There is near-universal global public support for climate action, yet people systematically underestimate the commitment of their peers, according to a new study.
The research, published in Nature Climate Change, is based on a globally-representative sample of nearly 130,000 people in 125 countries.
It finds that 86% of people “support pro-climate social norms” and 89% would like their governments to do more to tackle warming. Moreover, 69% say they would be willing to contribute 1% of their income to addressing climate change.
Yet respondents also “systematically underestimate the willingness of their fellow citizens to act”, according to the paper, creating a potentially challenging “perception gap”.
Carbon Brief interviewed the authors of the study to find out more. The questions and their answers are reproduced in full, below. An abridged version of the transcript was first published in DeBriefed, Carbon Brief’s weekly email newsletter. Sign up for free.
Carbon Brief: Your survey of nearly 130,000 people in 125 countries found “almost universal” support (86%) for climate action, with 89% wanting more from governments. Were you surprised?
Prof Peter Andre, Prof Teodora Boneva, Prof Felix Chopra and Prof Armin Falk: While we did expect to find high levels of approval for climate action in some of the countries that we studied, we were indeed surprised to find that the percentage of the population approving of pro-climate social norms and demanding more political action from their national government is very high in almost all countries in our sample. In 119 of 125 countries, the proportion of individuals who state that people in their country “should try to fight global warming” exceeds two-thirds. In more than half the countries in our sample, the demand for more government action even exceeds 90%.
We were probably misled by the same pessimism that we found to be so widespread across the globe. 69% of the world’s population is willing to contribute 1% of their monthly income to fight global warming. A broad majority of people across the globe is willing to pay a personal cost. In fact, in 114 out of 125 countries, a majority of respondents is willing to fight climate change. However, in 110 out of 125 countries, the majority thinks that they are in the minority: When asked about how many people in their country are willing to contribute, most respondents think that less than half of their fellow citizens would be willing to contribute.
[The figure below, taken from the new paper, shows: (top left) the share of respondents willing to contribute none, up to 1% or at least 1% of their income to tackling climate change; (top right) the same result broken down by country; (middle panel) the share believing that “people should try to fight global warming”; (lower panel) the share wanting governments to do more.]
CB: A large majority (69%) said they would be willing to contribute 1% of their income to fight global warming. Do you think this would hold for specific policies, such as a carbon tax?
PA, TB, FC and AF: The popular support for specific policies will depend on many details that we had to abstract from in the global survey. How effective is the policy? Is it perceived as fair? Who supports the policy in the public debate? So one cannot simply equate support in the survey with support for specific policy proposals. In a representative US sample, we do find that the general demand for more political action is strongly correlated with demand for specific climate policies, such as a carbon tax on fossil fuels, regulatory limits on the CO2 emissions of coal-fired plants, or funding for research on renewable energy. Overall, we think the important conclusion is the following: The large majority of people across the world expresses a general willingness to make costly contributions to fight climate change. This means that we can move the debate forward and focus on how we can best tap into this broad willingness to contribute to best tackle the challenges posed by climate change.
CB: There has been a resurgence of anti-climate rhetoric from politicians and the media in many countries. Do you think public opinion has shifted since your survey in 2021-22?
PA, TB, FC and AF: We do not detect any clear time trend within our samples from 2021 and 2022, but do not have data for the most recent months. If we were to speculate, we would not want to fall victim to the same pessimism one more time. We would expect that a large majority would still be in favor of climate action today, and this seems to be in line with more recent research. The year 2023 has been confirmed as the warmest calendar year in global temperature data records going back to 1850. In our study, we find that annual average temperatures strongly correlate with the proportion of people being willing to support climate action. Our best guess is that the support for climate action has increased rather than decreased in the last two years.
CB: You found stronger willingness to contribute among respondents in poorer, hotter and more vulnerable countries. Why do you think richer people are less willing to pay their way?
PA, TB, FC and AF: Two potential explanations come to mind. First, richer countries are still strongly dependent on fossil fuels. The adaptation costs could therefore be perceived as relatively high and the required lifestyle changes as too drastic. At the same time, richer countries may be more resilient: A country’s GDP per capita reflects its economic capacity to cope with climate change. The most direct and immediate consequences are likely to be concentrated in more vulnerable countries, which have fewer resources to mitigate the negative consequences of the climate crisis. However, it’s important to stress the positive message: the support for climate action is large even in the richest countries in our sample. In the wealthiest quintile of countries, the average proportion of people willing to contribute 1% is 62%.
CB: You found people systematically underestimated the willingness of their peers to contribute to climate action. Why do you think that is – and how could it be changed?
PA, TB, FC and AF: The reasons for this perception gap are likely to be manifold. In the past, media and public discussions have given a lot of focus to the small number of climate change sceptics and have fallen prey to the efforts of special interest groups. Moreover, climate change is difficult to tackle. People might mistakenly infer that the slow progress in combating climate change is due to a widespread lack of personal commitment.
In our view, correcting this perception gap is more important than understanding its origin. Humans are (what behavioral scientists call) “conditional cooperators”. They contribute more to the public good if they believe that others contribute as well. For this reason, pessimism about others’ contributions is harmful. It can constitute a critical obstacle for climate action. We thus conclude in the paper that, “[r]ather than echoing the concerns of a vocal minority that opposes any form of climate action, we need to effectively communicate that the vast majority of people around the world are willing to act against climate change and expect their national government to act”. We hope that our study sparks a debate on this topic, and increases awareness about the large global support for climate action.
The post Interview: Why global support for climate action is ‘systematically underestimated’ appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Interview: Why global support for climate action is ‘systematically underestimated’
From the Amazon to the Mekong, migratory freshwater fish underpin food security for millions, but over 300 species need urgent conservation intervention, warns a new UN report.
Beneath the surface of the planet’s rivers and lakes, the historically heaving migrations of freshwater fish are thinning out. The blubbery-lipped Siamese giant carp of Asia’s Mekong River, the mottled brown goonch of India’s Ganges and the ancient-in-appearance beluga sturgeon of Europe’s Danube River are declining.
Climate Change
Border Communities Remain in the Dark About Federal Government’s Billion-Dollar Buoy Project
The industrial-grade buoys, already being installed in Brownsville, Texas, are meant to prevent unauthorized crossings. But experts warn the buoys could intensify flooding and change the river’s course.
Reporting supported by the Water Desk at the University of Colorado, Boulder.
Border Communities Remain in the Dark About Federal Government’s Billion-Dollar Buoy Project
The extraction of minerals needed for the clean energy transition is projected to expand globally in coming years, presenting multiple risks to ecosystems and Indigenous Peoples, necessitating strong global guidelines.
But what are these minerals, what role do they play in our efforts to combat climate change, and how can we source and use them in an environmentally sustainable way? Let’s take a look!
So, what are these key minerals?
Renewable energy and electric vehicle (EV) technologies will play an important role in combating climate change. These technologies rely on key raw materials, such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, manganese, graphite and rare earth elements.
These materials are often referred to as ‘critical minerals’ due to their perceived significance for national interests or ‘transition minerals’ due to their importance in the clean energy transition.
Where are they found?
While these minerals are found globally, some countries have greater reserves than others, based on geology and the economic feasibility of their extraction. The countries listed below have the highest reserves, listed from first to third.
- Lithium: Chile, Australia, Argentina
- Cobalt: Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Australia, Indonesia
- Nickel: Indonesia, Australia, Brazil
- Copper: Chile, Peru, Australia
How is mining these minerals a risk to people and the environment?
There are multiple impacts from mining minerals that are considered critical. Here are a few of them:
- In South America, mining for lithium uses millions of litres of water in and around the drought-prone Andes region, impacting Indigenous Peoples in the area.
- Small scale cobalt mining facilities in the DRC can lack safety measures, leading to fatalities, accidents and serious health issues.
- Nickel mining and processing in Indonesia is causing deforestation and coastal water pollution, in addition to Indigenous and labour rights violations and corruption.
- Global copper mining leads to mining waste in tailings dams which need to be managed carefully to avoid disasters and pollution.
So what can we do?
Some studies projecting massive increases to the demand for transition minerals in coming years are used to justify more mining. However, embracing less mineral-intensive solutions can reduce the need for mining, while still ensuring renewable energy growth.
We need to pressure governments and industries to adopt policies, practices and solutions that reduce demand while also minimising mining’s impacts.
These changes require ambition to go beyond climate action, focusing investment toward less mineral-intensive solutions like EV public transportation, advancing technology to use fewer minerals more efficiently, and expanding reuse and recycling.
What are the solutions to reduce the need for mining?
Given the problems associated with the extraction and use of transition minerals, it is important to remember four key solutions that will help limit the need for mining. They are:
- Sufficiency – prioritise a decent living standard for all while reducing the total energy and material needed across the economy,
- Efficiency – investments to help technologies do the same or better with less materials
- Substitution – remove or reduce the need for certain minerals in products by using different types of technology or energy solutions,
- Recycling – can significantly reduce environmental and social impacts compared to mining, and therefore should be maximised.
Five guiding principles on minerals for energy transition
Greenpeace has developed five key principles essential for ensuring a just and equitable energy transition that can be adapted into local contexts.
- The 1.5°C Guiding Star: We must achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to no more than 1.5°C. Any use of minerals must be prioritised for a fast and green energy transition above non-essential uses, such as for military purposes.
- Just and Equitable Solutions: Justice and equity for people and the environment must be embedded in every aspect of using and sourcing materials from reducing mineral demand, to recycling and mining.
- Reduce Demand: Slowing mineral demand by adopting the concepts of sufficiency (ie. reducing the need for resources) and efficiency (ie. enhancing the effectiveness of resource use).
- Prioritise ‘Above Ground’ Materials: Recycling can significantly reduce environmental and social impacts compared to mining. Potential sources include spent batteries, production waste, household e-waste and industrial scrap piles.
- Protect Sensitive Areas and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities: While there are many initiatives pushing for improved mining practices, the industry continues to pose serious risks to people and the environment. Three requirements are proposed:
- 5.1 Protect ‘No-Go’ zones, areas where mining should not occur
- 5.2 Respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities
- 5.3 Companies must act responsibly, preventing and mitigating environmental damage and impacts, and respecting human rights.
Irène Wabiwa is a Biodiversity Programme Manager at Greenpeace International
Read our reports:
Minerals for Energy Transition: Greenpeace’s Guiding Principles
Batteries in Transition: Innovation, Uncertainty, and the Minerals Behind Them
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Renewable Energy5 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?