TH!NK post

This article is archived. Comments are closed.

Survey: 9 in 10 world citizens wants deal to cut CO2 emissions by more than 25% urgently

Published 31st October 2009 - 24 comments - 1615 views -

Following the debate on climate change one could easily get the impression that the public is confused about what information to believe and reluctant to commit to policies. But that is wrong.

A project called World Wide Views On Global Warming (WWViews) was created to measure the sentiments of the peoples of the world. Below is a summary of the results, a video interview with a citizen meeting facilitator and bit of reflection.

The people have spoken: Seal the Deal!

Some might be pinching their arms. But from the Summary of World Results:

"91% of the citizens participating in WWViews find it URGENT to make a global climate deal at COP15"

More than just an average this agreement to urgent action is shared across different types of countries and continents. And most of the remaining 9% are in the "can wait a few years" group. The "when climate change occurs" and "never ever" groups are minorities to say the least.

"89% of the citizen participants in WWViews think Annex I countries' short-term target for emission reductions should be 25-40% or higher"

Of these 31% wants Annex I countries to cut by more than 40%. But in this question there is also a large fraction who thinks both developing economies (China, India) and especially low income developing countries (Mali, Bolivia) should be given some time and only have emission reduction targets later.

Hence the headline of this article: 9 in 10 world citizens wants a deal to cut CO2 emissions by more than 25% urgently (which is probably an accurate statement while strictly speaking not statistically precise). Whatever way we twist and turn it: public support for a progressive and binding agreement at COP15 is solid.

As the questions get tougher the level of agreement wanes. Such as the "who should pay" question. Which is, after all, not that disputed: it's either "all countries" (29%), "all countries except Least Developed Countries" (55%) or "Only Annex I countries" (10%). What people do agree on is the general approach: an international institution:

87% agree "a global financial system [should] be instituted in order to generate funds for mitigation and adaption in developing countries".

It seems to be clear that if world leaders fail to agree to strong action at COP15 they are letting down the peoples they are supposed to represent?

A Danish survey worker talking about the citizen meetings

What kind of people did you talk to? Did participants discuss soberly or fight verbally? Did they change their minds in the course of discussion? How did those who didn't understand or believe the science of climatology rationalize?

Watch Janne Foghmar, facilitator of one of the discussion groups at the citizen meeting in Copenhagen, answer these questions and more.

Perhaps you recognize Janne Foghmar from the article about young 3rd world hitch hikers exploring Denmark and the Danes? She led one of three groups through the country. Look at the videos from the Danish citizen meeting and you will see her at one of the tables (plus they recorded and subbed Connie Hedegaards speech). Now she has moved on to some other COP15-related work which I will also try to have her talk about for TH!NK. (Also see her LinkedIn curriculum.)

Are they a bunch of quacks?

Hardly. The main organizer of the event was  "The Danish Board of Technology" - a governmental organization . Furthermore, there is a comprehensive page on the methodology of the survey on the website. In short WWViews was set up as "citizens meetings with 100 participants each, held in all participating countries". The participants "selected with the aim of representing the demographic distribution in the region with regards to age, gender, occupation, education and other criteria".

The discussions were based on identical information material distributed to all participating countries and were focused on specific questions. In other words, far from the agenda of the blogosphere or newspaper opinion columns (where it sometimes appears as if everyone is just blabbering about some weird never heard of before agenda).

One could also get the idea that public debate is mainly a mudslinging contest between two sides. One being the "extremist environmentalists" who also tend to support various bleeding heart policies and are anti-progress. Some are even vegetarians who want population control. The other being the "science deniers" who are refusing to accept the state of the world because it interferes with some political ideology or an obscure conspiracy theory of theirs. Some are Creationists who are afraid of Islam. Really! It is especially from the latter group we hear the argument that people in general are less than convinced by the scientific recommendations and undecided on which course to take. And some environmentalists might be beginning to consider if democracy is up for tackling this crisis.

Now that we have access to the results of a representational survey of thousands of people why not take a look at that in stead of listening to the fringe parties!? The next time someone claims the public has no opinion, please direct that person towards WWViews or this article.

Democracy is about representing the people, right?

So, how come some politicians are a bit reluctant to represent the people? Barack Obama, you haven't enlisted for COP15 yet. Despite the fact that US WWViews participants agreed on the following recommendation statements:

"Wealthy countries must transform the industrial base and promote cultural change, using education, marketing, shared technology, transparent implementation and universal measures through global cooperation while mitigating impacts on vulnerable people."

"Implement binding, equitable commitments to 25-40% CO2 emissions reductions by 2020, emphasizing free, accessible transfer of renewable-energy technology, funded by fossil fuel taxes."

"Promptly design programs and establish a funding system, monitored by a global agency, to address climate change by developing clean emissions technology to return CO2 levels to a pre-industrial base starting by replacing coal, diesel, jet fuel and gasoline, with responsibilities reflecting each nation's resources, where results are monitored by a global agency."

"Establish an international fund from national contributions on a sliding scale, considering income and emissions, to implement a globally standardized active learning program on climate change involving public, private, and non-profit organizatins."

"Make a commitment to act urgently to engage the public on climate change by rewarding compliance and technological innovation. [Implement] cap and trade. [Set] clear, binding standards. [Tax] overconsumption."

Yes. That is the people of USA speaking. They voted for hope, Mr. Obama.

Category: Climate Politics, UN Climate Change Conference 2009, | Tags: cop15, democracy, wwviews on global warming,



Comments

Adela on 31st October 2009:

Impressive! Thumbs up and a RT from me

‘9 in 10 world citizens want deal to cut CO2 emissions by more than 25% urgently’

Hopefully, the 10th one is not the one who takes the decision.

Benno Hansen on 31st October 2009:

LOL Adela!

I think there are at least two bigger problems than the 10th person: first 9 out of 10 politicians are cowards and second 9 out of 10 vote with their wallets.

Daniel Nylin Nilsson on 31st October 2009:

Great data, Benno. I have an impression that the only place where the debate is confused is on the internet. When you talk to people in real world, most people agree that climate change is an outmost important question, and hope for a succesful agreement.

Mike on 31st October 2009:

If you seriously think 9 out of 10 people of the entire world population wants to pay to cut carbon emissions, you are a bloody idiot.

Benno Hansen on 31st October 2009:

As I read your comment, Mike, the quote below was…

“If you think mitigated climate change is expensive, try unmitigated climate change.”
- Dr. Richard Gammon

Mike on 31st October 2009:

Considering the cost of “mitigated” climate change would be somewhere on the order of $900 trillion, I think I’ll take my chances with the weather.

People want a deal to cut carbon emissions by 25-40%? Ask them again how much they’re willing to pay for it.

Charlie on 01st November 2009:

People with opposing views would not have even participated in this study.  This article is based on adecdotal evidence, at best.

Mike on 01st November 2009:

Wow, just look at some of the questions that were asked:

Should countries that do not meet their commitments under a new climate deal be subjected to punishment?

Should a global financial system be instituted in order to generate funds for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries?

Benno Hansen on 01st November 2009:

I requote, the participants were “selected with the aim of representing the demographic distribution in the region with regards to age, gender, occupation, education and other criteria”. Also, in the interview she talks of how about half the people at her table weren’t into the action because of CO2. This survey is as professional as any. Try reading what you criticise, Mike and Charlie.

Mike on 01st November 2009:

I don’t care how “professional” the survey was, I still stand by my statements.

“The discussions were based on identical information material distributed to all participating countries and were focused on specific questions.”

I can only imagine how fair and balanced this information material was. Might I be able to review it myself?

Similar polls have been done in my own country, showing ~86% of people want “something” done about climate change. With hundreds of billions of dollars funded into the propaganda machine fortelling doomsday, is there really anything to be surpised about that? When asked again if they’d be willing to pay for it or make sacrafices, this number plummets to ~15%. Go figure.

Just an fyi, there is nothing democratic about world government.

Benno Hansen on 01st November 2009:

Mike,

The information videos and also videos and pictures from the events are on the website (which I linked to in the 2nd paragraph).

Mike on 01st November 2009:

Thankyou, reviewing them now. Was having some trouble with the links before.

Mike on 01st November 2009:

Just finished watching the videos. Just as I expected, completely alarmist dogma, no objectivity, no opposing view points, just one-sided biased fear-mongering and doomsaying. Now I’m even more convinced this entire survey is bogus. If you asked people to make a judgement, based on this material, then it’s no surprise at all that the results turned out the way they did.

Charlie on 01st November 2009:

So a video of your girlfriend proves your point how?

Benno Hansen on 01st November 2009:

Mike,

All I can say is “that should tell you something”.

Mike on 01st November 2009:

That you’re a fraud?

Paul Montariol on 18th November 2009:

The negative discussion which you have here watch although this approach cannot function.
It is necessary to develop new energies and everywhere where that is done everyone is happy!

Benno Hansen on 18th November 2009:

I tend to agree. Unfortunately, Paul. We’re just not voting with our reason and consciousness against the considerations of our wallets. Wallets, reason and consciousness must align.

But there is still a few out there who thinks a bit of tax on oil and subsidies for research in biofuels and windmills is communisms. Sad but true. Imagine condom factories objected to public research in AIDS cures… how come we don’t see that happening?

Paul Montariol on 19th November 2009:

May be!
When oil is at more than 200$! we can think about it!

Vitezslav Kremlik on 19th November 2009:

Mike, great job. I perfectly agree with your comments.

Rhetorical Question to Benno: If you are so sure, that “the people want it”, why do you not ask the people in real referenda? There was no referendum about Kyoto Protocol in my country… and yet it increases our electricity bills now (due to subsidies to alternative fuels).

It is like with the Lisbon Treaty in EU: A junta of self-appointed master-minds bypasses parliaments, bypasses referenda, bypasses the electorate.

Nanne Zwagerman on 22nd November 2009:

Vitezlav, this is getting too rich. The Lisbon Treaty bypasses parliaments? It was ratified by every parliament of every Member State of the European Union. There was a ‘junta of self-appointed master minds’? It was agreed upon by the elected government leaders of every Member State of the European Union.

If you do not like what your elected government leaders do, you have the chance to elect different ones. If you do not like what your elected parliament passes, you have the chance to elect different parliamentarians.

If you think the EU is irredeemably evil, there is a clause that arranges for exiting the EU in the updated Treaty on European Union. You can join a political party that wants to exit the European Union. Or you can found one. You can campaign for a referendum on leaving the EU, and for more direct democracy. You can emigrate to a state that abides more closely by the ideals of libertarianism and where you can swing your gun around more freely, like Somalia. You can do all kinds of things.

Are you going to do anything, or are you only going to whine on the internets, like so many young libertarian dudes whose professed beliefs are completely out of sync with their daily actions? The previous generation of Czechs who got rid of the yoke of Communism went to the streets and practiced civil disobedience. If you really believe the things you say, you should act accordingly. Otherwise you’re only constructing a comfortable bubble of rhetoric to live in.

Vitezslav Kremlik on 22nd November 2009:

Nanne, EU Constitution aka Lisbon Treaty was rejected by people in France, Holland, Ireland in referenda. Yet in these nations it is in force now. Isn’t it odd democracy? There was no referendum in the Czech Republic.

Our elected leaders are bribed by Brussels and betrayed us. The libertarian anti-Brussels ODS party ended up supporting Lisbon Treaty! Against their promises. After years of saying “EU constitution is shit”.

They violate the constitution, which clearly say, that they are not allowed to lower the sovereignty of the republic.

80% of laws and regulations is not made in Czech Parliament, but in the EU Commission. So national parliaments ARE bypassed.

I am afraid that this is not the western parliamentary democracy, we were dreaming about during communist oppression.

I am a member of the liberatarian Free Citizen Party in the Czech Republic. And I am doing my best to spread awareness of the democratic deficit in EU to persuade the electorate. Doing something.

Note: Somalia is an islamist totalitarian regime, not liberatarian.

Nanne Zwagerman on 22nd November 2009:

Vitezlav,

It’s good to hear that you are taking political action! I apologise for suggesting otherwise.

Of course, I still think that you’re wrong about pretty much everything.

The problem with the ‘Constitution’ IMO was that it wasn’t a constitution in the first place. It gave the EU the veneer of a state without the substance. Lisbon pelted away that veneer and what is left is just another amending treaty, arguably a bit bigger than Nice or Amsterdam, but definitely less significant than Maastricht.

Still, there were also substantial changes towards giving the Member States more influence relative to the ‘Constitution’, such as the revived Ioannina compromise and the extension of the time national parliaments have for raising objections in the yellow card procedure.

The Lisbon Treaty has been put to a legal review in Denmark, Germany, and the Czech Republic. To the best of my recollection, all three resulted in the finding that the treaty does not result in a transfer of sovereignty. So what about that constitution of the Czech Republic? Apparently your judges have also violated it.

I think a better explanation is that on balance, the Lisbon Treaty doesn’t contain a substantial transfer of power. A curious element eurosceptics have failed to notice with their ranting about a ‘ratchet clause’ is that Lisbon actually makes it a lot easier to repatriate powers. Which will possibly happen with regard to much of the Common Agricultural Policy in the near future.

The 80% number is a bullshit statistic eurosceptics like to bandy about. Has there been a review of this matter for the Czech Republic?

What you seem to forget, overall, is that it is still your elected government that is sitting in the Council in Brussels, which still has a veto on a wide range of issues.

On another level, I get that you are not happy about the Lisbon Treaty, as it makes the EU function better. This might lead to more effective regulation of corporations. It’s also a baby step towards more effective global governance, which we are hopefully going to see more of in the following years. It’s a loss for the more corporate-friendly side, surely, but you would do well to develop some sense of the actual proportions.

Benno Hansen on 05th December 2009:

UPDATE

WWViews put a Policy Report and an Executive Summary online.

The 4,000 participating citizens from 38 countries/regions were chosen to reflect the demographic diversity in their respective countries and regions. They were provided with unbiased information about climate change and the COP15 negotiations, and they were given time to deliberate with fellow citizens.

● Make a deal at COP15
● Keep the temperature increase below 2 degrees
● Annex 1 countries should reduce emissions
with 25-40 % or more by 2020
● Fast-growing economies should also reduce
emissions by 2020
● Low-income developing countries should limit
emissions
● Give high priority to an international financial mechanism
● Punish non-complying countries
Make technology available to everyone
● Strengthen or supplement international
institutions

This article is archived. Comments are closed.