8 In 10 People Now See Climate Change As a 'Catastrophic Risk,' Says Survey (trust.org)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Thomas Reuters Foundation: Nearly nine in 10 people say they are ready to make changes to their standard of living if it would prevent future climate catastrophe, a survey on global threats found Wednesday. The survey of more than 8,000 people in eight countries -- the United States, China, India, Britain, Australia, Brazil, South Africa and Germany -- found that 84 percent of people now consider climate change a "global catastrophic risk." That puts worry about climate change only slightly behind fears about large-scale environmental damage and the threat of politically motivated violence escalating into war, according to the Global Challenges Foundation, which commissioned the Global Catastrophic Risks 2017 report. The survey, released in advance of this week's G7 summit of advanced economies in Italy, also found that 85 percent of people think the United Nations needs reforms to be better equipped to address global threats. About 70 percent of those surveyed said they think it may be time to create a new global organization -- with power to enforce its decisions -- specifically designed to deal with a wide range of global risks. Nearly 60 percent said they would be prepared to have their country give up some level of sovereignty to make that happen.

Comments

But President Trump goes

[RotateLeftByte]

Fake News. La-la-la-la-la-la I can't hear you.

Re:But President Trump goes

[taiwanjohn]

Trump, plus a good percentage of the US population, which means the ratios must be much higher in the other countries surveyed in order to average out to 80% overall. According to Gallup, just 42% of Americans "Think global warming will pose a serious threat in their lifetime." Obviously that's not exactly the same thing as "catastrophic risk" with no time constraint, but it's frankly lower than I expected.

Pew has a more lengthy survey which does a detailed breakdown of views by political affiliation. Here's one aspect I found intriguing:

One thing that doesn’t strongly influence opinion on climate issues, perhaps surprisingly, is one’s level of general scientific literacy. According to the survey, the effects of having higher, medium or lower scores on a nine-item index of science knowledge tend to be modest and are only sometimes related to people’s views about climate change and climate scientists, especially in comparison with party, ideology and concern about the issue. But, the role of science knowledge in people’s beliefs about climate matters is varied and where a relationship occurs, it is complex. To the extent that science knowledge influences people’s judgments related to climate change and trust in climate scientists, it does so among Democrats, but not Republicans. For example, Democrats with high science knowledge are especially likely to believe the Earth is warming due to human activity, to see scientists as having a firm understanding of climate change, and to trust climate scientists’ information about the causes of climate change. But Republicans with higher science knowledge are no more or less likely to hold these beliefs. Thus, people’s political orientations also tend to influence how knowledge about science affects their judgments and beliefs about climate matters and their trust in climate scientists.

Re:But President Trump goes

[No Longer an AC]

You have been modded "Funny" but I think there is some insightfulness there:

"Nearly nine in 10 people say they are ready to make changes to their standard of living if it would prevent future climate catastrophe,"

Oh really?

Last things first - there's that huge qualification that they would do it "if it would prevent future climate catastrophe". Most of us don't believe we have much if any impact at all. If I do have an impact, it's terribly insignificant.

And we'd make changes to our standard of living? Wait a minute there - are you talking about any major changes?

Because I can only do so much. I already do try to make as little impact on the environment as I can. If someone wants to suggest an easy way for me to do better I'm all for it, but I'm not going to inconvenience myself too much. It's too warm in here right now. I could open a window, but I'm gonna turn on the AC instead! Seriously.

But I recycle every soda can that I buy! Well, that's good but I can only recycle as much as I already am.

So I do think it's at least sort of fake. Most of us aren't going to do any more than we're already doing. I do care about the environment, but to be honest I'm not willing to sacrifice my standard of living. I like my car and my AC and I'm not going to stop buying things because they come with too much plastic packaging. (Would I really refuse to buy a product just because its packaging wasn't eco-friendly?)

Quite frankly, the only things I can think of to do that would be more eco-friendly are too much trouble for me to bother with or would have very little impact if any.

So while it's probably true that nearly 9 in 10 people say they would change their standard of living to save the planet I think it's "fake" to think that nearly 9 in 10 people would actually bother to make any significant changes to their standard of living.

What would I give up? Nothing.

I think it's more likely that nearly 9 in 10 people are either dishonest or aren't seriously considering a lower standard of living.

--

Or to put it in simpler terms....if you told someone they could save the planet if they just recycled their empty soda cans they'd probably do it, but if you told them they'd have to stop drinking soda they would laugh at you - not that recycling aluminum cans is going to save the planet but I do it anyway.

It would probably be better for the planet and definitely better for my health if I didn't drink soda in the first place, but screw that!

Re:But President Trump goes

[jellomizer]

I would avoid jumping onto the conclusions that Conservatives are less educated than Liberals. The larger correlation is that liberals will live more in Urban Areas, while Conservatives live in Rural areas. In these different areas, their world view is different. In Urban areas, a strong government is an overall positive, as there are services that need to be provided, and with a lot of people working closely together, a strong rule of law and regulations is needed for that area to function. In rural areas they are more left to fend for themselves, there tax money is going to places where they will see no benefit, and there is a culture if you have a problem you need to solve it yourself. So such regulations proposed by the government seem like an overall negative.
Now both areas have highly educated people, and less educated who will vote for whatever party. In urban areas the Poor are often under educated and vote liberal because government is trying to prevent them from dying, as the city environment can prevent them from living off the land and being able to fend for themselves. In rural areas, the poor who have resources to fend for themselves, doesn't need rules and regulations trying to stop them from doing what they need to do to live.
Conservatives seem to rule corporate higher management, and even modern farmers you need to be just as technical savvy as a Silicon Valley tech worker. These people have those degrees, but because they are working commercial they tend not to flaunt them as much. While in urban areas, there are more colleges and universities, and government agencies, where people will need the education status to help push their agendas.
Now in terms of Science. Liberal groups have seemed to reject science that says "This product is safe" (GMO, Vaccines...) because they expect government to make sure what we do is safe. While Conservative groups reject science that says "This product is dangerous" (Global Warming, Fracking...) because they are afraid that government will take away necessary tools for them.

Regulatory capture

[Esteanil]

While I fully agree with climate change being a catastrophic risk, a global organization with enforcement power will immidiately become the most valuable target for lobbying in the world.

I believe we'd see such an organization effectively ruled by the very interests it's set to regulate within a few years at most.

Re:Regulatory capture

[Bongo]

I'm sure some will just claim you're just an anti-goverment nut, but taking a broad view, given we're talking an issue that affects the species, humans have through history gone from small tribes to large empires to nation states, and now we're tipping towards global organisation.

However, there's something very interesting in this sequence, and that's that the shift from empire to nation state was a reduction in authoritarianism, and a move towards more individuality.

Now, individuality is often criticised as the root cause of all the greed which drives overconsumption, which lead many to say we need a sort of Chinese communist regime where a central authority sets consumption limits, but there's an issue around, WHY did we historically move from empire to nation states?

And a simple answer ot that is the empires are unsustainable in the sense that they eventually become too big to govern. Authoritarianism collapses when there's too many people and the system is too complex to manage, whatever someone's best intentions may be.

So here's a thought: the globalised stage will be MORE individual, just that, the individual will be MORE intelligent, and as we continue to develop, the intelligence, knowledge, and compassion of each individual will increase. Just as most ordinary people now realise that racism is bad, and work to eradicate racism from their own minds, so too, gradually, we become more intelligent global citizens.

And the bad news is, there is no shortcut to that. If the world is really about to end in 20 years, well sorry, too late, people can only develop their individual compassion and intelligence at a normal pace, and if that's too late then that's too late. The alternative, as you say, is some sort of global authoritarian genocide, caused either deliberately or inadvertently.

We need to pursue the most effective technology solutions whilst human psychology catches up to a globalised world. That probably means lots of nuclear, whatever best form of tech that may take.

Ya kanny change the laws of physics and ya kanny change the human psychology any faster than it can grow naturally.

So learn to love your fellow dumb human and build lots of nuclear.

Reality Check

[hyades1]

It really doesn't matter if 99 out of 100 people see climate change as a real threat. As long as the top 1% keep earning billions of dollars off the status quo, and understand they will be protected from the effects, nothing is going to change.

Re:Reality Check

[tbannist]

It really doesn't matter if 99 out of 100 people see climate change as a real threat. As long as the top 1% keep earning billions of dollars off the status quo, and understand they will be protected from the effects, nothing is going to change.

You know, that only works as long as that 1% can convince enough of the 99% that it's not really a problem. And really, I don't think the top 1% are actually aligned on doing nothing. Of course, they're divided over the whether to take action, often based on whether or not they are invested in the industries that will be hurt by taking action.

One of the problems of some of this anti-climate change lobbying that people like Rupert Murdoch (owner of coal mines) have engaged in, is that they've spawned groups they can't really control. Trump is the end result of trying to stir up opposition to reasonable policies. If you can't trust the government, can't trust science and can't trust the media, who are people supposed to trust? They set the stage for the rise of Trump and we can only hope that they live to reap the bitter fruits of their labours.

Re:Armchair heroics

[danbert8]

Right, this survey found that 8 out of 10 people will lie to a surveyor. Everyone SAYS they want cleaner air, less pollution, and to stop global warming. They just want everyone else to stop consuming so they don't have to. It's the same thing with every problem caused by a group. Everyone complains about traffic while moving further away from their workplace and not wanting to ride the bus or carpool.

Re:eight in ten people believe in ghosts

[Gavagai80]

Glaciers have covered most of Greenland for the past 2-3 million years. Not hundred.

Re: Something's fishy in Denmark.

[silentcoder]

As a South African - go fuck yourself with your racist stereotypes.

South Africans mostly consider climate change a serious risk to our lives, and one of the nasty impacts of climate change is to raise food prices - by much more than combating it ever could. South Africa has huge investments in renewable energy and these are growing (And make up the ENTIRETY of private sector energy investment).
The only deniers in South Africa are conservatives and they make up about erm 1% of the population - they're a loud minority but they are about as influential on the country's culture and politics as pissing in the ocean is on it's salt level.

Let me help

[Anonymous Coward]

Most political AGW "fixes" involve taxing CO2, not methane. Methane produced mostly by farmers, who lobby heavily, and are in Iowa the first presidential caucus. If you are interested in winning elections and don't care about solving AGW you need to not admit methane is a bigger problem, which is what liberals do.
Taxing CO2 is taxing the middle class, which to liberals is perfectly acceptable. As the DNC has shown, screw the middle class and lose the "blue wall". Instead of admitting they hate the working class they come up with "Its the Russians" when they lose.

Now that the reason they tax the wrong things is covered, lets see what happens with that tax money... It goes to Solyndra, which ended up producing nothing of value and was split up and sold off in pieces. However they did donate heavily to Obama's election. Along with Fisker Auto (not even an American company, but owned by Al Gore), and A123 again who heavily donated to the DNC and was sold off to China.

So looking at how the DNC deals with AGW, they tax people who they think aren't likely to hurt them in elections, and give that tax money to people who help them get elected and don't seem to care if it helps with AGW at all.

Put me down as the guy who looked at the solutions put into place to solve AGW and noticed it doesn't actually help but is a money scheme for the DNC instead.

Re:Let me help

[mellon]

Methane is a hugely valuable resource. What blows my mind is how many people are leaving that money on the table. Methane from farms is zero-impact, because it comes through a renewal cycle, not from fossil fuels. If you put all your manure in methane digesters, you can generate a fuck-ton of power from it, and as a bonus, what comes out of the digester is a lot less nasty to dispose of.

Re:Let me help

[ShanghaiBill]

Methane - 8% of greenhouse emissions, x86 times the impact of CO2 (Yes, that makes is a significantly bigger problem than CO2).

Methane induced warming is measured by "CO2 equivalence", so the number you are quoting is already multiplied by the potency.

There is 200 times more CO2 than CH4 in the atmosphere.

Methane has a much shorter half-life in the atmosphere, so it is not as much of a long term problem. Methane is 86 times as potent, but has a potency factor of 34 over a century.

Last year, the world emitted 36B tons of CO2, and about 0.25B tons of CH4, equivalent to about 8B tons of CO2 in 100-year warming potential. So methane is a serious problem, but far less than CO2.

Methane emissions are declining in most 1st world nations, mostly because of better wellhead equipment, but also because of declining beef consumption.

Methane emissions are rising in less developed countries, mostly because of rising meat consumption. Taxes on beef may be able shift consumption to chicken or pork, but are unlikely to be politically feasible on a wide scale.

Methane emissions by country.
CO2 emissions by country.

Disclaimer: I don't eat meat, so don't blame me.

re: nuclear and cost

[King_TJ]

The main reason nuclear has been so costly isn't because the technology itself isn't feasible.
The extremely high costs have historically had a lot to do with politics, fear of nuclear energy, and contractors taking advantage of the fact that it's "scary stuff".

Almost every time a new plant is schedule to be constructed, it turns into a big battle with groups fighting against it and requires expensive site surveys, safety studies and more. (Well, perhaps not in Communist countries where the people don't really get any say-so anyway -- but safety seems to take a back seat to just getting something up and running anyway, in those situations - a la Chernobyl.)

Here in the U.S. - there has often been a lot of poor long-term projecting of energy needs, also contributing to high cost of nuclear plants. For example, the power plant not far from where I used to live in St. Louis, MO, Callaway County Nuclear plant, had a whole lot of issues in the past including no need to operate it at above 50% or so of its generation capacity because power demands just didn't grow as quickly as they anticipated when it was constructed. (I also recall some issues where construction materials for the cooling pipes didn't wind up meeting the promised standards, leading to an inability to run the plant at full power until that was redone.) It received the top safety rating for risk of damage due to an earthquake though, and is apparently running quite profitably today. That didn't stop a lawsuit in 2014 though, trying to prevent it from getting its operating license renewed, over new rules allowing above-ground storage of spent fuel after years of failed efforts to build a permanent national storage site in Nevada.

The people who keep arguing we should use other "renewables" refuse to recognize the fact that wind and solar power aren't "always on" power sources. You generate nothing after dark with solar, and the wind doesn't blow constantly at a good rate of speed. The work-around for that always revolves around ideas of implementing large storage batteries, which greatly increases the cost of those projects and reduces reliability. (Batteries are based on chemical reactions and they wear out. Refurbishing them amounts to gutting them out and rebuilding their insides, making that process almost equivalent to just manufacturing new batteries.)