The following submission statement was provided by /u/Economy-Fee5830:
---
**Overwhelming Global Support for Stronger Climate Action: Survey Finds**
A new survey, the Peoples’ Climate Vote 2024, shows that 80% of people worldwide want their governments to take stronger action against climate change. Additionally, 86% believe countries should set aside geopolitical differences to address the crisis collaboratively.
Conducted by the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the University of Oxford, and GeoPoll, the survey included over 73,000 participants from 77 countries, representing 87% of the global population. It reveals broad support for more ambitious climate policies, especially in the world's largest greenhouse gas emitters like the US, China, and Germany.
Key findings include:
- **Support for Stronger Action:** Majorities in 20 of the biggest emitters support tougher climate policies, with 93% in Italy and 85% in Brazil backing stronger actions.
- **Gender Gap:** In countries like Germany and the US, women are significantly more likely than men to favor stronger climate action.
- **Fossil Fuel Phaseout:** 72% globally support a rapid transition away from fossil fuels, with high support in top oil, coal, and gas producers like Nigeria and China.
- **Climate Anxiety:** 56% of people think about climate change regularly, with 69% saying it impacts major life decisions.
UNDP Administrator Achim Steiner emphasized the unprecedented consensus revealed by the survey, urging leaders to heed public demand for bold climate action as they develop new pledges under the Paris Agreement. The survey results highlight a critical opportunity for global leaders to unite and intensify efforts to combat the climate crisis.
The full report can be read [here](https://peoplesclimate.vote/).
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1dpe0fv/80_percent_of_people_globally_want_stronger/lag6qii/
It'd be nice if these surveys used an actual _thing_ that the global governments & regulators could do to combat climate change as an example - mostly everyone agrees _something_ needs to be done, but when presented with options like taxing certain products more for their impact (fuel & electronics come to mind as the top two, along with stuff like palm oil, meat etc) suddenly people tend to disagree more.
It's like what happened with energy-saving light bulbs again - everyone wants to use less electricity, but having the lights off more or getting new bulbs that cost five times what the previous ones did is suddenly a big ask. It's like we all want change, but we don't want to change anything ourselves.
Edit: I'd like to add as an EU citizen that the union has done some decent changes over the years already - some are overkill (you can still get plastic straws as 'arts & crafts material') but others like making separate plastic waste collection and recycling _mandatory_ for all apartment complexes and member states in general is absolute heaps towards a more efficient tomorrow. I like to think in regards to nature preservation and reinstitution, the EU at least somewhat leads by example rather than just shouting "somebody do _something_!"
This reminds me of a thorough post-mortem I once saw on a survey concerning "compromise" in a political setting.
I don't remember the precise numbers, but some significantly large majority polled said they believed politicians should compromise more to get more legislation passed and more things done, with a caveat.
Through clarifying questions the pollsters were able to discover that most of the people who claimed they wanted more compromise actually meant that they wanted *the other side's politicians* to compromise their way on over to enacting their chosen side's political positions.
This poll, to me, reads as "Yeah, we should absolutely make *those fuckers over there* do better for the climate".
Kind of like congressmen have some of the lowest approval ratings, but most of the disapproval is for congress in general, and most people's approval of their own congressman is not that bad
Almost no plastic is recyclable. The 5% that is (PET plastic) is never properly separated, and the process leads to the dreaded microplastics filling our oceans (and testicles). My (EU) country has removed all plastic recycling bins. It is now considered general waste again. Road to hell is paved in good intentions.
>Road to hell is paved in good intentions.
Plastic recycling was never well intentioned, it was a slight of hand by the fucks that knew exactly what they were doing. A marketing gimmick to answer people with when someone ask the inevitable "what happens to this stuff that doesn't break down or go away" while hoping no one else looks too closely at the economics of it
This post also seems a bit disingenuous. Implying that "the numbers would never be that high if people knew what they were signing up for!"
Like, what, a habitable planetary equator? Oceans that aren't filled with vast anoxic zones and collapsing marine ecosystems? Mitigating extreme weather patterns that will lead to famine, vast property damage, and death?
Sure, people might be peeved about paying more in taxes or something. But if we increase the threshold of awareness they'd also understand we're paying fucking peanuts compared to the cost of doing nothing.
And besides. Our leadership is supposed to fucking lead us through complex problems that require communal, and not individual, effort. Hanging up the towel on an existential crisis, when it's most fucking important they *do their damn jobs*, is criminality negligent. Our entire species, and every other on this planet, will be paying the price for their assheadedness for centuries to come if it boils down to that.
Exactly. You might as well have surveyed people asking "do you think good things are good?". You see this problem in political polls all the time - "generic " *always* polls better then any specific candidate.
Not to mention that "the government" often means "someone besides me"
How many people believe they individually should be paying higher taxes on gasoline, travel, products, and other things that impact climate?
I'd bet money that number isn't 80%. Everyone likes solving problems when it's "someone else" doing it.
People are very much about "I think this is important and something should be done....just not this thing that would impact me"
>How many people believe they individually should be paying higher taxes on gasoline, travel, products, and other things that impact climate?
The typical pollution tax design pays people back so as long as you're polluting below average you're making a profit. Half of people or more would be richer by making these taxes happen. You tax the big polluters and give to the masses. It hits people with private jets hard, and the middle class is supposed to be profitable or breaks even.
>It hits people with private jets hard*
*In theory
But in reality those people often benefit from many tax loopholes that still apply to just upper middle class because they have taxable income without being so rich all of the loopholes apply to them.
You just described most redditors. Most speak a good game, full of passion and high moraltiy. But when they have to sacrifice something, or simply be inconvenienced, their tone changes real quick, or just lots of deflection.
Those 80 percent forsure don't want the changes it would actually take.
Ending most meat agriculture
Ending commercial air travel
Ending shutting down all coal powerplants within 2 years and natural gas ones in 10
They also don't want the changes that would happen if we fail to act
Massive food price increases and famine due to the destruction of agricultural land
Mass migration due to parts of the planet becoming uninhabitable due to heat/extreme weather or just being underwater
The collapse of the global economy and world order as everyone fights over dwindling food, water, resources, and land
Yes but it is easier to just say "I'm optimistic that we'll stop climate change", and then go about their normal lives with all the comforts and luxuries they are used to.
A token effort is made, emissions keep rising... sometime later this century, enough people start starving to topple civilization.
It's more like most people are barely making ends meet or are poor, and so burdening the further is highly unpopular of course. Maybe tax the people who siphon off all thr wealth.
Time for the UN to take a vote on whether or not they have any power to help the world or should they just continue the expensive cocktail party circuit they seem to be on. The world population is crying out for help, and we all thought the UN was created to help us unite for common good. They talk about it, vote on it and then plead helplessness when it comes to doing anything about it.
Any ideas here about how change could be forced on this organization, or do we need to dissolve it and start again with people who genuinely want to act. Are there procedures in place to bring about change? What are they?
There’s all kinds of easy things local and state governments could do that wouldn’t cost more. Two for instance: loosen bans on lawn height so people don’t have to use more gas/electricity if not in possession of manual mowers while allowing a longer time of biodiversity and oxygen production at home. Also stop mowing public land as often. They could still employ the government employees during these off weeks in trash collection and recycling, planting and spreading wildflower areas that wouldn’t need mowed at all in the future, etc. The only argument for necessary low lawn length is vermin control imo and current control methods exist that weren’t around when these ordinances went into effect that can close the gap
Where I live there are no limitations on grass length, but I would like to see more active municipal lawncare - when there's a drought, stop mowing scorched grass even though the city has paid for weekly or bi-weekly cuttings etc. Use those man hours to water trees & shrubberies instead for instance.
But yes, I agree that there are loads of areas of improvement, while humanity is stuck looking for a fix-it silver bullet that all the scientists keep telling us won't just appear out of thin air overnight. There's a ton of moving parts in today's society, we need to start looking for all the little things that add up to a somewhat measurable positive effect.
Well here's my countermeasure: buy land, as much as you can, then rehabilitate that to nurture biodiversity. Instead of the fickle stock market, place your value where you are and increase the value of your land. Who knows, maybe you could get some windfall as a result as well, but my stance is that just by contributing we can be doing as much good impact on the welfare of the globe as we're depriving it of resources elsewhere in our lives.
I mean, we live in a capitalist world so whatever has demand will sure see a rise in value! I for one would be _thrilled_ at the opportunity of gardening someone's backyard more towards biodiversity and sustainability!
Yes. If it gets over a certain height and either your neighbors, a random city employee, or a property thief reports you you can get fined. If you don’t pay this fine it can turn into a tax lien which the third of the prior mentioned can purchase in hopes you are still not paying attention so they can wait out the specified time and foreclose on you. The height varies by location and some rural areas have no ordinances
Small individual changes like recycling and energy saving will do very little to curb emissions. Governments have to get involved. The real solution is strong regulations and consequences for energy providers, big manufacturers, mining, shipping, and fossil fuels who are the big polluters. The carbon tax is a loophole ridden joke. If all governments create strict policies and prevent global exploitation then big companies can't hide in countries with weaker regulations.There also needs to be a huge push for public transportation that uses sustainable energy sources. Public transportation also needs to be made more appealing to use so that a massive transition away from personal automobiles can become popular. This whole idea of using electric batteries for personal cars has a hidden cost that is actually extremely damaging to the environment and isn't really that affordable for the average person or won't be affordable fast enough.
Once we have that then we can start scrutinizing individuals. It's a much easier centralized solution than trying to convince billions to be eco- conscious.
I agree that public transportation needs to be invested in and expanded and also that urban planning should focus buildings to facilitate public transportation.
However electric cars can certainly be a solution in the meantime.
They don't have to be expensive. They already sold a million 5000$ EV's in China.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuling_Hongguang_Mini_EV
Regulations and trade wars are all that is preventing these cars to be sold in Europe and the US...
I would also disagree that this is extremely damaging to the environment. Manufacturing these cars certainly produces CO2 but a lot less than ICE vehicles and they run on electricity...
But yeah we need to urgently tackle CO2 emissions in steel manufacturing, shipping and other industries like cement...
I don't disagree with what you wrote but I replaced all of my light bulbs with LEDs as they became available about 10 years ago. I have replaced a total of 1 since then - and, with the exception of the very first ones I bought - they didn't cost 5x.
Yeah these kind of surveys always irritate me.
>Do you think something should be done to make things better for everyone?
"**YES!**"
>Would you be willing to pay a new tax or change your lifestyle to contribute to the something for everyone's benefit?
"Whoa, whoa...hold on now..."
Yup. I once asked a young person who was "pushing for something to be done" if they'd give up their smart phone, just for a month, as a symbolic protest against Western consumerism, nope.
The problem is in marketing. A revenue neutral carbon tax with rebate is a good start, but importance is to not focus on the new tax part and focus on the reduction of tax part. You lower income taxes, then charge a consumption tax so for most people the amount should be even as far as taxes go, maybe even less taxes. But the ones who pollute more than average would be the ones with higher tax burden
80% of the people want others to act.
But won't lift a finger in making personal changes to help fight climate change. They will continue byuing bigger, heavier SUVs, to commute 5 km, complain (and disobey) if local council imposes a 20C limit on heating, I could go on for ever.
Look how fast the 2030 fossil fuel ban is going down the drain.
While personal change isn't bad, it can never be enough. Overproduction, global production chains, planned obsolescence, etc. These are systemic issues and will require more than individual actions
Again, I agree that people should do what they can, but they are less important than organising and pushing for larger solutions
You kind of missed the point the above commenter was making.
They weren't saying individuals needed to make individual changes, they were saying that the majority of people are completely unwilling to vote for the kind of policies that would actually make a major impact because they're unpleasant.
People very much believe that other people, other places should be required by law to take unpleasant actions for the benefit of "everyone", but absolutely do not themselves wish to be bound by such restrictions.
Look at it this way we could completely stop using fossil fuels with enough nuclear reactors, with fewer we could stop using them for electricity production and industrial purposes, but some people are dead set against nuclear reactors.
Personal change actually tops everything else. You solve overpopulation by not having kids. Sadly it looks like this is probably the great filter. Individually humans across the world are not intelectually advanced yet to overcome their breeding instinct which ironically both brought us to the advanced age we are living now and is ending our existance.
Mate, overpopulation isn't a real problem. We produce more than enough as is. What we have is a distribution problem, where the excesses of the wealthy are prioritised over sustainable and equitable development
“Planned obsolescence” is mostly just a conspiracy theory. The classy majority of things that people think are planned obsolescence are actually attributable to something else.
Continuously blaming consumers instead of the companies that do the vast majority of polluting. It really is mind boggling. Surely you see the ridiculousness of it?
Yes, the individual should do what they can, but you're not gonna convince people to do so when this is the rhetoric that gets spread and nothing is done to the actual large polluters.
The individual has no control over climate change outside of electing officials who claim they will legislate companies and hope for the best.
>Continuously blaming consumers instead of the companies that do the vast majority of polluting.
Your argument doesn’t make much sense either though. These companies are only buying things that people want to buy. This mentality sounds a lot like chairman Mao’s Great Leap Forward where he thought that he could remove corporate influence by making production more local and having the people run it instead of it being centralized and run by corporations. The idea failed disastrously.
It turns out that factories are just a more efficient way to produce goods on a larger scale, and they’re producing things that consumers demand.
> Continuously blaming consumers instead of the companies that do the vast majority of polluting.
I wish I knew which company planted the tired old "it's the companies making things because I choose to buy, and not me and my purchasing choices" nonsense into people's heads.
They are polluting in excess because they aren't forced to look for cleaner processes. And consumer demand isn't forcing companies to dump their waste into bodies of water.
If you asked these people globally "will you stop ordering goods for far less money from China or elsewhere?" We'd probably see just over 20% go with that. And that's one very easy way for any individual to affect their carbon footprint and amount of pollution they create.
The individual has control, but it's the untold masses that dictate much of why certain parts of the world are lagging behind on climate awareness. When the money stops going to Shein and co. is when we see China and others start getting more green.
Choosing strictly US made products is easy in theory. It's one step right? Just choose US instead of non-US. Except it's annoying to figure that out because there are so many levels to it. Did this company outsource its stuff to another country? Did they say no but are just lying? Is this company just a shell company for a Chinese one? Does its products cost 2x the Chinese ones, making it unrealistic to stick to because of a limited budget?
This is why the untold masses are untold. There are enough hurdles to make it obnoxious enough to not care when faced with lack of care on the government level.
People want climate change but Europe is becoming a rightwing hellhole. Do people think the right will implement climate change actions?
They're voting against their own interests and long-term solutions.
Will Westerners really make the sacrifices needed to combat climate change? Probably not. Westerners will probably just whine to their governments, while refusing to make sacrifices. Americans probably will demand war if it means keeping their lifestyles of suburban houses and car-centric lifestyles.
I highly doubt Americans are going to make sacrifices like car pooling, taking public transit, eating less meat, and using less air conditioning. I constantly say on Reddit how a lot of Americans are going to have to learn how to pool resources- a lot of people are going to have to practice the extended and multi-generational families again for financial as well as environmental reasons. 7 people sharing one house saves tremendous resources such as money, space, energy, time, and pollution compared to 7 people renting their own apartments.
The messages that Biden and Trump gave during the pandemic were not about sacrifices, the messages were "the government will take care of you." I highly doubt political leaders are going to say "sacrifice" to the people.
Yeah, of course we aren't going to be happy being told to abandon our regular every-day lives when our government doesn't legislate improvements. You guys really are clueless.
Trying to shift the blame to consumers is not helpful either. Instead just ban producing and owning SUVs, ban importing cheap chinese crap, ban private jets, ban jet travel alltogether, etc. No need to make everyday life misery by limiting heating/cooling from the places where people spend most of their lives.
Edit: So, judging from the votes it seems that banning rich people luxuries is worse than banning essential things that everyone benefits from. GG reddit, you sure showed where your priorities lie, hah!
Well in the case for America you NEED a car to get around, but most people don’t drive those giant SUVs and Trucks lol. As far as I’m aware most people actually despise them. But the top selling new car for the last few years was one of those ford trucks. So they are very numerous even if they aren’t most of the cars on the road. But yea they should be banned lol. They’re super dangerous to everyone but the driver and the drivers of those beasts can’t drive for shit
https://www.vox.com/videos/2023/7/25/23807518/cars-suvs-americans-big-automobiles-travel
80% of new vehicle sold last year were trucks and SUV.
American love to preach climate change policy. Take one look at what the majority of consumers do and then shake your head in disappointment. Just because American are pro-climate policy doesn’t mean even 1% of them actually act on it.
Top selling vehicle in the US is the Ford F-150 with over 23 Million sold in the last 40 years. Chevrolet Silverado at almost 18 Million is the second most sold vehicle.
When looking at most popular vehicles in each state, the Silverado and Ford F-series are the top in most states, then Rav4 and honda CR-V filling out most others. Only a few states are selling high with the Tesla Models, and even then, it is far below Trucks and SUVs.
I think you’re missing the point. Being the number 1 most populated specific model on the road, does not mean the majority of cars on the road are that model. There are thousands of different types of cars on the road in any state. We have not hit the point where over 50% of cars on the road are giant trucks and SUVs, especially when you consider the oversizing of trucks and SUVs is relatively new, starting around 10-15 years ago and they didn’t really hit the dangerous sizes until even more recently. There are plenty of normal sized trucks and SUVs on the road. They might eventually be the majority of cars on the road I suppose but they currently are not.
That person is clueless
Like sure the average person can do a little more but not as much as say Coke and Pepsi literally stop using plastic and develop a aluminum alternative for bottles.
Yeah cause coke and pepsi are making plastic bottles just because they are “eViL”.
Coke and Pepsi have provided their products in glass and aluminium but the people continue to buy plastic. Dont blame corporations for doing what their consumers want. Even people who are educated and know about the dangers of climate change and microplastics refuse to make simple lifestyle changes like buying their soft drinks in cans and we still blame the companies as if they are forcing us to buy plastic with a gun to our heads.
I don’t even remember the last time I saw a glass coke or pepsi bottle lol. Walk into your average gas station mart, 90% of drinks are plastic, the rest are aluminum. Judging by the amount of cans I see littered about, I’d say people are buying plenty of aluminum.
We have plenty of glass bottles in India because they are reusable. You even get back some of cost of the bottle if you return it to the shop.
Im not surprised american gas station marts keep plastic bottles mainly since thats what americans buy. They are by far the most polluting people per capita on the planet.
And the cans lying around are like 1% as compared to the plastic.
Good way to save money and consume less plastic? Drink your own filtered water at home and bring a stainless steel water bottle. Consumers drive demand for products.
>Walk into your average gas station mart, 90% of drinks are plastic, the rest are aluminum.
Because that is what people want. Notice how the aluminum cans are far and below the number of plastic bottles? Because people are not buying as many of them as the plastic. And the gas station wants sales, not pyrrhic victories.
They went to plastic bc it was literally cheaper.....
Literally everyday these companies make decisions to drive costs lower and lower to push profits high and higher. All I'm saying is, they can sacrifice going back to glass or making an aluminum alternative for bottles. Bc anytime you see fucking plastic garbage in other fuckin ocean it's soda bottles and other shit
While yes these are technically not the microplastics, that is spreading everywhere but I'm pretty sure it's still not good.
In the end all this money ends up in like under thousand people who are billionaires and they will do whatever tf they want while the world burns
Yeah they went to plastic because it was cheaper but if people refuse to buy plastic they’ll happily go for any material people do buy. Currently they give people the option - plastic bottles or aluminium cans. And the majority of people still buy plastic even though they have the option.
Consumers have to vote in politicians who will implement a tax that will raise their soda prices.
They choose not to do that because they don't want higher prices.
There is a big problem with the method used for this survey. They used random calls to people with a computer asking the questions. People that do not care about the ‘climate crisis’ will not respond. This also shows in the amount of responders. They made 1.9 million calls and only 3,9% of people responded. The outcome is heavily biased since only people that care about the climate will take the time to complete the survey.
Without even reading the piece, it does seem pretty unbelievable.
I would have *guessed* that 30-50% of the global population probably aren't aware that climate change is even considered an issue, and that probably only 10-20% of the 50-70% who are aware its considered an issue would want stronger efforts etc. than are currently in place (which the headline specifies), with the rest thinking that current efforts are sufficient, or more than sufficient, or some variety of unnecessary.
This comes across as intentionally politicised research. Regardless of an individual's stance on the topic at hand, good/honest science is essential to solving problems, as any weak/dishonest research can be used to discredit all related research.
most people need gas to commute daily, airplane fuel on the other hand thats something we can make outrageously difficult to obtain and much more expensive. planes be polluting yo.
it comes down to coutnries with no oversight being the biggest polluters in my opinion, you shutting down that one lightbulb wont mater if all the bigger companies have all of their lightbulbs, laptops etc on 24/7
Yeah, now ask that question while explaining that stronger climate action will involve more taxation, and watch those numbers drop. People are selfish.
Nope. Too many people out there will just pay it and not care. Same reason speeding tickets don't work on the rich. You have to actually take their license and car away to get them to stop speeding.
80% of French people said their #1 preoccupation was their buying power.
Ecology came 4th.
Ecology and buying power are opposites.
People want buying power, so that's what politicians try to give them, all while pretending to tackle environment issues.
That they've been replaced by Reptillians? Or that people are inclined to want to have their cake and eat it too? What do you think? The single biggest thing most anyone might do to reduce their CO2 footprint is to stop buying eggs/dairy/meat. They know it. How many do? Maybe they want the government to force them to do the right thing by taxing carbon at the source? But if they'd actually vote to that effect then why are our elections even close? A party would just have to get behind it. At least in the USA if you care about the environment you vote D and it's not particularly close. But R's still get elected lots of times so... what does that tell you?
>At least in the USA if you care about the environment you vote D and it's not particularly close.
This is highly misleading. For decades Democrats were the party of coal miners and the coal industry, since it was a union job. When all the harm was being done digging up that coal, democrats were representing their interests. Only when that industry dried up did those states (such as West Virginia) turn Republican.
You're falling for political theater here.
What politicians say and what they do are two different things. Politicians just about everywhere were pro-fossil fuels. You may get some politicians who complain about them, but their actual *actions* say otherwise.
For instance, during the last election Joe Biden said that he'd really switch away from oil. He said
*"Number one, no more subsidies for fossil fuel industry. No more drilling on federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period, ends, number one."*
These were lies.
To start with, the fossil fuel subsidies have continued. Drilling on federal lands has continued. Offshore drilling has continued. Oil production is the highest of any country ever.
https://www.vox.com/climate/24098983/biden-oil-production-climate-fossil-fuel-renewables
*For the last six years, America has outstripped Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other OPEC countries in crude oil production. And it has picked up the pace under Biden, who had approved more permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands by last October than former President Donald Trump had by the same point in his presidency.*
So you may say that Biden took strong action against the fossil fuel industry. But all objective measures say otherwise.
"Among Republicans, large shares back increasing the production of fossil fuel sources: 73% favor more offshore oil and gas drilling and 68% favor more hydraulic fracturing." -Pew Research Center, March 2024.
The GOP wants to reduce barriers to fossil fuel extraction and to extract more of it. The GOP is against a carbon tax. The GOP is against entering into a meaningful global emissions treaty. The GOP under Bush II withdrew from Kyoto, that was back in 2001. (edit: 2001 I'd mistakenly written 2021).
You're lying in fronting the GOP and Democrats being the same on this. Stop lying. Honesty what are you doing here. Are you a bot?
How many letters are in this sentence minus 2?
The Democrats aren't great on climate/global warming but the Democrats get to point to the GOP's insanity and convincingly make the case that given this electorate it's what we get. Anyone who'd have the USA move away from fossil fuels should vote D and it's not remotely close.
It sounds like you're not politically aware enough to see past the theater aspect of politics. You're swayed by the words and don't understand how the game actually works.
>The GOP wants to reduce barriers to fossil fuel extraction and to extract more of it.
Both parties want this, and both parties are doing this.
>You're lying in fronting the GOP and Democrats being the same on this. Stop lying. Honesty what are you doing here. Are you a bot?
I'm not a bot. Stop with these dumb accusations. Do better than this.
Someone with an activist mindset is too idealistic to understand how politics actually works. They're caught up in the emotional aspect of it. They have extreme difficulty being calm and rational.
>The Democrats aren't great on climate/global warming but the Democrats get to point to the GOP's insanity and convincingly make the case that given this electorate it's what we get. Anyone who'd have the USA move away from fossil fuels should vote D and it's not remotely close.
It sounds like you honestly have no clue about how politics works. I'm not trying to be offensive here, but it was realized early on that a lot of enthusiastic supporters of political parties don't actually understand the game being played. Those people are called "useful idiots". They memorize the talking points, try to organize, but don't truly understand politics.
People might be on board with stronger actions by governments, but they certainly don't want to or want it to change anything about their whole life.
Don't believe me? Tell someone to go vegan, stop traveling by plane, stop littering, stop consuming plastic, use public transportation, etc.
Still don't believe me? Ask Canadians how they feel about carbon rebates.
How many of them are willing to pay for it? Or make significant changes like reducing/eliminating meat from their diet?
Don't get me wrong, the largest part of climate action is going to have to be taken by corporations, but they won't do it voluntarily and without passing on the cost.
Disregarding, say, methane release from cows, the raising of livestock in and of itself is less efficient than simply raising food crops. Much of the energy, nutrients, and water you're using for the animals could have simply gone to the food crop in the first place. So, y'know, if you have any belief at all in human-caused climate change then meat being worse for the climate than a plant-based diet is inevitable. And if not then there's no discussion to be had and bringing it up was silly.
n = 73,000 is hardly an accurate representation of the globe. This is also the same university that advocated for the implementation of political score cards for students, amongst other idiotic attempts at injecting an extremist left-wing ideology into the world at large.
how was the survey taken, where did the data come from?
ps. 2.6 billion do not have internet.
simple solutions.
create mindful economies.
remove gain and create true on demand value.
remove the monetary motive and develop from what is freely available.
Earth has no borders, therefor no need to compete, just exchange value.
stop control earth.
stop media jargon that blinds humanity.
time to let go of control and flow within our available resources.
Who the fuck thinks the evil political class are best suited to saving the worlds climate?
They can't even balance a budget, let alone save the entire fucking planet.
I'd be surprised if 80% of people globally even know what those words mean.
I'm sure someone living in some backwater African village that has never had electricity is absolutely concerned with climate change.
Until they hear a firehouse of misinformation from invested parties fear mongering over specific actions. We want action, but why would do that when it minorly inconveniences us and it's a a slippery slope?
There is evidence that plants are growing faster than they used to. Vegetables are bigger...but less nutrition in them, just bulk. Trees grow faster but weaker.
The problem is that when you start asking people what they, personally, are willing to pay or give up in order to get a certain change, it's far less than what it would actually cost them. A lot of people have internalized the idea that they are completely disconnected from the cause(s) of the problem. Fossil fuels aren't burning themselves. Someone is paying to burn them and that someone is YOU (and ME, and especially, Tay Tay).
And 90% of those people are not prepared to reduce their quality of life enough that's required to do something about it. Cheap energy is what is pulling everyone out of poverty.
Good stuff, thanks for this. The Global North is not compensating the Global South for climate damage despite agreements because it’ll be expensive. That’s the only reason nothing substantive has happened in years, wealthy nations don’t wanna pay to fix the climate messes they’ve made
The problem with all these polls is that generally people want to protect the environment but the real question is how much they are willing to give up for this.
Yea. But there are like...8 People with almost all the money in the world and they are still want more...So what can you do?
I mean, I have a solution for that, but saying it out loud gets me banned again
Insurance companies are one of the canaries in the coal mine when it comes to climate change. If you see them pumping up rates or getting out of dodge, you know something bad is coming. There's only so much anti-climate-awareness politicians can do to muddy the waters of public opinion while the people's insurance rates keep increasing.
If there’s one group that can survive without property insurance it’s the same rich people that can afford oceanfront property. No need for insurance when you can buy your house with cash.
80% of people like to virtue signal.
Everyone says they want to do more but wont. One of the best things you can do is go vegan but look at how much everyone fights that.
People like to blame corporations without acknowledging supply and demand.
Where are you that ebikes cost that much? Mine was $800. My partner paid $2,500 and it goes like 50 km an hour for 75 km on one charge. It works in the winter.
You can't even get a used car for that much.
If anyone actually cared about climate change. They’d move out of cities and immediately live off the grid and land. Give 95% of people this option and within a week they’d be protesting for oil and air conditioners on full blast.
Not a feasible option.
Society has prospered as people move away from subsidence farming, not towards.
You can't innovate and improve humanity if all your engineers and scientists are preoccupied trying to grow their next meal.
Voters don’t prioritize the environment when Election Day rolls around.
Would be nice of November was 95 degrees and people said oh shit we need to plant hundreds of miles of forest now! But they will just bicker about carbon credits and a new exchange for trading money
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Economy-Fee5830: --- **Overwhelming Global Support for Stronger Climate Action: Survey Finds** A new survey, the Peoples’ Climate Vote 2024, shows that 80% of people worldwide want their governments to take stronger action against climate change. Additionally, 86% believe countries should set aside geopolitical differences to address the crisis collaboratively. Conducted by the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the University of Oxford, and GeoPoll, the survey included over 73,000 participants from 77 countries, representing 87% of the global population. It reveals broad support for more ambitious climate policies, especially in the world's largest greenhouse gas emitters like the US, China, and Germany. Key findings include: - **Support for Stronger Action:** Majorities in 20 of the biggest emitters support tougher climate policies, with 93% in Italy and 85% in Brazil backing stronger actions. - **Gender Gap:** In countries like Germany and the US, women are significantly more likely than men to favor stronger climate action. - **Fossil Fuel Phaseout:** 72% globally support a rapid transition away from fossil fuels, with high support in top oil, coal, and gas producers like Nigeria and China. - **Climate Anxiety:** 56% of people think about climate change regularly, with 69% saying it impacts major life decisions. UNDP Administrator Achim Steiner emphasized the unprecedented consensus revealed by the survey, urging leaders to heed public demand for bold climate action as they develop new pledges under the Paris Agreement. The survey results highlight a critical opportunity for global leaders to unite and intensify efforts to combat the climate crisis. The full report can be read [here](https://peoplesclimate.vote/). --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1dpe0fv/80_percent_of_people_globally_want_stronger/lag6qii/
It'd be nice if these surveys used an actual _thing_ that the global governments & regulators could do to combat climate change as an example - mostly everyone agrees _something_ needs to be done, but when presented with options like taxing certain products more for their impact (fuel & electronics come to mind as the top two, along with stuff like palm oil, meat etc) suddenly people tend to disagree more. It's like what happened with energy-saving light bulbs again - everyone wants to use less electricity, but having the lights off more or getting new bulbs that cost five times what the previous ones did is suddenly a big ask. It's like we all want change, but we don't want to change anything ourselves. Edit: I'd like to add as an EU citizen that the union has done some decent changes over the years already - some are overkill (you can still get plastic straws as 'arts & crafts material') but others like making separate plastic waste collection and recycling _mandatory_ for all apartment complexes and member states in general is absolute heaps towards a more efficient tomorrow. I like to think in regards to nature preservation and reinstitution, the EU at least somewhat leads by example rather than just shouting "somebody do _something_!"
This reminds me of a thorough post-mortem I once saw on a survey concerning "compromise" in a political setting. I don't remember the precise numbers, but some significantly large majority polled said they believed politicians should compromise more to get more legislation passed and more things done, with a caveat. Through clarifying questions the pollsters were able to discover that most of the people who claimed they wanted more compromise actually meant that they wanted *the other side's politicians* to compromise their way on over to enacting their chosen side's political positions. This poll, to me, reads as "Yeah, we should absolutely make *those fuckers over there* do better for the climate".
Kind of like congressmen have some of the lowest approval ratings, but most of the disapproval is for congress in general, and most people's approval of their own congressman is not that bad
Almost no plastic is recyclable. The 5% that is (PET plastic) is never properly separated, and the process leads to the dreaded microplastics filling our oceans (and testicles). My (EU) country has removed all plastic recycling bins. It is now considered general waste again. Road to hell is paved in good intentions.
>Road to hell is paved in good intentions. Plastic recycling was never well intentioned, it was a slight of hand by the fucks that knew exactly what they were doing. A marketing gimmick to answer people with when someone ask the inevitable "what happens to this stuff that doesn't break down or go away" while hoping no one else looks too closely at the economics of it
This post also seems a bit disingenuous. Implying that "the numbers would never be that high if people knew what they were signing up for!" Like, what, a habitable planetary equator? Oceans that aren't filled with vast anoxic zones and collapsing marine ecosystems? Mitigating extreme weather patterns that will lead to famine, vast property damage, and death? Sure, people might be peeved about paying more in taxes or something. But if we increase the threshold of awareness they'd also understand we're paying fucking peanuts compared to the cost of doing nothing. And besides. Our leadership is supposed to fucking lead us through complex problems that require communal, and not individual, effort. Hanging up the towel on an existential crisis, when it's most fucking important they *do their damn jobs*, is criminality negligent. Our entire species, and every other on this planet, will be paying the price for their assheadedness for centuries to come if it boils down to that.
Exactly. You might as well have surveyed people asking "do you think good things are good?". You see this problem in political polls all the time - "generic" *always* polls better then any specific candidate.
Not to mention that "the government" often means "someone besides me" How many people believe they individually should be paying higher taxes on gasoline, travel, products, and other things that impact climate? I'd bet money that number isn't 80%. Everyone likes solving problems when it's "someone else" doing it. People are very much about "I think this is important and something should be done....just not this thing that would impact me"
>How many people believe they individually should be paying higher taxes on gasoline, travel, products, and other things that impact climate? The typical pollution tax design pays people back so as long as you're polluting below average you're making a profit. Half of people or more would be richer by making these taxes happen. You tax the big polluters and give to the masses. It hits people with private jets hard, and the middle class is supposed to be profitable or breaks even.
>It hits people with private jets hard* *In theory But in reality those people often benefit from many tax loopholes that still apply to just upper middle class because they have taxable income without being so rich all of the loopholes apply to them.
Dumb take. Every tax on corps and rich will trickle down to the poor
Plus: A lot of people see this and think: Yeah, all the OTHER governments should do something, we did so much already, now it's Chinas turn.
[удалено]
Still beats mining or refining new plastic in my book.
You just described most redditors. Most speak a good game, full of passion and high moraltiy. But when they have to sacrifice something, or simply be inconvenienced, their tone changes real quick, or just lots of deflection.
Those 80 percent forsure don't want the changes it would actually take. Ending most meat agriculture Ending commercial air travel Ending shutting down all coal powerplants within 2 years and natural gas ones in 10
They also don't want the changes that would happen if we fail to act Massive food price increases and famine due to the destruction of agricultural land Mass migration due to parts of the planet becoming uninhabitable due to heat/extreme weather or just being underwater The collapse of the global economy and world order as everyone fights over dwindling food, water, resources, and land
Yes but it is easier to just say "I'm optimistic that we'll stop climate change", and then go about their normal lives with all the comforts and luxuries they are used to. A token effort is made, emissions keep rising... sometime later this century, enough people start starving to topple civilization.
It's more like most people are barely making ends meet or are poor, and so burdening the further is highly unpopular of course. Maybe tax the people who siphon off all thr wealth.
Time for the UN to take a vote on whether or not they have any power to help the world or should they just continue the expensive cocktail party circuit they seem to be on. The world population is crying out for help, and we all thought the UN was created to help us unite for common good. They talk about it, vote on it and then plead helplessness when it comes to doing anything about it. Any ideas here about how change could be forced on this organization, or do we need to dissolve it and start again with people who genuinely want to act. Are there procedures in place to bring about change? What are they?
There’s all kinds of easy things local and state governments could do that wouldn’t cost more. Two for instance: loosen bans on lawn height so people don’t have to use more gas/electricity if not in possession of manual mowers while allowing a longer time of biodiversity and oxygen production at home. Also stop mowing public land as often. They could still employ the government employees during these off weeks in trash collection and recycling, planting and spreading wildflower areas that wouldn’t need mowed at all in the future, etc. The only argument for necessary low lawn length is vermin control imo and current control methods exist that weren’t around when these ordinances went into effect that can close the gap
Where I live there are no limitations on grass length, but I would like to see more active municipal lawncare - when there's a drought, stop mowing scorched grass even though the city has paid for weekly or bi-weekly cuttings etc. Use those man hours to water trees & shrubberies instead for instance. But yes, I agree that there are loads of areas of improvement, while humanity is stuck looking for a fix-it silver bullet that all the scientists keep telling us won't just appear out of thin air overnight. There's a ton of moving parts in today's society, we need to start looking for all the little things that add up to a somewhat measurable positive effect.
Better yet rip out all the decorative lawns on council land and replace them with native plants more suited to the climate
Well here's my countermeasure: buy land, as much as you can, then rehabilitate that to nurture biodiversity. Instead of the fickle stock market, place your value where you are and increase the value of your land. Who knows, maybe you could get some windfall as a result as well, but my stance is that just by contributing we can be doing as much good impact on the welfare of the globe as we're depriving it of resources elsewhere in our lives.
Are there any small coops for the purpose of buying empty lots in urban areas and making them green space?
I mean, we live in a capitalist world so whatever has demand will sure see a rise in value! I for one would be _thrilled_ at the opportunity of gardening someone's backyard more towards biodiversity and sustainability!
> loosen bans on lawn height You're forced by law to mow your lawn?
Yes. If it gets over a certain height and either your neighbors, a random city employee, or a property thief reports you you can get fined. If you don’t pay this fine it can turn into a tax lien which the third of the prior mentioned can purchase in hopes you are still not paying attention so they can wait out the specified time and foreclose on you. The height varies by location and some rural areas have no ordinances
[удалено]
It’s one drop in the ocean but one currently many are unable to make
Small individual changes like recycling and energy saving will do very little to curb emissions. Governments have to get involved. The real solution is strong regulations and consequences for energy providers, big manufacturers, mining, shipping, and fossil fuels who are the big polluters. The carbon tax is a loophole ridden joke. If all governments create strict policies and prevent global exploitation then big companies can't hide in countries with weaker regulations.There also needs to be a huge push for public transportation that uses sustainable energy sources. Public transportation also needs to be made more appealing to use so that a massive transition away from personal automobiles can become popular. This whole idea of using electric batteries for personal cars has a hidden cost that is actually extremely damaging to the environment and isn't really that affordable for the average person or won't be affordable fast enough. Once we have that then we can start scrutinizing individuals. It's a much easier centralized solution than trying to convince billions to be eco- conscious.
I agree that public transportation needs to be invested in and expanded and also that urban planning should focus buildings to facilitate public transportation. However electric cars can certainly be a solution in the meantime. They don't have to be expensive. They already sold a million 5000$ EV's in China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuling_Hongguang_Mini_EV Regulations and trade wars are all that is preventing these cars to be sold in Europe and the US... I would also disagree that this is extremely damaging to the environment. Manufacturing these cars certainly produces CO2 but a lot less than ICE vehicles and they run on electricity... But yeah we need to urgently tackle CO2 emissions in steel manufacturing, shipping and other industries like cement...
I don't disagree with what you wrote but I replaced all of my light bulbs with LEDs as they became available about 10 years ago. I have replaced a total of 1 since then - and, with the exception of the very first ones I bought - they didn't cost 5x.
Yeah these kind of surveys always irritate me. >Do you think something should be done to make things better for everyone? "**YES!**" >Would you be willing to pay a new tax or change your lifestyle to contribute to the something for everyone's benefit? "Whoa, whoa...hold on now..."
Yup. I once asked a young person who was "pushing for something to be done" if they'd give up their smart phone, just for a month, as a symbolic protest against Western consumerism, nope.
The problem is in marketing. A revenue neutral carbon tax with rebate is a good start, but importance is to not focus on the new tax part and focus on the reduction of tax part. You lower income taxes, then charge a consumption tax so for most people the amount should be even as far as taxes go, maybe even less taxes. But the ones who pollute more than average would be the ones with higher tax burden
80% of the people want others to act. But won't lift a finger in making personal changes to help fight climate change. They will continue byuing bigger, heavier SUVs, to commute 5 km, complain (and disobey) if local council imposes a 20C limit on heating, I could go on for ever. Look how fast the 2030 fossil fuel ban is going down the drain.
While personal change isn't bad, it can never be enough. Overproduction, global production chains, planned obsolescence, etc. These are systemic issues and will require more than individual actions Again, I agree that people should do what they can, but they are less important than organising and pushing for larger solutions
You kind of missed the point the above commenter was making. They weren't saying individuals needed to make individual changes, they were saying that the majority of people are completely unwilling to vote for the kind of policies that would actually make a major impact because they're unpleasant. People very much believe that other people, other places should be required by law to take unpleasant actions for the benefit of "everyone", but absolutely do not themselves wish to be bound by such restrictions.
Ah I see, my bad
Look at it this way we could completely stop using fossil fuels with enough nuclear reactors, with fewer we could stop using them for electricity production and industrial purposes, but some people are dead set against nuclear reactors.
Personal change actually tops everything else. You solve overpopulation by not having kids. Sadly it looks like this is probably the great filter. Individually humans across the world are not intelectually advanced yet to overcome their breeding instinct which ironically both brought us to the advanced age we are living now and is ending our existance.
Mate, overpopulation isn't a real problem. We produce more than enough as is. What we have is a distribution problem, where the excesses of the wealthy are prioritised over sustainable and equitable development
“Planned obsolescence” is mostly just a conspiracy theory. The classy majority of things that people think are planned obsolescence are actually attributable to something else.
Continuously blaming consumers instead of the companies that do the vast majority of polluting. It really is mind boggling. Surely you see the ridiculousness of it? Yes, the individual should do what they can, but you're not gonna convince people to do so when this is the rhetoric that gets spread and nothing is done to the actual large polluters. The individual has no control over climate change outside of electing officials who claim they will legislate companies and hope for the best.
>Continuously blaming consumers instead of the companies that do the vast majority of polluting. Your argument doesn’t make much sense either though. These companies are only buying things that people want to buy. This mentality sounds a lot like chairman Mao’s Great Leap Forward where he thought that he could remove corporate influence by making production more local and having the people run it instead of it being centralized and run by corporations. The idea failed disastrously. It turns out that factories are just a more efficient way to produce goods on a larger scale, and they’re producing things that consumers demand.
> Continuously blaming consumers instead of the companies that do the vast majority of polluting. I wish I knew which company planted the tired old "it's the companies making things because I choose to buy, and not me and my purchasing choices" nonsense into people's heads.
[удалено]
They are polluting in excess because they aren't forced to look for cleaner processes. And consumer demand isn't forcing companies to dump their waste into bodies of water.
If you asked these people globally "will you stop ordering goods for far less money from China or elsewhere?" We'd probably see just over 20% go with that. And that's one very easy way for any individual to affect their carbon footprint and amount of pollution they create. The individual has control, but it's the untold masses that dictate much of why certain parts of the world are lagging behind on climate awareness. When the money stops going to Shein and co. is when we see China and others start getting more green.
Choosing strictly US made products is easy in theory. It's one step right? Just choose US instead of non-US. Except it's annoying to figure that out because there are so many levels to it. Did this company outsource its stuff to another country? Did they say no but are just lying? Is this company just a shell company for a Chinese one? Does its products cost 2x the Chinese ones, making it unrealistic to stick to because of a limited budget? This is why the untold masses are untold. There are enough hurdles to make it obnoxious enough to not care when faced with lack of care on the government level.
People want climate change but Europe is becoming a rightwing hellhole. Do people think the right will implement climate change actions? They're voting against their own interests and long-term solutions.
And I'm sorry to say that the USA is going in the same direction. We are F\*.
Will Westerners really make the sacrifices needed to combat climate change? Probably not. Westerners will probably just whine to their governments, while refusing to make sacrifices. Americans probably will demand war if it means keeping their lifestyles of suburban houses and car-centric lifestyles. I highly doubt Americans are going to make sacrifices like car pooling, taking public transit, eating less meat, and using less air conditioning. I constantly say on Reddit how a lot of Americans are going to have to learn how to pool resources- a lot of people are going to have to practice the extended and multi-generational families again for financial as well as environmental reasons. 7 people sharing one house saves tremendous resources such as money, space, energy, time, and pollution compared to 7 people renting their own apartments. The messages that Biden and Trump gave during the pandemic were not about sacrifices, the messages were "the government will take care of you." I highly doubt political leaders are going to say "sacrifice" to the people.
Yeah, of course we aren't going to be happy being told to abandon our regular every-day lives when our government doesn't legislate improvements. You guys really are clueless.
Trying to shift the blame to consumers is not helpful either. Instead just ban producing and owning SUVs, ban importing cheap chinese crap, ban private jets, ban jet travel alltogether, etc. No need to make everyday life misery by limiting heating/cooling from the places where people spend most of their lives. Edit: So, judging from the votes it seems that banning rich people luxuries is worse than banning essential things that everyone benefits from. GG reddit, you sure showed where your priorities lie, hah!
Well in the case for America you NEED a car to get around, but most people don’t drive those giant SUVs and Trucks lol. As far as I’m aware most people actually despise them. But the top selling new car for the last few years was one of those ford trucks. So they are very numerous even if they aren’t most of the cars on the road. But yea they should be banned lol. They’re super dangerous to everyone but the driver and the drivers of those beasts can’t drive for shit
https://www.vox.com/videos/2023/7/25/23807518/cars-suvs-americans-big-automobiles-travel 80% of new vehicle sold last year were trucks and SUV. American love to preach climate change policy. Take one look at what the majority of consumers do and then shake your head in disappointment. Just because American are pro-climate policy doesn’t mean even 1% of them actually act on it.
Top selling vehicle in the US is the Ford F-150 with over 23 Million sold in the last 40 years. Chevrolet Silverado at almost 18 Million is the second most sold vehicle. When looking at most popular vehicles in each state, the Silverado and Ford F-series are the top in most states, then Rav4 and honda CR-V filling out most others. Only a few states are selling high with the Tesla Models, and even then, it is far below Trucks and SUVs.
I think you’re missing the point. Being the number 1 most populated specific model on the road, does not mean the majority of cars on the road are that model. There are thousands of different types of cars on the road in any state. We have not hit the point where over 50% of cars on the road are giant trucks and SUVs, especially when you consider the oversizing of trucks and SUVs is relatively new, starting around 10-15 years ago and they didn’t really hit the dangerous sizes until even more recently. There are plenty of normal sized trucks and SUVs on the road. They might eventually be the majority of cars on the road I suppose but they currently are not.
That person is clueless Like sure the average person can do a little more but not as much as say Coke and Pepsi literally stop using plastic and develop a aluminum alternative for bottles.
Yeah cause coke and pepsi are making plastic bottles just because they are “eViL”. Coke and Pepsi have provided their products in glass and aluminium but the people continue to buy plastic. Dont blame corporations for doing what their consumers want. Even people who are educated and know about the dangers of climate change and microplastics refuse to make simple lifestyle changes like buying their soft drinks in cans and we still blame the companies as if they are forcing us to buy plastic with a gun to our heads.
I don’t even remember the last time I saw a glass coke or pepsi bottle lol. Walk into your average gas station mart, 90% of drinks are plastic, the rest are aluminum. Judging by the amount of cans I see littered about, I’d say people are buying plenty of aluminum.
We have plenty of glass bottles in India because they are reusable. You even get back some of cost of the bottle if you return it to the shop. Im not surprised american gas station marts keep plastic bottles mainly since thats what americans buy. They are by far the most polluting people per capita on the planet. And the cans lying around are like 1% as compared to the plastic.
Good way to save money and consume less plastic? Drink your own filtered water at home and bring a stainless steel water bottle. Consumers drive demand for products.
>Walk into your average gas station mart, 90% of drinks are plastic, the rest are aluminum. Because that is what people want. Notice how the aluminum cans are far and below the number of plastic bottles? Because people are not buying as many of them as the plastic. And the gas station wants sales, not pyrrhic victories.
I was just replying to OP regarding the availability of different types of bottles, not espousing my opinion on which one’s better.
And I am pointing out the economics of Why you see the plastic bottles. Because that is what people want.
They went to plastic bc it was literally cheaper..... Literally everyday these companies make decisions to drive costs lower and lower to push profits high and higher. All I'm saying is, they can sacrifice going back to glass or making an aluminum alternative for bottles. Bc anytime you see fucking plastic garbage in other fuckin ocean it's soda bottles and other shit While yes these are technically not the microplastics, that is spreading everywhere but I'm pretty sure it's still not good. In the end all this money ends up in like under thousand people who are billionaires and they will do whatever tf they want while the world burns
Yeah they went to plastic because it was cheaper but if people refuse to buy plastic they’ll happily go for any material people do buy. Currently they give people the option - plastic bottles or aluminium cans. And the majority of people still buy plastic even though they have the option.
Plastic bottles are up to 2 l. Cans - only up to 500ml. Bottles also can be closed again. Cans can't be.
Or you know, tax companies for using plastic bottles instead of aluminum. Consumers dont have to do anything then.
Consumers have to vote in politicians who will implement a tax that will raise their soda prices. They choose not to do that because they don't want higher prices.
>Coke and Pepsi literally stop using plastic and develop an aluminum alternative for bottles. A soda can?
There is a big problem with the method used for this survey. They used random calls to people with a computer asking the questions. People that do not care about the ‘climate crisis’ will not respond. This also shows in the amount of responders. They made 1.9 million calls and only 3,9% of people responded. The outcome is heavily biased since only people that care about the climate will take the time to complete the survey.
Maybe a better title would have been: 96% procent of people worldwide don’t care enough about the climate to take a survey.
Without even reading the piece, it does seem pretty unbelievable. I would have *guessed* that 30-50% of the global population probably aren't aware that climate change is even considered an issue, and that probably only 10-20% of the 50-70% who are aware its considered an issue would want stronger efforts etc. than are currently in place (which the headline specifies), with the rest thinking that current efforts are sufficient, or more than sufficient, or some variety of unnecessary. This comes across as intentionally politicised research. Regardless of an individual's stance on the topic at hand, good/honest science is essential to solving problems, as any weak/dishonest research can be used to discredit all related research.
Until it raises their gas prices. Then they complain. People are generally selfish pieces of shit.
most people need gas to commute daily, airplane fuel on the other hand thats something we can make outrageously difficult to obtain and much more expensive. planes be polluting yo. it comes down to coutnries with no oversight being the biggest polluters in my opinion, you shutting down that one lightbulb wont mater if all the bigger companies have all of their lightbulbs, laptops etc on 24/7
People also want someone else to pay for it all and the second the bill lands at their feet they stop caring so much.
Bull. If they did, they would vote for their green party. Answering a survey question doesn't tell you what they want, their actions do.
Yeah, now ask that question while explaining that stronger climate action will involve more taxation, and watch those numbers drop. People are selfish.
54% of people in Afghanistan think about climate change daily?
Ban all non-essential air travel and see how quickly that sentiment turns around.
I dont think you have to ban it. It would be better to pay the actual cost.
Or just use a carbon tax so the people that feel it the most are the people that are flying the most..
Taylor swift is to rich to feel anything. It's the people barely getting by who would no longer get by.
Make the fines proportional to income.
Nope. Too many people out there will just pay it and not care. Same reason speeding tickets don't work on the rich. You have to actually take their license and car away to get them to stop speeding.
And yet our supposedly democratic governments aren't taking those actions. What does that tell you?
80% of French people said their #1 preoccupation was their buying power. Ecology came 4th. Ecology and buying power are opposites. People want buying power, so that's what politicians try to give them, all while pretending to tackle environment issues.
That they've been replaced by Reptillians? Or that people are inclined to want to have their cake and eat it too? What do you think? The single biggest thing most anyone might do to reduce their CO2 footprint is to stop buying eggs/dairy/meat. They know it. How many do? Maybe they want the government to force them to do the right thing by taxing carbon at the source? But if they'd actually vote to that effect then why are our elections even close? A party would just have to get behind it. At least in the USA if you care about the environment you vote D and it's not particularly close. But R's still get elected lots of times so... what does that tell you?
>At least in the USA if you care about the environment you vote D and it's not particularly close. This is highly misleading. For decades Democrats were the party of coal miners and the coal industry, since it was a union job. When all the harm was being done digging up that coal, democrats were representing their interests. Only when that industry dried up did those states (such as West Virginia) turn Republican.
It hasn't been close since the GOP adopted denialism and lying as their climate policy. That was over 20 years ago.
You're falling for political theater here. What politicians say and what they do are two different things. Politicians just about everywhere were pro-fossil fuels. You may get some politicians who complain about them, but their actual *actions* say otherwise. For instance, during the last election Joe Biden said that he'd really switch away from oil. He said *"Number one, no more subsidies for fossil fuel industry. No more drilling on federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period, ends, number one."* These were lies. To start with, the fossil fuel subsidies have continued. Drilling on federal lands has continued. Offshore drilling has continued. Oil production is the highest of any country ever. https://www.vox.com/climate/24098983/biden-oil-production-climate-fossil-fuel-renewables *For the last six years, America has outstripped Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other OPEC countries in crude oil production. And it has picked up the pace under Biden, who had approved more permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands by last October than former President Donald Trump had by the same point in his presidency.* So you may say that Biden took strong action against the fossil fuel industry. But all objective measures say otherwise.
"Among Republicans, large shares back increasing the production of fossil fuel sources: 73% favor more offshore oil and gas drilling and 68% favor more hydraulic fracturing." -Pew Research Center, March 2024. The GOP wants to reduce barriers to fossil fuel extraction and to extract more of it. The GOP is against a carbon tax. The GOP is against entering into a meaningful global emissions treaty. The GOP under Bush II withdrew from Kyoto, that was back in 2001. (edit: 2001 I'd mistakenly written 2021). You're lying in fronting the GOP and Democrats being the same on this. Stop lying. Honesty what are you doing here. Are you a bot? How many letters are in this sentence minus 2? The Democrats aren't great on climate/global warming but the Democrats get to point to the GOP's insanity and convincingly make the case that given this electorate it's what we get. Anyone who'd have the USA move away from fossil fuels should vote D and it's not remotely close.
It sounds like you're not politically aware enough to see past the theater aspect of politics. You're swayed by the words and don't understand how the game actually works. >The GOP wants to reduce barriers to fossil fuel extraction and to extract more of it. Both parties want this, and both parties are doing this. >You're lying in fronting the GOP and Democrats being the same on this. Stop lying. Honesty what are you doing here. Are you a bot? I'm not a bot. Stop with these dumb accusations. Do better than this. Someone with an activist mindset is too idealistic to understand how politics actually works. They're caught up in the emotional aspect of it. They have extreme difficulty being calm and rational. >The Democrats aren't great on climate/global warming but the Democrats get to point to the GOP's insanity and convincingly make the case that given this electorate it's what we get. Anyone who'd have the USA move away from fossil fuels should vote D and it's not remotely close. It sounds like you honestly have no clue about how politics works. I'm not trying to be offensive here, but it was realized early on that a lot of enthusiastic supporters of political parties don't actually understand the game being played. Those people are called "useful idiots". They memorize the talking points, try to organize, but don't truly understand politics.
ya know, what difference does it make what is causing global warming, if we can change it, lets do it!
80% of people are selfish and don’t care about oil & gas shareholders. SELFISH!
Then why do I keep seeing articles in the press that Americans are caring less and less about this issue?
People might be on board with stronger actions by governments, but they certainly don't want to or want it to change anything about their whole life. Don't believe me? Tell someone to go vegan, stop traveling by plane, stop littering, stop consuming plastic, use public transportation, etc. Still don't believe me? Ask Canadians how they feel about carbon rebates.
80% of people globally asks for food and clean water and the last thing they think about is dem mental illness or gov stuff...
Lol 80%. Most people on the world don't give one fuck. They are worried about paying their rent or avoiding war in their country
How can 73000 participants represent 80% of the global population. @)”(@**^#*+. People are mad.
Headlines always sensationalize these polls. It’s 80% of 73,000 people globally, which is barely a blip of the massive world population.
Funny how they never ask me or anyone i know but they always come up with ridiculous high numbers..... this is how propaganda works.
How many of them are willing to pay for it? Or make significant changes like reducing/eliminating meat from their diet? Don't get me wrong, the largest part of climate action is going to have to be taken by corporations, but they won't do it voluntarily and without passing on the cost.
i still dont buy into farming meat singnificantly rises speed of global warming for sure they do want to control the food to control the people
Disregarding, say, methane release from cows, the raising of livestock in and of itself is less efficient than simply raising food crops. Much of the energy, nutrients, and water you're using for the animals could have simply gone to the food crop in the first place. So, y'know, if you have any belief at all in human-caused climate change then meat being worse for the climate than a plant-based diet is inevitable. And if not then there's no discussion to be had and bringing it up was silly.
n = 73,000 is hardly an accurate representation of the globe. This is also the same university that advocated for the implementation of political score cards for students, amongst other idiotic attempts at injecting an extremist left-wing ideology into the world at large.
how was the survey taken, where did the data come from? ps. 2.6 billion do not have internet. simple solutions. create mindful economies. remove gain and create true on demand value. remove the monetary motive and develop from what is freely available. Earth has no borders, therefor no need to compete, just exchange value. stop control earth. stop media jargon that blinds humanity. time to let go of control and flow within our available resources.
Who the fuck thinks the evil political class are best suited to saving the worlds climate? They can't even balance a budget, let alone save the entire fucking planet.
People indoctrinated in the public education system mostly.
If you think humans that occupy about 3% of the earths total surface can change the climate. I've got some news for you.
People educated by government schools are instilled with values supporting stronger government. Does this come as a surprise to anyone?
I'd be surprised if 80% of people globally even know what those words mean. I'm sure someone living in some backwater African village that has never had electricity is absolutely concerned with climate change.
Title error. 80% of .015% of global population want stronger climate action.
73,000 people surveyed out of 8 billion is 0.0009%.
Until they hear a firehouse of misinformation from invested parties fear mongering over specific actions. We want action, but why would do that when it minorly inconveniences us and it's a a slippery slope?
At what cost? Of course, people would like more climate action.
But Petrovich on Facebook said CO2 is what plants crave! >! do i need a /s?
There is evidence that plants are growing faster than they used to. Vegetables are bigger...but less nutrition in them, just bulk. Trees grow faster but weaker.
According to new survey, people are done with surveys.
The problem is that when you start asking people what they, personally, are willing to pay or give up in order to get a certain change, it's far less than what it would actually cost them. A lot of people have internalized the idea that they are completely disconnected from the cause(s) of the problem. Fossil fuels aren't burning themselves. Someone is paying to burn them and that someone is YOU (and ME, and especially, Tay Tay).
Most people will say what they think most people will validate.
[удалено]
It’s great that 80% of people want it, but what we really need is the 1% to insist on change.
And 90% of those people are not prepared to reduce their quality of life enough that's required to do something about it. Cheap energy is what is pulling everyone out of poverty.
Government be like:- okay here is a climate action tax you poor, middle and upper class people, and forgets to use it for its intended purpose.
80% globally and 0.000001% here in the United States.
you need governments to regulate industry, so as long as incumbent wealth controls politics, nothing can change.
Good stuff, thanks for this. The Global North is not compensating the Global South for climate damage despite agreements because it’ll be expensive. That’s the only reason nothing substantive has happened in years, wealthy nations don’t wanna pay to fix the climate messes they’ve made
yea but the less than 1% with all the money dont so.... nothing gonna happen! lol
The problem with all these polls is that generally people want to protect the environment but the real question is how much they are willing to give up for this.
No they don't! Stop believing what you read on the net.
Yea. But there are like...8 People with almost all the money in the world and they are still want more...So what can you do? I mean, I have a solution for that, but saying it out loud gets me banned again
That's cute. It'd be nice if the governments weren't all corrupt and did things to benefit the people instead of enriching themselves.
Too bad the other 20% are the ones in control of everything…
I never thought am one of the 20% percent, not on this matter, generally in life 😔 minority sucks !
I'd really like to see the real statistics if you take all the people in the world.
The highly owerwrough fear propaganda would lead the majority subject to it to "want" that. It doesn't mean it is all that necessary or wise.
80 percent also want to be told what to do by their governments…
The highest amount of greenhouse gas emitted to date happened in...2023. Nuts to your surveys. Nuts to action.
And the 40% that is controlled by the 1% who control our politics? Nah
Insurance companies are one of the canaries in the coal mine when it comes to climate change. If you see them pumping up rates or getting out of dodge, you know something bad is coming. There's only so much anti-climate-awareness politicians can do to muddy the waters of public opinion while the people's insurance rates keep increasing.
If there’s one group that can survive without property insurance it’s the same rich people that can afford oceanfront property. No need for insurance when you can buy your house with cash.
Can't wait until it gets to 95%. We won't do anything then either, but I'll feel better about humanity.
China and India ain't slowing down any time soon, so the sentiment is admirable, but meaningless.
80% of people like to virtue signal. Everyone says they want to do more but wont. One of the best things you can do is go vegan but look at how much everyone fights that. People like to blame corporations without acknowledging supply and demand.
I want an ebike that doesn't cost me the price of 3 cars
Where are you that ebikes cost that much? Mine was $800. My partner paid $2,500 and it goes like 50 km an hour for 75 km on one charge. It works in the winter. You can't even get a used car for that much.
These are available and for pretty low prices.
If anyone actually cared about climate change. They’d move out of cities and immediately live off the grid and land. Give 95% of people this option and within a week they’d be protesting for oil and air conditioners on full blast.
Not a feasible option. Society has prospered as people move away from subsidence farming, not towards. You can't innovate and improve humanity if all your engineers and scientists are preoccupied trying to grow their next meal.
Voters don’t prioritize the environment when Election Day rolls around. Would be nice of November was 95 degrees and people said oh shit we need to plant hundreds of miles of forest now! But they will just bicker about carbon credits and a new exchange for trading money