Use your Google button to find some of them if you can’t think of any.

HTH,

D

The poll gave people a list of possible ways to tackle climate change things and asked them to pick three (and only three). The most popular choice was managing demand through behavioural change (69%), followed by increasing the use of renewable sources (68%) and expanding the use of energy-efficiency technologies (54%). I’m a strong advocate of “regulation and taxation to reduce consumption,” but the structure of the poll wouldn’t have reflected that fourth additional preference since I would have made the same three choices made by the majority of respondents. (BTW, I notice you made no mention of the poor showing by the twin scams of expanded nuclear and sequestration.)

So there is no contradiction whatsoever. Rather, the FT lied by taking cherry-picking that result and you brainlessly aped them.

Oh, I almost forgot to take a moment to gloat over what you could only have seen as devastating news that Stern has rejected the approach taken by the Enron-tainted Lords report. There.

“We argue that a significant likelihood of causing a global sea level rise in the range of 3-5 m over the next few centuries (say, by the year 2300) would constitute a “dangerous interference”,…”

So the danger isn’t in THIS century, or even necessarily NEXT century, but maybe in the 2200+ time frame?

Does any group of scientists seriously propose that resources should be diverted from the important problems of the present, to address problems *envisioned* for beyond 2100…let alone beyond 2200??

Let’s face it: British consumers want their cake and eat it. Many want that *every possible action* should be taken about climate change. But. Guess what? They don’t want to pay for these actions themselves. I don’t think the FT was wrong in highlighting this contradiction.

Bottom line: The British public who have been more exposed to climate alarmism than perhaps any other public remains decidely unwilling to pay the price for current emission targets. Call me what you like, but after a decade of ever more extreme doomsday predictions, I can’t help to find this PR problem rather comical.

Preferences for action

We wished to gauge people’s preferences for action against climate change. In a direct question about whether anything should be done:

• A clear majority of respondents (62%) indicated that every possible action should be taken about climate change, whilst a further 32% indicated that some action should be taken against climate change. Perhaps surprisingly, only 3% felt no action should be taken.

We also asked respondents to choose from a list of possible actions for tackling climate change, up to three which they thought would best tackle climate change.

• Expanding nuclear power was chosen by only 14% of the sample, while continuing fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage by only 12%.

• A much larger proportion of respondents suggested that the best way to tackle climate change would be to manage demand through behavioural change (69%).

• The second and third most common responses were to increase the use of renewable sources (68%) and to expand the use of energy-efficiency technologies (54%).

• Regulation and taxation to reduce consumption was far less popular (12%).

These data are especially interesting because they indicate not only a lack of preference for nuclear power as a main solution to climate change, but also because they open up the possibility for a wider debate on ‘carbon management’ at the individual or household level.

Attribution of responsibility, regulation and trust

The survey asked who should be mainly responsible for taking action against climate change.

• Most respondents attributed responsibility for change at the global (32%) and national (39%) levels, which is consistent with many other surveys. Responsibility is perceived to lie, very marginally, with individuals and families (8%) or environmental groups (4%).

These responses may hint at a pragmatic attitude, with which people may be approaching this question. Other quantitative and qualitative research has suggested that whilst acknowledging their own moral contribution towards climate change and duty to address this, people generally feel they are not able to engage in behavioural change unless enabled to do so by institutions with wide ranging powers (Bickerstaff et al., 2006). Another explanation may be that most individuals feel climate change as a global problem may require concerted action first and foremost instigated and driven at national and international scales.

Additionally:

• Over half of the respondents (57%) disagree that the current rules and regulations are sufficient to address climate change, while only 14% felt confident that the British Government adequately tackles climate change. A majority of respondents (52%) also agree that climate change would happen regardless of how electricity was generated in Britain. Perhaps this could also be interpreted in terms of a negative attitude towards current debates about electricity generation and the uptake of CO2 neutral options in the future.

“…as it is clear people don’t have sensory receptors that allow them to apprehend varying and long time scales, and thus many are unable to calculate the consequences of their actions.”

Yes, the ignorant masses, is it? So who are the enlightened ones who can calculate the consequences of their actions over varying and long time scales? Who are these geniuses who can fathom the depths of chaotic, coupled, non-linear systems and proclaim prognostigative abilities that defy the very nature of mathematics and the universe? Are they the Paul Erhlichs of the world? Perhaps those that made up the Club of Rome in the 1970s?

Who is more brilliant, the average Joe who ignored the doom and gloomers for the last 30 years and was proven right, or the doom and gloomers themselves who were stupendously wrong? Is it any wonder the general public is unimpressed by the latest predictions of doom? They have heard it all before and are becoming quite numb to it.

Perhaps if something bad were actually happening, they would be more attentive. As it is, saying “I’m from the university, I am smarter than you and I am here to regulate your life…” is just not a good way to win friends and influence people. They know better!

I understand your frustration about Britain’s short-sighted and ignorant consumers who are only interested in their money. However, it is being reported that the European Commissioner for Science and Research is making significant progress in changing these deplorable attitudes:

see: “Here’s Europe’s solution to global warming”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/02/europeans_solve_global_warming/

Enjoy!