Column by Gregor Wolbring
November 15th, 2009
http://politicsofhealth.org/wol/2009-11-15.htm
On September 26, 2009 a global consultation on global warming (WWViews) was carried out that included 44 citizen meetings (with 100 citizens each) in 38 countries all across the world. The participating countries were: Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Malawi, the Maldives, Mali, Mozambique, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Saint Lucia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, Uganda, United Kingdom, USA, Uruguay, Vietnam. The results have become recently available. The webpage of the Canadian survey group can be found here. It is intended that the results of this global consultation will inform the UN Climate Change negotiations (COP15), which will take place in Copenhagen from December 7 – 18, 2009. Although this project is admirable, I feel that the questions did not cover enough ground and consequently did not provide as much guidance as they could and should have.
The twelve questions were the following:
1 To what extent were you familiar with climate change and it’s consequences before joining WWViews?
2 Having been presented with various assessments of climate change and its consequences, to what extent are you concerned about climate change?
3 How urgent do you think it is to make a global climate deal?
4 If a new climate deal is made at COP15, should the politicians in your country give high priority to joining it?
5 What should be the long-term goal for limiting temperature increase?
6 Should countries that do not meet their commitments under a new climate deal be subjected to punishment?
7 Do you think the short-term reduction target for developed countries should be:
8 What do you think the short-term target should be for Non-Annex 1 countries with substantial economic income and/or high emissions?
9 What do you think the short-term target should be for lower-income developing countries?
10 Should the price of fossil fuels be increased?
11 Should a global financial system be instituted in order to generate funds for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries?
12 Which countries should be committed by a new climate deal to pay?
As perceived by the organizers, the main outcome was that the citizens that took part in the consultation demanded a higher CO2 reductions and lower temperature increase target than proposed by existing political agendas. A Policy Report, summarizing and commenting on the results will be made public on November 19.
Canadians answered the question dealing with the appropriate goal for a short term target for greenhouse gas emission reduction as follows:”
26% believed in a greenhouse gas emission reduction of higher than 40%
51% believed in a greenhouse gas emission reduction between 25% and 40%
|8% believed in a greenhouse gas emission reduction lower than 25%
5% believed in a greenhouse gas emission reduction there should be no targets
And 10% answered with | Don’t know / do not wish to answer.
Canadians answered the question regarding the desirable long term goal for temperature increase as follows:
4% believed that a goal is not necessary
6% believed that a larger increase than 2 degrees Celcius is acceptable
38% wanted the increase limited to 2 degrees Celsius
22% wanted the increase limited to the current level
8% wanted a return to the pre-industrial level
And 22% answered with Don’t know / do not wish to answer
People can look at all the countries and compare the results of different countries.
Despite the results that the organizers felt were illuminating, I think that many important issues were not adequately covered. I hope that there will be a follow up survey to remedy this situation. Worldwide, 53% of the respondents state that they had some knowledge about climate change. However the survey did not allow one to identify what knowledge about climate change people have. When people stated that they know about climate change did they mean the local changes and local impact (energy security, water security, food security...), or the global change and impact (energy security, water security, food security...), or the scientific data? And no linkage was made from the knowledge they have to how they feel the problems they know about could be fixed. 62% stated that they were very concerned about climate change. However the questions did not allow the respondents to state exactly what their concerns were. There could be quite diverse concerns experienced by different people.
The background material that the participants received outlined a variety of different techno interventions:
“It is possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by making a transition to other energy sources in the future. The use of fossil fuels can be minimized. Low carbon technologies can be used and further developed. Energy savings, energy efficiency and combined use of energy from renewable sources are important means. Nuclear power is promoted as part of the solution. Technology to capture CO2 from power plants and factories and store it in the underground is being developed. Preservation of forests and soils, and improvement of agriculture are also part of the solution. Geoengineering may be the last resort. “
However the questions did not ask the participants about their sentiments towards the different technologies, nor which mix they felt should be used. The survey mentioned reduction goals, such as limiting the increase in temperature and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, but did not ask the participants what their preference would be as to how to achieve this. A question on the energy mix people want is needed, as well as a question where people could highlight what solutions they would favour.
Possibly the most glaring omission in the survey is that it did not address the manner in which different social groups are impacted.
The questionaire appears to be based on the assumption that low or high income countries are homogenous and that different social groups within countries are not impacted differently. I showed elsewhere that there is a difference (Wolbring, Gregor. "A Culture of Neglect: Climate Discourse and Disabled People." M/C Journal 12.4 (Oct. 2009). 31 Oct. 2009 http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/173).The webpage states that the roughly 4,400 citizens who participated in WWViews were carefully chosen to reflect the demographic diversity of their respective nations or regions. However I think one could make a case that in many of the consulting groups many marginalized groups were not present.
I hope that a follow up takes place that a) looks more inclusive with regard to social groups and b) generates more insight as to what solutions people would prefer.
And as usual,
I would encourage you to get involved and to demand a better more useful survey which
covers more issues of interest to you. Without you it will
not happen.The Choice Is Yours
All of the "The Choice is Yours" articles till June 2009 can be found here, after June 2009 here
Gregor Wolbring is an Assistant Professor at the University of Calgary. He is Affiliated Scholar, Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University, USA; Part Time Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa Canada; Adjunct Faculty Critical Disability Studies, York University, Canada. He is a science and technology governance scholar, a disability/vari-ability/ability studies scholar, and a health policy and science and technology studies researcher. He is the Chair of the Bioethics Taskforce of Disabled People's International. He publishes the Bioethics, Culture and Disability website, authors a weblog on NBICS and its social implications and on Ableism and Ability Ethics and Governance and contributes to the What Sorts of People blog.
Please
contact the author for additional information on this article or for
other references at gwolbrin@ucalgary.ca
©
Gregor Wolbring, All Rights Reserved, 2009. Please contact the author
for permission to reprint.