Bummer: Declining Support For A Tough Climate Deal

Perhaps the “spreading awareness” and scaremongering have backfired

From the link

Public support for a strong global deal on climate change has declined, according to a poll carried out in 20 countries.

Only four now have majorities in favour of their governments setting ambitious targets at a global conference in Paris.

In a similar poll before the Copenhagen meeting in 2009, eight countries had majorities favouring tough action.

The poll has been provided to the BBC by research group GlobeScan.

Just under half of all those surveyed viewed climate change as a “very serious” problem this year, compared with 63% in 2009. (snip)

Canada, France, Spain and the UK are the only four with majorities in favour of their governments taking a leading role.

Spain, Russia, and India (the report calls them stable, though it shows a 5 point increase), Turkey are the only countries which saw increases. Eight countries saw significant decreases. Even those they call “stable”, saw decreases (except for the aforementioned India).

The pollsters suggest that citizens globally are becoming more informed about climate change. They also found more than twice as many people today blame rising levels of carbon dioxide from human activities for extreme weather events as compared to a similar poll carried out in January 2000.

Interesting. Despite becoming “more informed”, most have lost some interest in Government Doing Something. As for informed, they aren’t if they think CO2 from humanity is causing extreme weather.

They really should do a poll on what steps Warmists are taking within their own lives, and whether they are willing to give up things like fossil fuels, prosperity, affordable energy, etc, due to their beliefs.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “Bummer: Declining Support For A Tough Climate Deal”

  1. […] and it isn’t just the Indians opposed to a strong climate deal, support for it around the world is on the decline. It looks like people like things like lights […]

  2. Dana says:

    Think back to 1998, when the Senate passed, unanimously, a “sense of the Senate” resolution, asking President Clinton not to sign the Kyoto Accords in anything like their then-present form, because Kyoto, if put into effect, would have cost real Americans real jobs, and made life more expensive for those who kept their jobs.

    Think about it: 95 to zero, zilch, nada, nought. That’s because the distinguished Senators, Republican and Democrat alike, recognized that real people would have real concerns, and were far more concerned with putting food on the table and paying their bills and keeping their jobs than they were about a change in the climate that might occur, and if it were to occur, might not be preventable by any actions we could take.

    If “public support for a strong global deal on climate change has declined,” it is because people are starting to realize that “a strong global deal” would mean that they would become poorer in real terms. It’s easy to support “a strong global deal” if you are wealthy or it isn’t going to effect you, personally; it becomes a little more difficult to support such if it means a hardship for your family and you.

  3. drowningpuppies says:

    Speaking of Turkey, President skinny black guy calls for Turkey to close Syrian border.
    Turkey points to Mexico and says fuck off, hypocrite.

  4. John says:

    Teach the percentage of income that Americans pay for energy has declined by 25% in the last 30 years
    The USA carbon pollution is at a level equal to 1995
    But Teach you are still somehow “yammering” about lost jobs and increased government control over, what? Your choice of light bulbs?

  5. Jl says:

    If we are forced someday to limit our energy choices to “sustainable energy” as many climate alarmists hope to, that would indeed be government control over the energy sector as it would limit our freedom to choose which source we want. And yes, John, that would include light bulbs.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9554 access attempts in the last 7 days.