Climate attitudes changing faster than our government

IT seems the Australian Government is getting more out of step with the attitudes of Australians when it comes to climate change and what to do about it.
The just-released seventh annual Lowy Institute report “Australia and The World” clearly shows the shifting public sentiment on climate is moving away from the “must act” view of five years ago to a more conservative position now.
The key finding of the early April 2011 poll of 1002 Australians is that “support for taking tough action to address climate change continues to erode”.
The key response to the statement that global warming is a pressing problem that needs immediate attention even if that involves significant costs has dropped from 68 percent to 41pc over the past five years.
Not only that, poll respondents gave an overwhelming thumbs down to the Gillard Government’s response to climate change, namely 39pc saying the response was “very poor” and 36pc “somewhat poor”. That’s a total of 75pc being unimpressed, I would say.
Equally telling of where the public’s mood has shifted is the three year rise from 21pc to 39pc in respondents saying they are not prepared to pay anything to tackle climate change. The hip pocket can be the real measure of a person’s response to an issue of the day.
We all know how fickle public opinion can be and many would query the relevance of opinion polls when it comes to something as complex as climate.
The Lowy Institute is attempting to add some value by creating a time series of public attitudes to key issues by asking the same questions each year.
This latest report however still indicates that climate change remains an issue of importance to many, especially young Australians, and this is borne out by other research.
For instance, the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF) has funded a cross nation project to assess “Public Risk Perceptions, Understandings and Responses to Climate Changes in Australia and Great Britain” and it shows that 75pc believe “the world’s climate is changing” and about 65pc are concerned about the consequences of climate change.
While both reports might have a message for governments, it is instructive to consider the interim report of the NCCARF study, since it points to problems of interpretation in these surveys as well.
Its Griffith University authors are trying to go beyond the headline grabbing poll results, which after all are just answers to questions posed, and see if they can detect psychological factors that can lead to behaviour change.
At a recent seminar on the interim report, Professor Joe Reser explained they are trying to measure not just attitudes and perceptions but also “what is going on in people’s heads” as they interact with their biophysical environment. This is the important linkage between risk assessment and action.
It has long been recognised that public opinion surveys are limited in the information they provide, but because they can track closely to actual events, especially votes, there is a bourgeoning industry supporting pollsters.
The current NCCARF study is attempting to identify social and psychological changes that can lead to behaviour change. This is the step beyond the famous interpretation dilemma noted by Hugh Mackay where the public is known to hold “internally inconsistent attitudes” across a range of important public issues.
While we may question one of the preliminary conclusions of the NCCARF study that “reported declines in public concern about climate change may have been overstated”, we believe the research will lead to a fuller understanding of what the public is willing to do to reduce the risks (threats) that they perceive climate change will bring. And this will be critical information to put into the mix over coming months.
Regardless of your personal views on the risks that are inherent in a changing climate the Lowy Institute research is saying that as people hear more about the issue they may, depending on the demographic, switch off.
Farmers in the end are no different to any other consumer. While we manage the risks, we can only afford to pay for the management of those risks to a limit that fits within our economic means.
The Government has attempted to progress an agenda that responds to climate change through a natural progression from awareness, to concern, to action. These most recent reports show that they may have failed in their task and for all our sakes they best consider what the warning means.
A program to change to low energy light bulbs in 2007 was applauded in the polls, but did little else besides perhaps build cynicism that is only coming home to roost now.