Aug 26, 2009

Change the climate, say Australians, but not at any price

The Australian public wants a healthy environment, jobs and well-priced fuel, writes pollster Ian Woolcott.

In the eyes of policymakers and the environmental lobby, an emissions trading scheme is touted as essential economic structural reform. But terms such as “reform” carry nuances that do not go unnoticed by the public, and especially so during an economic downturn.

Perhaps by happy coincidence to some, the debate about the practical implementation of an emissions trading scheme has unfolded at the same time as the global financial crisis. Economic imperatives have meant the lofty ideals around climate change have been called to account.

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

15 thoughts on “Change the climate, say Australians, but not at any price

  1. Richard Wilson

    The Australian Public is rightfully sceptical of anything that involves taking money from them.
    The alternative energy side of the environmental protection bill has now been passed so let’s get moving on all of those great technologies that mysteriously disappear from the newspapers one day after they have been heralded e.g. the water fueled car, geothermal energy, cold fusion technogy, zero point energy and goodness knows what else that has been put forward without any investor interest. All are totally clean and would save the world if they work. Everyone would support this and in my view probably vote for more financial support to any scientists working on such projects.

    The carbon dioxide trading scheme however known variously as ETS, Cap & Trade and so on is a tax collection scheme and if we are to believe its local champion Ross Garnaut, he favours it being adminstered by the financial sector according to an article he wrote in the Fin Review in February, 2009. The public has a right to be sceptical when the financial sector is collecting taxes for the government. Ultimately they know that no matter who pays the tax initially, it will be their bill ultimately and if that is so, what incentive is there for major polluters to seek out alternatives?

  2. TheOtherMichaelT

    well thank Christ someone is finally asking the (kind of) right questions.

    It’s very easy to say XXX% of Australian people support reducing carbon pollution

    What question i want asked is:

    ‘What percentage of your yearly income would you be prepared to pay to reduce our carbon pollution levels to 25% less than year 2000 levels’

    you know, a real question.

  3. D. John Hunwick

    UNless the poll is accompanied by details of the people’s understanding of climate change then what is its value? The more I understand the Climate change debate the more I am prepared to pay to avoid it. If people are becoming reluctant to pay, fair enough, but what is the reason(s)?n Is it lack of knowledge of what it is all about? Is it distrust of our politicians? Is it that they have no sense of urgency in the issue? Is it that they have been bombarded with so many negatives that any realisation of there being more jobs, more security, and the chances of improved health has been lost? Most polls on these sorts of issues are far too shallow to really mean anything significant – other than more polls need to be conducted – if someone will pay me!

  4. Evan Beaver

    I too thought the questions were a little, ahh, not misleading, but posed an unfair comparison.

    A lot of the questions seem to assume that the ‘do nothing’ scenario has no consequences; eg If we have an ETS living standards will drop; without an ETS, they will continue to increase at the curent rate. I acknowledge that this is difficult to adequately capture in a poll question, but if you can’t capture this in the question there should be a way to describe it in the analysis. Perhaps in uncertainty or MOE?

    I’ve also been wondering about the number of people who would be prepared to pay more to help the climate. A classic example of the old chestnut “what are you going to give up to achieve your goals”. We are somewhat informed by recent Greenpower data; a voluntary scheme where houses pay more for low carbon power. Their latest report shows almost a million customers. Hard to say how many people that is, but it is no insignificant.

    Greenpower’s most recent report can be found here

  5. Richard Wilson

    Yes Evan and their pollution savings were sold off to polluters at their regular prices so why would they bother! Dont you remember the two day scandal?

  6. John Reidy

    I think this shows that opinion polls on complex issues – as compared to “who is the preferred prime minister” need to be created carefully.
    Are there any details on the sample sizes, MOE or the survey type i.e. qualititive or (the other one quantitative..).

    An example the point:
    “In fact, 50% agreed it’s more important to maintain the availability of heavy transport fuel than reducing greenhouse emissions.”

    Heavy transport fuel – at least our cheap supply based on crude oil will run out/get more expensive regardless of greenhouse abatement policies.

    Perhaps a better question might be:
    “Do you support the introduction of renewable energy targets which would (in addition to minimising carbon emissions) extend the supply life of heavy transport fuel .”

  7. kathleen fisher

    I am skeptical of what you can conclude from this sort of research when so much depends on what people (think they) know about the problems and the solutions. For example, what would tom dick or susan know about the necessity (TINA) and length of our reliance on fossil fuels for long distance transport into the future – except for what someone in the media (or the survey) may have told them is or isn’t feasible – a fact which may or may not be reliable. That doesn’t mean people are pragmatic, it just means they believe this to be true.

    Moreover, our opinions can be highly influenced by who and what has been colonising media attention lately. This dependency and contingency is brought home, moreover, by the fact that the very groups who tend to commission or are interested in public opinion research are often the same groups who have designs on shifting that opinion – govts included. So there is little reason to be confident that what you are measuring in these sorts of surveys are some deep-seated values, attitudes, anthropologico-cost-benefit analyses or even ‘human nature’ (whatever that is this week) rather than simply how successful various competing campaigns and issues have been in shaping public opinion in recent times. Hardly profound and everything to do with money, rhetoric, fame and reputation.

    And with the economic crises dominating headlines and the turgid cynical politicking on ETS and Copenhagen sapping the collective goodwill that climate change action relies on we can hardly be surprised that you report significant shifts in less than a year in public opinion about the urgency of action (unless of course that can be put down to unreliable or deliberately leading survey techniques) .

    Oh and i think your political petticoat is showing when you use terms like: ‘asbolutist sentiment’ in reference to support for emissions targets, environmental sentimentality (or its emotion is it, not reason and natural science facts) and the ‘lofty ideals around climate change’ vs the ‘pragmatic’ ‘acknowledgement’ that we cannot avoid being reliant on fossil fuels in heavy transport until 2050.

    Rather an endless surveys and focus groups commissioned by interests group, how about govt supports a whole series of deliberative democracy workshops around Australia on the details of Australia’s eco-environ options and knoweldge. Alternatively we could adopt Al Gore’s model of getting individuals trained up to engage and inform local communities face to face in what is known (and not known) about the details of environ/economic problems and solutions for Australia. Then we could have a proper democratic conversation about trade-offs.

  8. Heathdon McGregor

    I may have misunderstood but I still cannot understand how the opinions of 1380 people are to represent the opinions of over 19 million with any accuracy?

    Who are the people? If 1300 people from Toorak were sampled or 1300 from Braybrook they would be very different, how would these respondants be representative of the thoughts of Sydneysiders?

  9. James Douglas

    It should not be very difficult to work out the reasons why the Australian public seems to be confused and increasingly disillusioned by the prospect of emissions trading and/or dealing effectively with global warming, although Woolcott’s static and reactive interpretations of the poll data on this make very heavy weather of the task, and the comments posted above serve only to demonstrate how easily populist hyperbole replaces even basic understanding on this sort of issue.

    The fact of the matter is that no political group in Australia is effectively putting the case for doing something about global warming. Arguments that Australia “shouldn’t do anything until after Copenhagen” – as if Australia alone had entertained plans to take commitments to the conference (which would come as a large surprise to many European nations) – are not countered. Uninformed commentators in Australia lump in countries such as China and India with developed nations, in termsof commitments they should be expected to make at Copenhagen, when in fact no reasonable participant in the Copenhagen process will expect that. The counterfactual case on acting on climate change – what will happen to countries like Australia if no effective action on warming is taken – is never presented clearly to the public: lobby groups for the coal sector and its allies either ignore this subject or lie about it; green fanatics make up a new horror story on it every day. Analysts such as Nicholas Stern have presented the costs of acting vs the costs of not acting on climate change very simply and clearly, but of course no notice of that is taken by any side in Australia. Not surprisingly, Australia is fast becoming known as the world capital of climate change denial – a position akin to being regarded as the centre of Creationism.

    The Rudd Government does not want to commit to anything close to an effective strategy on climate change, and has abandoned the public discussion on it entirely. Little wonder that the public is becoming increasingly unenthusiastic about acting: that is exactly what Rudd and co. have wanted from the beginning, and that leaves nobody with political clout in the country willing to put the case for action on warming.

  10. Tom McLoughlin

    I heard someone – from the gas energy sector I think – say people won’t really get motivated until they can see climate change. Which is why the first tornado to hit Brisbane will be an unprecedented political event as well as serious tragedy, loss of life and property etc.

    This guy also said by the time people in the broad – like the proverbial Doubting Thomas – do see stuff, it will be too late.


    I don’t expect any serious leadership from paid off major parties. Talk is cheap and it’s their main activity. Look at the Victorian Bushfire tragedy. That firestorm was unstoppable despite all the prep and urgings and worthy inquiries and speeches. Get it? Politicians aren’t going to sort this. Not a chance. Not a snowball in hell.

    They can’t save us now, the momentum is so enormous, and you can’t negotiate a price with physics. The greenocrats and biologists are essentially voyeurs now. It’s over you just don’t know it yet.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details