Majority of Canadians support carbon pricing

[mentalfloss]

Most Canadians believe the climate is changing and are open to using carbon pricing to reduce emissions. When it comes to the uses of carbon revenues, preferences are for recycling in ways that will most directly shift emissions outcomes.

Abacus Data conducted a nationwide survey on behalf of Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission to measure public opinion on climate change, carbon pricing, and revenue recycling options. Our survey was conducted online with 2,200 adult Canadians from September 25 to 29, 2015. A random sample of panelists was invited to complete the survey from a large representative panel of over 500,000 Canadians.

VIEWS ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND GOVERNMENT ACTION

Most (66%) believe that there is solid or conclusive evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades. Few believe there is no or little evidence (9%). Another 26% believe there is some evidence of warming but it is not conclusive.

Slide1

Views are fairly consistent across the country with Albertans less likely and Quebecers more likely to believe there is solid or conclusive evidence of rising temperatures. Those on the left are more sure than those on the right.

Slide2

When asked if the earth is warming whether human activity or natural patterns were responsible, the majority 71% believe it is caused by human activity such as burning fossil fuels.

Slide3

Canadians would like to see governments in Canada put more emphasis (at the time of the survey in September 2015) on policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Overall 70% would like to see more emphasis on reducing emissions while 8% believe there should be less emphasis. Another 23% are satisfied with the amount of effort currently being done now.

Opinion on government action on cutting greenhouse gases is fairly consistent across Canada with at least six in ten respondents in all regions of the country favouring more action (61% in Alberta). There is also a generational consensus with at least two thirds in all age groups favouring more emphasis on reducing emissions.

New Poll: Most Canadians support, with qualifications, carbon pricing. | Abacus Data

 

[Locutus]

cool story bro.




Dean Skoreyko ‏@bcbluecon

Trudeau's DofC's dad runs an old online poll showing CDNs favour national carbon tax

http://abacusdata.ca/new-poll-most-canadians-support-with-qualifications-carbon-pricing/ …

 

[mentalfloss]

Abacus is actually a prominent pollster for the Toronto Sun.

 

[Walter]

Crap and drivel.

 

[Jinentonix]

Wow, another joke that says 2200 people represent the thoughts and feelings of 35 million people. And of course the title is the usual misleading bullsh*t. 66% of 2200 is not a "majority" of Canadians.
2200 people were polled across the country. That's an average of 169 people per province and territory. To put it another way, the poll represents the opinion of less than one one hundredth of a percent of the population of Canada.

 

[Nick Danger]

66% of 2200 is not a "majority" of Canadians..

Statistical analysis gains accuracy as the size of the sample increases, but a sampling of 2200 is enough to indicate the general trend of opinions if some care is taken in ensuring some diversity proportional to overall demographics. Now if the poll was conducted at the National Close Down the Oilsands Convention you might have some basis for disputing the findings, but if the poll was taken with any measure of statistical integrity it would be foolish to ignore the results.

From the pollster's website:

Abacus Data is an innovative, fast growing public opinion and marketing research consultancy. We use the latest technology, sound science, and deep experience to generate top-flight research based advice to our clients. We offer global research capacity with a strong focus on customer service, attention to detail and exceptional value.

 

[mentalfloss]

The denial is just sad now.

How are people this desperate to avoid the truth?

 

[Nick Danger]

How are people this desperate to avoid the truth?

I'm thinking there are two big reasons. First, corporate greed. There is huge money to be made in fossil fuels. Second, laziness. People have become addicted to the convenience offered through automotive mobility. How many are willing to jump in the Hummer to drive three or four blocks to the grocery store?

 

[Jinentonix]

Statistical analysis gains accuracy as the size of the sample increases, but a sampling of 2200 is enough to indicate the general trend of opinions if some care is taken in ensuring some diversity proportional to overall demographics. Now if the poll was conducted at the National Close Down the Oilsands Convention you might have some basis for disputing the findings, but if the poll was taken with any measure of statistical integrity it would be foolish to ignore the results.

Nope, sorry, not buying it. A few years ago, polls had the Wild Rose Party as all but a guaranteed lock in winning the Alberta elections (the one previous to the last election). Voting day proved just how wrong polls can be when the rubber actually meets the road.
Many polls are also designed to lead to a preconceived outcome through the nature of the questions.
I don't really care how scientific or full of "statistical integrity" a poll is, you can't possibly get an accurate reflection of the attitudes and opinions of a country when your polling numbers equal less than one one hundredth of a percent of the population.

From the pollster's website:

Abacus Data is an innovative, fast growing public opinion and marketing research consultancy. We use the latest technology, sound science, and deep experience to generate top-flight research based advice to our clients. We offer global research capacity with a strong focus on customer service, attention to detail and exceptional value.

Ooooo a mission statement. Well you have me convinced now. :roll:

 

[coldstream]

We should remove all taxation from carbon use, and provide tax credits for development of more efficient and accessible carbon technologies. Carbon is GOOD for us.. we are a carbon based life form.. it is abundant and provides the foundation material of an advanced industrial society.. which is by far and away the best way to protect the environment. It is primitive pre-industrial societies that cause the ruination of the natural world.

 

[Jinentonix]

The denial is just sad now.

How are people this desperate to avoid the truth?

No, what's sad is your reliance on polls as cold, hard facts. Even sadder is your belief that we can prevent a natural event from occurring.
Denial is suggesting crap like "The science is settled". Which is amazing really because rarely, if ever, is the science settled on any topic. Answers tend to bring more questions and of course there's always the discovery of new information that can confirm or refute any findings.
Let's look at the "scientific" poll/survey that gave us this AGW consensus of 97%. The survey was sent to just over 1000 scientists who either studied climate science as their primary discipline or used climate science in their particular field of study, among other people.
Only 33% responded to the survey(the rest refused it based on the fact the questions were designed to lead to a preconceived outcome). Of the 33% who did respond, 97% of them said that humans were the primary driver of "global warming".
97% of 33% is far from being a consensus, just like 66% of less than 0.01% is not a "majority of Canadians".

 

[Nick Danger]

Nope, sorry, not buying it. A few years ago, polls had the Wild Rose Party as all but a guaranteed lock in winning the Alberta elections (the one previous to the last election). Voting day proved just how wrong polls can be when the rubber actually meets the road.

True, we saw the same thing in BC where polls were forecasting a landslide victory for the NDP that didn't quite come to be. However these are exceptions and not the norm. Whether or not you "buy" the poll results or not, it's an extremely remote possibility that the actual situation would be so far removed from the poll results as to swing the picture in a completely different direction. The poll numbers for those who don't recognize GHGs as a threat needing action are in a significant minority.

 

[lone wolf]

Most Canadians believe the climate is changing and are open to using carbon pricing to reduce emissions.

Most Canadians know poison ivy causes rashes and are open to using caustic soap as relief. Does that mean they support the use of caustics? Hint ... if you want credibility, refrain from the use of propaganda

 

[Locutus]

just flossy dumping group-think narrative and prog talking points.

'new' poll from last september, conducted online, online for chrissakes, by good ol' bruce (cbc, shiny pony) anderson that found enough retards (there are plenty of mouthbreathers in this big land) and easily-programmed drones to try and boost their green dogma.

 

[Walter]

just flossy dumping group-think narrative and prog talking points.

'new' poll from last september, conducted online, online for chrissakes, by good ol' bruce (cbc, shiny pony) anderson that found enough retards (there are plenty of mouthbreathers in this big land) and easily-programmed drones to try and boost their green dogma.

Stop making fun of Analfloss; how else am I to get rid of those Clingons.

 

[lone wolf]

Get some of that new Star Trek TP.... It orbits Uranus in search of those nasty beggers

 

[Johnnny]

Only captain kirk can lead a nation that's orbiting around truanus

 

[Jinentonix]

True, we saw the same thing in BC where polls were forecasting a landslide victory for the NDP that didn't quite come to be. However these are exceptions and not the norm. Whether or not you "buy" the poll results or not, it's an extremely remote possibility that the actual situation would be so far removed from the poll results as to swing the picture in a completely different direction. The poll numbers for those who don't recognize GHGs as a threat needing action are in a significant minority.

Well, it's looking like the recently resigned IPCC co-chair is one of them too as well as the executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change.


Listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn’t really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that “the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

Mad as they are, Edenhofer’s comments are nevertheless consistent with other alarmists who have spilled the movement’s dirty secret. Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said in anticipation of last year’s Paris climate summit.

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish — because, as Edenhofer said, “in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas” — while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they “have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community,” he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

 

[Nick Danger]

'new' poll from last september, conducted online, online for chrissakes, by good ol' bruce (cbc, shiny pony) anderson that found enough retards (there are plenty of mouthbreathers in this big land) and easily-programmed drones to try and boost their green dogma.

And each and everyone one of them get a vote. That is the reality of the situation. Regardless of the right/wrong/it is/it isn't/warming/cooling of it, the environmental vote is gaining more weight daily, and as a democratic country we run on votes. Has it escaped your notice that our elected officials are waffling around any decision with an environmental impact? Politicians run on votes too. Trudeau would love to see Energy East start laying pipe tomorrow. Christy Clark would love to see LNG development proceeding at five times the pace. Rachel Notely would love to see oil back up to $100 a barrel by this afternoon. But do you think any of them will actually say that without layer upon layer of green cushioning and indecision?

 

[Angstrom]

This just in, a majority of Canadians as smart as a two by four.