UK and US main barriers to addressing climate change, survey finds

[Deleted]

While people in China and the rest of Asia want their governments to be ambitious in tackling environmental damage, many in the West want their representatives not to do anything at all

Link: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...-10303279.html
Source: https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/0...on-climate-ch/

They're the two biggest emitters of greenhouses gases in the world — but the US and China have very different ideas about tackling the problem of climate change.

In a new survey taken months before officials meet for perhaps the most significant climate change talks ever held, YouGov found that people the US and UK lag far behind countries including China in wanting those talks to produce a meaningful commitment to address climate change.
...
Reluctance in the UK and US for officials to address climate change might be a result of the belief among many that there is no problem at all. Asked "how serious a problem, if at all", it was, 32 per cent of people said either not at all or not very.
...
But given the unwillingness of people in the UK and US — major polluters, as well as international powers — to ask for similarly ambitious targets, talks could be held back. “Despite some lingering doubts, particularly in the US, a failure to reach an agreement in Paris would likely be met with disappointment throughout much of the world,” YouGov notes.

[Kulanae]

The surveys were conducted between May 20th and May 27th. In Europe and the United States, the figures are weighted to be representative of all adults. In the Asia-Pacific region, the figures are weighted to be representative of the adult online population.

That is potentially a huge difference. Obviously the online population is more likely to be cognizant of climate change to a MUCH higher degree than "all adults".

[s_bushido]

It strikes me as a little disingenuous to characterize 17% of a population as "many citizens." But maybe that's just me...

[Notchris]

That is potentially a huge difference. Obviously the online population is more likely to be cognizant of climate change to a MUCH higher degree than "all adults".

Yeah, misleading graph is misleading.

[Deleted]

It strikes me as a little disingenuous to characterize 17% of a population as "many citizens." But maybe that's just me...

More than 54 million people ? Seems quite a lot for me

[Wilian]

I'm once again ashamed of my fellow Finns.

[s_bushido]

More than 54 million people ? Seems quite a lot for me

When was the last time 17% was enough to get anything done? Or, on the flip side: when was the last time 83% wasn't enough to push through change?

[Wilian]

At any time in US politics

[Gestopft]

When was the last time 17% was enough to get anything done? Or, on the flip side: when was the last time 83% wasn't enough to push through change?

Depends on which side has money. Popular legislation can have serious trouble making it through if there is enough pressure from an opposing lobby.

[Flutterguy]

Bunch of hot air. Measurements of concern mean what exactly? And what solutions are these? There's no substance here.

[Orbitus]

When was the last time 17% was enough to get anything done? Or, on the flip side: when was the last time 83% wasn't enough to push through change?

Well the main one being the gun control legislation that was introduced after Sandy Hook. That had 91% popularity and the Republicans wouldn't even let it come up for a vote in the House.

[Flutterguy]

Well the main one being the gun control legislation that was introduced after Sandy Hook. That had 91% popularity and the Republicans wouldn't even let it come up for a vote in the House.

Thank god for that. Legislating based on emotion, especially when kids are involved, tends to have some real problems. A wonderful example was the law in California that made it so that all lanes of traffic must stop when a school bus stops to let kids off. This was passed with wild popularity after some kids got hit by a car when they ran out from in front of the bus into the street. The legislation ended up causing more problems than it solved and was ultimately repealed.

[Cyberowl]

When was the last time 17% was enough to get anything done? Or, on the flip side: when was the last time 83% wasn't enough to push through change?

In countries where the rich 0.1% basically rule?

Yeah...

It's not as extreme, but in Germany ~60% support gay marriage, but the government doesn't see it as an issue after the Ireland referendum.

74% according to an poll quoted by Reuters in 2013, you bet it was even higher after the Ireland referendum.

[Stormdash]

Well the main one being the gun control legislation that was introduced after Sandy Hook. That had 91% popularity and the Republicans wouldn't even let it come up for a vote in the House.

Someone had to be the adults in the room and not acting purely out of emotion and not at all from logic, rationality, or respect for individual liberty. Now a couple years on and all that post-Sandy Hook exploitation, er, reform is of no interest to the American people.

[GennGreymane]

Well the U.K possibly may get nicer weather out of the deal.

[Csnyder]

lololol...did they really poll everyone in those countries, i dont remember answering this poll. the poll was only done in two countries but several are listed....why?

[Rukh]

lololol...did they really poll everyone in those countries, i dont remember answering this poll. the poll was only done in two countries but several are listed....why?

United States
: Fieldwork conducted between 23rd - 25th May 2015. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are
representative of all adults (aged 18+). United States (n=1000).
Europe
: Fieldwork conducted between 26th - 27th May 2015 as part of the monthly YouGov EuroTrack survey. The survey was carried out online.
The figures have been weighted and are representative of all adults (aged 18+). Great Britain (n=1667), Germany (n=1016), France (n=1004),
Denmark (n=1009), Sweden (n=1010), Finland (n=970) and Norway (n=554).
Asia-Pacific
: Fieldwork conducted with YouGov panelists between 22nd May - 25th May 2015 and was weighted to be representative of adult (aged
18+) online population. Sample size: China (n=984), Singapore (n=1084), Indonesia (n=1079), Hong Kong (n=875), Malaysia (n=871), Australia
(n=720), Thailand (n=1077).

- - - Updated - - -

That is potentially a huge difference. Obviously the online population is more likely to be cognizant of climate change to a MUCH higher degree than "all adults".

All the surveys were done online only. As far as I can tell all the survey weighting does is make the numbers proportional to the population of the countries in each category. I.e. if they got 100 responders from China and 100 from Hong Kong, they're going to weigh them to be more proportional in the total summary to each country's online population, so it might get summed to the total asia region as if there were 20 from China and 200 from Hong Kong (I assume hong kong has a higher online population, I could be totally wrong though) This isn't going to impact your overall percentages for each countries, just how much they weigh in summations.

[Deleted]

Someone had to be the adults in the room and not acting purely out of emotion and not at all from logic, rationality, or respect for individual liberty. Now a couple years on and all that post-Sandy Hook exploitation, er, reform is of no interest to the American people.

Until the next massacre of little children that is! Good thing we have people like you to help defend freedom and rights!

[PC2]

Instead of generalized angsting about the environment people should offer more specific solutions.

[Wildtree]

Instead of generalized angsting about the environment people should offer more specific solutions.

Specific solutions to climate change are offered plentiful for decades.
We really don't have a lack in that department. The lack lies in the implementation.
And in the US, those are in the way of corporations who don't like their profits touched.