The extent of Labor’s brand damage on climate change is revealed by today’s Essential Report, which shows Labor trailing the Coalition on the issue.
Asked who they trusted most to understand and deal with climate change, 29% of those polled said Tony Abbott and the Coalition, well ahead of 23% for Julia Gillard and Labor. The Greens were not far behind Labor on 19%. There was a high “Don’t Know” result, 29%.
A similar (though not identical) question in December 2009 had the Coalition 3 points ahead of Labor, 27-24%, and the Greens further back on 17%.
Belief in human-caused climate change has waned over the past year — 53% of people believed climate change was happening and caused by human activity in November 2009, but only 45% now. Most of that shift has been into “Don’t Know”; those saying they believed climate change was “just a normal fluctuation in the earth’s climate” rose 2 points to 36%; those saying “Don’t Know” rose 6 points to 19%.
However, tackling climate change is important to 61% of voters, compared to 35% saying it wasn’t important (by way of comparison, last week 37% of voters thought same-s-x marriage important). And while climate change was of high importance to Green voters, even a majority of Liberal-National voters believe it’s important, 50-47%. Labor voters split 73-25%.
Other evidence of Labor’s serious image problems emerged from questions about party attributes across Labor, the Coalition and the Greens. Labor trails the Coalition by 7 points on “understands the problems facing Australia” and is barely ahead of the Greens (30%-23%-19%), is considered more divided than the other parties (Labor 30%, Coalition, 20%, Greens 10%), has a huge lead on “will promise to do anything to win votes” (50%-36%-22%). On “clear about what they stand for”, Labor only manages 10% — the Coalition gets 21% and the Greens 29%. The Greens are considered the most “extreme” (39%), the Coalition too close to big corporate and financial interests (29%) and none of the parties are considered as good at keeping their promises — they rate 10%-13%-9%.
The only positive for Labor was on the one issue that it has retained despite all its woes — “looking after the interests of working people”, where it leads the Coalition by 5 points, 22-17%.
On voting intention, it was another week of stasis — Coalition (45%) up one point; Labor 38% and the Greens (11%) the same, to yield a 2PP outcome of 51-49% to the Coalition.
The inevitable effects of burning fossil fuels were well-known long ago for those who took the slightest interest in economic history and the relevant science; but when it came to asking that something be done, two important hurdles arose. The first was the unpleasant facts associated with meaningful action. The second was the all too frequent dishonest manipulation of data by those pushing for action to be taken, which then provided climate sceptics of all varieties with ammunition to cloud the issues.
What dishonest manipulation of data Norman??? Specific examples please. And spare us the tosh about the hockey stick. Isn’t it amazing how the very people who are working hard to warn us of impending disaster are now the ones who are responsible for the fact that people don’t believe the CC is happening?
The problem with climate change is that no one really knows. Most scientists agree that humanity is contributing, at least in part, to the warming of the world. The main issue is that we don’t exactly know how much. There is so much uncertainity. There is speculation about “tipping points” and the like, but again, even scientists can’t tell us exactly what they are.
Still, logic believes that “minimax-regret” theory can be used when dealing with high uncertainity. The key is to chose the option that has the effect of minimising the difference if the payoffs between the most and least rewarding outcomes. To minimise the regret over chosing the wrong option. Or chosing the “least worse option”. In this regard, when the options are to do something about climate change or not to do something and the outcomes are a clean and sustainable world vs an uninhabitable one, the decision is clear that we must chose an option that takes us close to a clean world, but not so much that if we are wrong about climate change, we have destroyed our economy for nothing.
Too often those in the environmental movement use a “No regrets” policy; that policy makers should adopt Climate Friendly policies regardless of their effect on the economy. But any sort of climate change abatement will cause some form of regret as the economy transforms or wealth is redistributed. Best to apply the middle road until we get more certainty.
The situation as it stands is clear.
While manyof us recognise that the burning of fossil fuels almost certainly contributes to global warming, we do not wish to pay for it. So it gets added to the pile of desirable-but- don’t-expect- me-to-pay-for -it items, eg:the implementation of a first class public education, important and urgent health reform etc.
therefore, it is so much more comforting if we can persuade ourselves that we’re alright Jack,and if it turns out that we’re not, well, let the kids and grandkids sort it out.
Who’d have thought we would see these sort of comments in 2010. Its quite simply really, a massive advertising campaign by the fossil fuel lobby has changed the publics response to the urgency of climate change. Advertising works, blanket advertising of the kind we have seen recently is culture changing. Commercial advertising can be defined as a way of convincing people to buy something that they otherwise would not, and hey guys, it works. The reality of climate change will not get throught to most of the public until such time as the facts of climate change are adequately advertised on TV. Until then the only information that most people will access is a Disney like fantasy.