right wing inspired lunacy just for sport?
Clearly we should close our embassies and borders and simply fill sandbags for the poor denizens of Double Bay who are about to get flooded.
(screw that, the liberal voting bastards can fill their own sandbags if they vote for Abbott but cry on TV when their shag pile starts to smell like fish)
It seeem Ute Man and others hate the moderates in their own camp even more than they hate their real enemies. Give Andrew a break. He’s making sense.
Uteman, why now bring Iraq and Afghanistan into the discussion? What on earth has that got to do with climate change? Surely climate change is a big enough problem as it is? Odd response!
I’ll tell you why – because “moral sway” is so selectively applied, that’s why. Either we hold moral sway or we don’t. If we don’t, as you assert, then our entire foreign policy (including climate change) should logically be one of disengagement with the political processes of other countries altogether. Would that suit you, or is “moral sway” only applicable when it involves the military?
Andrew @ 53 – that’s how the lunatic fringe operates. Don’t expect reason or respect.
Ute Man, Andrew is clearly a cornucopian (or possibly a drive-by glibertarian – great phrase, man, my son likes it too. Can I steal it?)
I don’t think he understands quite how serious our situation is.
A correction: Andrew may well understand how serious things are, but just not give a fuck.
Holland and Bangladesh will drown. Andrew, are you going to offer your spare room to the Dutch and the Bangladeshis?
I thought not. Just fuck off.
“Just fuck off.”
Andrew’s on your side – he just has a different perspective. What’s the point of the abuse?
At least Andrew hung around and attempted discourse – unlike Humphreys who drops his little turd and runs away.
I’m pretty sure “drive by glibertarian” isn’t original either, but if it is I hereby donate it to the internets.
Honestly, my brain hurts just trying to think up justifications for unilateral action to “liberate” Iraqis which is apparently OK, but letting small countries disappear under the waves is also OK because we suddenly require 100% international co-operation. Is it just me?
Uteman @ 50, that line of argument would be valid had the Howard Govt launched into Iraq and Afghanistan all by its little self. I sort of suspect that had Howard tried to have Oz lead the world into those countries it would not only have been the left that would have giggle helplessly.
Back to the topic, it seems a little puzzling that the coalition vote reflects this change at the moment. Abbot has not really had time or opportunity to sway them to date. (I mean he has not yet really released policy, and what he has said is more about positioning himself as a climate change champion – as hard as I find that to believe).
Having said that, I feel that Abbot has a good chance to portray the ALP (and the left) as being all talkers and conference tarts – rather than serious about doing anything. Talk and debate is all very well, but frankly it is being overdone imo. There are plenty of technological advances out there (even a post on LP a week or so ago) plainly telling all who are willing to think, that action can happen without large talkfests and endless debate. There is a lot of technology out there now which can deliver carbon reduction targets that outperform – but apparently we have to wait for the talkers before we can start. Frankly, I am so disillusioned with the ALP (and the greens are almost as bad in talkfesting) that I will at least listen to the Mad Monk despite despising his position on a lot of social issues.
Oh, and as an example of my disillusion with the ALP – in SA with an election coming up, the Premier’s centrepiece is a $450 Million stadium!! (We’ve got a shortage of them, right?) With delays to public tranport infrastructure to help pay for it!!!! ALP believes in Climate Change? Pull the other one!
Thanks David – nice rational response to a discussion! Please don’t bother responding further.
Uteman – what behavious is it that you think we should change? If it is that we need to emit less CO2 then I’m with you 100%. If it goes beyond that, then are you really advocating a climate change response or are you thinking more broadly about other social policy issues?
My point about Australia not leading on this is just common sense. We make no difference to overall emissions and we’re not a global super-power who will influence the UN, EC, US or G77. On the Iraq and Afghanistan issues – we’re not leading we’re following. Whether we’re following in the right direction is a whole other matter – following the US into Iraq seems like a dumb thing to have done. Following the UN into Afghanistan is less clear. But as I said above, these are separate issues – let’s avoid clouding the climate change discssion with emotional detours into tat territory
I suspect Copenhagen will deliver a deal.100+ heads of state aren’t turning up only to arrive home to unsightly mass protests, reeking of failure.
The deal wont (yet) be enough, but it will be enough to kick off an entire global economy in sustainable energy production that will gain its own momentum, and have its own capitalist/ corporatist/ state R&D subsidised/ state owned/ mix of public private political economies, depending on the states concerned.
ie. business as usual – only greener.
Capitalism has always evolved, folks – destroying old industries and modes of productio and creating new ones. Anyone who thinks hanging on to old ways of doing things somehow ‘sides with’ – or even understands capitalist social relations needs to read more economic history.
drive by glibertarian scores at about as original as you can get these days.
Good news: REDD Deal on forest conservation very close to settled at Copenhagen. This isnt everything by any means but its a HUGE component nailed. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/science/earth/16forest.html?_r=2&ref=science
Scratch the ‘complete flop’ horse at Copenhagen, folks – its a non-starter. Now on to emissions.
“I thought not. Just fuck off.”
Moderators, can you please get involved here? Abusing people is a certain way of closing down dialogue and this thread has been derailed in a major way.
David, please be civil.
Andrew at no point said that mitigation wasn’t important. He made the valid point that if over the next decade or so there is no effective global deal to mitigate climate change, then mitigation efforts in Australia will be somewhat ineffective.
The best response to that is to point out that: a) early mitigation efforts in developed countries collectively can increase the probability that a global agreement is eventually reached; and b) if you think that a global agreement will take place in the future, or even just that there is a good chance that such an agreement will be made, it is better to begin the transition now. Decarbonisation will be a long and difficult process, both technologically and politically. Consistent price signals now will make that transition smoother.
We can agree to disagree about the optimality of large mitigation efforts prior to an effective global agreement without resorting to attacks.
LO’s connection between people’s experience of drought and climate change is a good one. My mother was never as exercised about climate as she was when the water restrictions were at their height.
She took to heating water in the electric kettle rather than run the cold water waiting for the hot to come through to fill the sink. This was her attempt to do the right thing. As uninformed as the Victorian ALP government’s decision to use electricity to make fresh water out of sea water.
Someone really needs to get out there explain to the vast majority of people the link between electricity, CO2, and greenhouse effect.
Andrew:
Horses s mouth
Our own emissions are actually pretty significant (the coal industry says our electricity generation for the tiny population here is 0.5% of global emissions, in population terms that is huge).
They rather coyly delide on informing us what the emisions might be from our trading partners who presumably aren’t building coal castles, but burning it.
Now, tell me why we aren’t a big problem again? Sure, blame China for burning it, but some encouragement to find alternatives would surely be in all our interests.
As for what behaviour needs to change – what doesn’t? Somebody has to slow down emissions and it isn’t going to happen by magic – it means a serious dent in power consumption and fossil fuel usage. You can do that however you like.
(link didn’t work – google australian coal exports 2008 and go to the coal facts australia website – don’t worry, it’s run by the coal industry).
Andrew makes the common mistake of assuming that Australia is a small fish globally. We are not small at all. We are the 16th largest polluter. 16th out of 210.
There are 194 countries who are smaller than we are. There are only 15 who are bigger.
It matters shitloads what we do. Even if it didn’t, LO’s points show why it is advantageous for us to act now. It is in the National Interest (c) to act now.
Ahh- so youe point is that Australia is a major coal producer – whether burnt here or in China doesn’t matter, it’s still our coal? The problem with that argument is that China will get coal from elsewhere if not here.
‘encouragement to fine alternative’…. ‘slow down emissions’….. BINGO. Now you’ve got it. We need to spend time and money on developing alternatives.
Call me stupidly optimistic…. but I have enormous faith in human ability to innovate and adapt. The technology advances in the past 100yrs are breathtaking. Just imagine someone from 1910 being sent forward in time to today. WOW!!! I’m optimistic that we’ll find an alternative to fossil fuel so that we can keep our standard of living – maybe even expand it. And maybe even have enough abundant clean energy so that developing nations can develop faster.
Australia 0.3% global population
Australia 1.5% global emissions
Australia 5 times over the odds
United States 5% global population
United States 20% global emissions
United States 4 times over the odds
Europe 8% global population
Europe 15% global emissions
Europe 2 times over the odds
China 20% global population
China 20% global emissions
China even money bet
Africa 13% global population
Africa 3% global emissions
Africa 4 times UNDER the odds
Andrew wrote:
When society i under duress, I’d agree, but I suspect the innovative and adaptive solutions (a return to beasts of burden and bicycles) are not really on the radar and will not be acceptable to the majority of western populations. You need energy to innovate and we currently get it from a variety of sources that are causing problems. Catch 22.
Unless you’ve got cold fusion working or suddenly expect scientists to break the law of thermodynamics, there are quite literally no easy solutions to replacing our reliance in the west on high carbon emitting power technologies. Green fantasties about solar power or geo-thermal or industry fantasies about “clean coal” are just that: fantasies.
Andrew wrote:
Yes, but there is also human’s enormous capacity to make hay while the sun shines. For every techno-innovator out there – getting no funding & finding no market – there are lots more people making squillions out of coal-dirt.
Digging & burning coal is the cheapest & best-est technology ever for creating electricity. Nobody can compete with it. Hence. Drum-roll. A great big new tax on coal.
Labor outsider asks:
“Back on topic, I wonder whether there is another possible explanation for the change in sentiment Paul?”
Perhaps because people are starting to think it really isn’t as big a problem as it’s made out to be, ably exhibited by blog posts such as this one showing the decade trend falling behind the PICC 95% confidence despite record emissions.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/gisstemp-for-november-0-68-c/
Yes, looks like polarised positions forming within coalition voters. ie, the split in the party is mirrored in their voters.
But other factors:
a. one was taken before summer (early December 2009) and the other shortly after (April 2006). This is hardly a good basis to compare the two – given its about popular perceptions.
b. Because a certain % of people now think “something” is being done about it, now that Rudd has been elected.
Lo and Lurker, that’s all very well, but if people were responding to the easing of the drought or a flattening of global temperature stats why is it only the Coalition voters who are doing it. Sure there might have been more of them who were soft to start off with, but surely not this much more.
I don’t think its so much about Abbott becoming leader, more about the fact that people like Tuckey and Joyce have been so much more vocal, as such there’s a tribal reaction “I’m with him.” That said, there probably are other factors going on, or else we would have seen Labor voters become more pro-action in response to what the other side was saying.
“Lo and Lurker, that’s all very well, but if people were responding to the easing of the drought or a flattening of global temperature stats why is it only the Coalition voters who are doing it. Sure there might have been more of them who were soft to start off with, but surely not this much more.”
That is an empirical question. To know definitively we would need additional questions about how the respondents views have changed over time and for those whose views have changed, what factors have contributed.
One cross-check would be to look at changes in views on climate change across regions within Australia. Has the decreasing concern amongst coalition supporters been evenly spread across regions? Has it been concentrated in areas where rainfall has become more plentiful over the three year period? Even a simple rural v city split would be helpful.
Anyway, I wasn’t saying it explained the entire shift, just that it was likely a contributing factor. If Labor’s internal polling didn’t suggest drought was relevent to veiws on climate change they wouldn’t have emphasised the connection so much.
lurker @ 73, if you are looking for a climate trend you need to reduce all that data to a single point and compare with earlier decades. In other words a 10-year moving average of the last century or so.
Andrew, DI (nr) @ 56 was out of order in terms of the comments policy. It’s not what we want to see here.
But his comment about sea level rise was on the mark. The implied sea level for today’s CO2 concentrations is about 25 metres higher than now. While it will take a millenium or more to get there responsible and sober scientists are talking about more than a metre this century. We really can’t adapt to that sort of change along with the freshwater problems and the notion of feeding 9 billion people.
I think that’s where David’s frustration is coming from.
Brian:
I really don’t think the public is looking at the chart I linked to, however the chart is exhibiting fairly benign climate behavior in comparison to what could appear to be over-egged horror stories (ie the reality doesn’t match the rhetoric).
I also dispute the other point you make about period trend analysis as there’s no steadfast rule why 30 year trend lines ought to be more significant than a 10 year one: at least not in statistical analysis in a non-linear environment.
Labor outsiders says:
“If Labor’s internal polling didn’t suggest drought was relevent to veiws on climate change they wouldn’t have emphasised the connection so much.”
That’s true to some extent until the real fight begins with the coalition doing their best under the new leader to typify this as a tax and redistribution plan by Labor. People at this site certainly wouldn’t like Abbott as I’ve seen over time, however he isn’t stupid man and is playing to win with distinct policies. Labor on the other hand is trying to win with increasing taxes and levies. Which side do you think swinging voters will take? I wouldn’t bet too heavily either side at the moment especially if the coalition is successful in painting the policies as tax and spend.
The polls are showing less enthusiasm for AGW over time.
“That’s true to some extent until the real fight begins with the coalition doing their best under the new leader to typify this as a tax and redistribution plan by Labor:
Except:
a) despite the trend amongst coalition supporters (which is a small group at the moment) the overwhelming majority support some action on climate change:
b) the coalition can’t seem to establish a single simple message on climate change anyway – an ETS later/an ETS never/think climate change is occuring/don’t think climate change is occuring
c) the regulatory actions that Abbott now seems to advocate will require a large increase in taxes to pay for them, without any household compensation thrown in to sweeten the deal.
Voters may not love new taxes and levies, but as the GST debate showed, they can spot a party without a credible alternative plan a mile off.
You also have to remember that somewhow Abbott needs to try and get a consistent message across at the same time Barnaby Joyce is the opposition look like a laughing stock on economic policy.
“The polls are showing less enthusiasm for AGW over time.”
Quite right – unfortunately reality doesn’t wait for the polls, icecaps don’t stop melting and the world doesn’t start cooling.
There’s this troublesome thing called evidence you see, and ALL the evidence that we can gather with and without our astounding and brilliant technology indicates that we are in deep trouble, and that there is no room for business as usual under the circumstances.
If ever there was a policy area where the government should assiduously ignore opinion polls, climate change is it. Politicians usually manufacture reasons for their preferred action almost regardless of voters’ wishes – it’s ‘democratic’ and ‘the will of the people’ if they agree with you; you’re ‘standing on principle’ and ‘doing what’s right, not what’s popular’ if they don’t – but in the highly technical world of climate change policy, the only people whose views should be heeded are (in order) scientists working on AGW research, scientists and engineers working on mitigation and adaptation, economists working on how to pay for it.
“That is – he’s a conservative”
John Humphreys is an anarchist. And he’s right – doomsday scenarios are not part of mainstream predictions. The destruction of our civilisation isn’t an “at the very least” consequence, it’s an extremely remote possibility at the very most. Which isn’t to say it shouldn’t be considered, but it shouldn’t be the basis of policy.
“…painting the policies as tax and spend.”
This has never bothered Australian voters before.
“The polls are showing less enthusiasm for AGW over time.”
Not in a significant way – a majority in all age brackets, all voting intentions, support immediate action on climate change, including coalition voters.
Abbott will be a good test of what the Liberal base vote is in 2010.
Jarrah,
perhaps you are not familiar with the recently released Copenhagen Diagnosis ?
Crudely summarised, this report indicates that all the indicators of AGW are much further progressed than the IPCC had predicted by the current time.
What is not alarming about :
Ocean acidification (Coral reef/mollusc destruction, leading to the collapse of already depleted ocean fisheries),
Desertification (loss of food production capabilities)
Ecosystem collapse (terrestrial and marine) – leading to loss of food production capabilities and other “ecosystem services”
Sea level rise (think of what 1m would do to our infrastructure and cities – and that’s a low estimate). Not to mention the profound effects even a small rise would have on the availability of fresh water.
This list is not even exhaustive, BTW.
All of these threats are real and imminent, and the science (IPCC) predictions of adverse consequences are made with greater than 90% confidence, which is just about as much certainty as you will get from scientists.
Please explain, if you don’t think our civilisation is under threat, how it would conceivably survive these factors, plus the movement of 3-600 million economic refugees (from rising sea levels), destruction of much of our vital infrastructure, and economic, social collapse resulting from these disruptions ?
Dave McRae @31, that’s exactly my experience when doing the same thing on a horseracing forum. Not everyone was like that of course. But it was exact same thing of denying all evidence you put up and refusing to answer the most basic questions about their own ‘evidence’.
It was also laced with a fair amount of misogynist abuse, even though the issue had nothing to with gender. The abuse is so ridiculous, that I find it funny, rather than upsetting. Phrases like ‘man-hater’ and ‘butch sheila’ plus I was definitely ‘over-educated’. What can you do but laugh?
I also agree with Lefty E that some sort of resolution will come out of Copenhagen. Not the solution which we’d want and hope for, but a start. That may be the incurable optimist in me.
I’m already starting to think about a life of ‘bicycles and beasts of burden’. So glad I got to see the Great Barrier Reef and Venice when I could. So sad about the Pacific Islanders who are going lose their homes which looks certain to me. I’m not looking forward to the climate refugee debate. That will come next.
lurker @ 78, you are demonstrating that you don’t know the difference between climate and weather. I’m not going to bother beyond that because if you’ve been reading this blog for any length of time what you are saying is about the oldest and most irrelevant of chestnuts repeatedly thrown up.
OK, I’ve just come back on line and, without naming anyone in particular, some comments made in my absence were clearly in breach of the comments policy and the persons concerned should reaquaint themselves with the comments policy.
Labor Outsider #42 makes good sense (as uual, and as in LO’s other comments). A long-run climate trend is something that most people find difficult to observe and experience directly, unless they live near a glacier which they’ve observed retreating for several decades. Shorter-run trends of the kind LO refers to, especially if played up by political actors, are more likely to influence people’s opinions. This is why I’m uneaasy about the tendency of some political actors and commentators to point to every individual extreme weather event, drought, mismanaged ecosystem, etc., and cry “global warming!” when (a) individual events, no matter how extreme, do not a trend make and (b) ecosystem decline can be due to a range of other factors, including bad management, which we should also be concerned about.
I think it’s also true that the average temperature for 2008, and the way in which that fact has been framed by various commentators, has made it easier for people who wanted to change their mind on climate change to think there was a good reason for doing so. Never mind that 2008 was the coolest year in the warmest decade on record, and that whilst being the coolest year of this century it was warmer than all but one year of the previous two centuries.
@17 DI(nr)
“What I’d like to know is why you aren’t worried.”
I take that one. I think that JH is from the IPA. They live in some sort of Randian fortress which will survive all sorts catastrophes, sea level rise, temperature increase, logical argument. The shining shield of ideology combined with the swift sword of conspiracy theory is all they need to keep reality at bay.
Although it could be another JH.
@26 Andrew says
“Which means adaptation rather than mitigation maybe where we should be spending our dollars.”
But Andrew if the risk of a really serious detrimental effect is realised what form of mitigation would be appropriate? If there is a really significant rise in sea level what would you do to survive or take advantage of the changed circumstances? Open an ark factory (sorry couldn’t help myself). I’m probably one of the 15/14% BTW.
I’d like to apologise for my intemperate comment last night @ 56. It was uncalled for.
“Back on topic, I wonder whether there is another possible explanation for the change in sentiment Paul?”
As I suggested earlier, I think people are bored by the constant droning debate. The way the discussion has proceeded flatters noone, and I think the everyday person has become quite disengaged.
The continuing debate is a no win situation for those who advocate change, every time they open their mouths they reinforce the things that deniers would like to reinforce; arrogance, belligerence, elitism, condescension. There are examples of all of those characteristics in the comments on almost every climate related thread here on LP, and whilst it’s obvious most of it stems from frustration, I do think people have simply become habitual in their rethoric. Surely we must all know that saturation point was reached a long, LONG time ago, in terms of the amount of information people can absorb, much less understand.
It’s been a small win for deniers because they don’t have a knowledge base to promote, theirs is the art of demonisation and it works with a section of the conservative demographic because it reinforces their prejudices. [I think people overestimate the importance of that demographic].
I think it’s been a deliberate strategy by deniers, and the advocates for change fall for it every single time. It’s amazing to me how people continually engage with the obvious trolling by deniers on this blog, maybe some have grown a little to full of their own self-importance, but most still seem like they think they have a hope of actually changing someones mind.
In short, most people are in favour of action, but as they say on Rockwiz, noone likes a smartarse – Less may be more in this debate, from a pro-change perspective.
Apology accepted David…. thank-you.
Patrick…. I’m not sure what it will take to adapt. Hopefully we’re spending money on finding out! I guess that was the point of my original comment. I’m highly skeptical that the globe will do anything. There are too many vested interests fighting in different directions. If that’s true – why spend money on reducing emissions in Australia when it will have close to zero impact on climate change? If climate change is inevitable – then the money would be better spent adapting.
I hope I’m wrong. I hope Copenhagen surprises me. But I don’t share LeftyE’s optimism.
Polls about popular perception of climate crisis ar not that important.
Government must act in a certain direction regardless of whether polls are up or down in any given month. Government must also seek to actively shift those polls as part of its climate response – in order to allow the political processes which sanction action to move more quickly.
Even if Abbott won the next election he will still have to treat the issue of climate change with the same purpose as any other incumbent. It sort of doesn’t matter who wins in the populist stakes – the demands of the physical environment will inexorably nullify current differences of opinion.
Abbott will have the same scientists (& bloody economists) recommending the same solutions. His posturing for electoral purposes while sickening will disappear when it matters. (Or if it doesn’t then we really are a loser species.)
WBB @ 93
I hope that whoever wins the next elections in both States, Territories and C’wealth will treat the need for a lower (much lower) carbon future far far more seriously than the present incumbents.
NSW – one of the biggest states should have started replacing its generators several years ago – gas at the very least. However, they are just using every excuse under the sun to do nothing.
SA – the Premier’s election centrepiece is a $450M stadium.
Feds – Other than talk, what have they done.
Complete nonsense folks.
If you believe this mob is any better than the opposition, you need to perhaps take a breath and actually look at what they aren’t doing.
For all the abuse heaped upon ‘deniers’ and ‘sceptics’ at least you know where they stand. Worse by far are those who pay lip service but do nothing but talk.
There is plenty of technology out there to actually DO something, and some sectors of the economy are actually moving to a low carbon future by adopting that technology…and will probably be penali8sed by the talkers for so doing.
Yes, marks. Victoria’s ALP Govt has down nowt either. Oh, apart from finding a way to burn even more brown coal by turning sea-water into fresh. Coz watering restrictions are a greater planetary emergency than global warming. Bless their little geraniums.
The hot air generated by the comments left on this website would create more global warming than anything else one culd imagine. What a lot of crap!
All the global warming junkies and the lost wannabes looking for a tribe to control could live in Tasmania and cool down. I know it would be like a rerun of the runaway escape in the 1960/70′s to Nimbin in reverse, but what the heck, they would have a lot in common until it really gets cold.
If @96 and @97 feel uncomfortable with many of the views here and yet are unable to formulate comprehensive rejoinders in any concise fashion then I suggest their energies would be better devoted to kinda pointless things that callow and unworldly blokes enjoy. Like for instance, should it be have been named the FW-190 or the Ta-190?
Sorry to spoil your party line Houston Blenheim @ number 89.
That’s cool, sweaty Texan twin engined strikefighter, I had no party line @89. In fact I was not even there.
I just realised that you Dallas Beaufort has absofuckinglutely no bloody idea about how I’m taking the piss out of you.
Carry on. Please.
Throw another log on the fire!