Politique Internationale — At the request of EDF, Ipsos set up an international observatory called “Climate and Public Opinion” on perceptions of global warming. Is this just one more study adding to the numerous essays, surveys or white books that have already been published on the subject?
Brice Teinturier — Not at all. Not only is this study not just another analysis tool, but, of its kind, it is even somewhat exceptional. We first worked on a very wide perimeter, covering no fewer than 30 countries. I do not know of any survey on this theme with such a large geographical scope. The sample questioned covers two-thirds of the world population.
This largescale observation is indispensable because, from one region of the world to another, the content of appraisals differs enormously. In Brazil or in Egypt, for example, the perception of the environment immediately comes down to a very negative connotation: people are fully conscious of living on a damaged landscape. To be more precise: their worries are not directly linked to climate change; they first refer to the problem of waste and air pollution. On the contrary, in Europe, North America and Asia, the climate is mentioned as the first subject of concern, before air and water pollution. That way, we can see that global warming brings together several problems, those of pollution in the largest sense.
P. I. — An opinion survey of unprecedented breadth, you say. With what aims?
B. T. — Apart from its geographical coverage, the other great strength of the Observatory lies in its taking into account all aspects of the climate issue: the perception of warming, of course, but also resignation to it, its consequences and the totality of actions put in place, or not, to counter the ambient threat. We are really going into things in depth. A work like this also plays a role of look-out: EDF wants to use this international inventory to feed reflection and contribute to the search for solutions destined to preserve the planet.
P. I. — In your study, there are a lot of figures, but also dates…
B. T. — As far as the calendar is concerned, this survey comes at an important moment: only 10 years ago, the climate question attracted few opinions and even fewer commitments. It was itself nearly inexistent in opinion polls. Today it is the exact opposite with this debate now occupying centre-stage. We are living in a time when the climate generates mobilisation: this can be favourable for the struggle against CO2 emissions, with for example demonstrations for the planet: they can also be antagonistic as the Yellow Vests crisis in France showed. In both cases, they are often intense events, even mini-earthquakes, for societies. The time has passed when the environment resembled an intellectual object: the age has changed because people can directly experience, in their daily lives, the effects of warming. Climate change has become a local reality so fear has gone up a notch: in the Observatory, three-quarters of the inhabitants of the 30 countries say they are more worried than five years ago, 37 per cent are much more worried and 37 per cent a little more worried. It should be noted that the young are much more anxious than their elders, but only in Europe — 43 per cent against 30 per cent for those aged 55 and above — and in North America — 44 per cent against 27 per cent.
P. I. — Does this perceived closeness of the climate risk mean that no one any longer doubts the reality of global
warming?
B. T. — Two elements can be considered separately: the reality of climate change on the one hand and the weight of human activity in this phenomenon on the other. On the first point, global warming is now an accepted fact: only 8 per cent of those interviewed worldwide challenge it, with nevertheless a peak of 19 per cent in the United States. On the other hand — and this is problematic — 23 per cent question the human origin of climate change. In short, nearly a quarter of people do not recognise human responsibility in the endangering of the planet. We are confronted with a proven form of climate scepticism: why change behaviour if no correlation is established between industry, town planning or transport on the one side and the protection of the planet on the other? To come back to the — accepted — reality of climate change, citizens acknowledge quite well the causes: six out of ten (61 per cent) recall the major impact of greenhouse gases. They are not mistaken either on the big sources of CO2: China (67 per cent) and the United States (65 per cent) are well identified. As for the most polluting sectors and activities, the leading trio is made up of industry (85 per cent), transport (85 per cent), deforestation (83 per cent), far ahead of agriculture (46 per cent) and information technology (38 per cent).
P. I. — Energy problems are at the heart of the struggle against climate warming. There are those who campaign for a 100 per cent renewable mix, those who recall that nuclear energy does not produce CO2, and those for whom fossil fuels still have a great future… From the work of the Observatory, what is the ideal energy mix? Is there a production model to be pushed as a priority to combat carbon emissions?
B. T. — The energy question is effectively at the heart of the climate issue but this still does not mean that the public is acquainted with the essential data. Let’s recall first that electricity production is at the origin of a quarter of world CO2 emissions: so this is more than industry. And yet, when people are asked, only 59 per cent consider that the production of electricity is a very harmful activity, against 85 per cent for industry, as I said. So there is a first level of ignorance. Then, when you get interested in the different sources of electricity generation, this ignorance increases even more. For example, the fact that nuclear energy produces no CO2 is an element that is far from being widely known. At the same time, some people believe that hydroelectric dams produce carbon. In such conditions, it is very difficult to find a sample who can spontaneously grasp an ideal energy mix. If there is a consensus, it’s on coal: citizens know full well now that coal-fired power stations are strong producers of CO2 and that the search for a de-carbonised economy implies less use of this fossil energy. As for the boom in renewables, independently of this Observatory, our opinion studies have been showing for a long time that windfarms, for example, come up against problems of local acceptance. So people who say they back this means of production of green electricity are extremely reticent about accepting wind turbines near their homes.
P. I. — However these problems are approached, we still face this central question: are people doing enough to help the planet?
B. T. — The Observatory permits two sorts of interpretation. One is positive, the other much less so. When you see that in several countries, more than one person out of two — 55 per cent on average — claims to have changed behaviour and to observe ecological measures, the assessment is rather encouraging. That means that the climate emergency is a reality that is taken into account: of course, the struggle against global warming is far from being systematic, but people’s position allows us to think that “things aren’t as bad as all that.” On the contrary, when they are asked immediately after about their concrete actions for the planet, the figures fall quickly below 50 per cent. For example, 48 per cent of those questioned in Europe say they sort their rubbish. And only 33 per cent — in South America, Asia and Africa — make an effort to reduce their air conditioning or heating. As for the problem of moving around, this is far from demonstrating environmental conscience: they are only 22 per cent to limit systematically their travel by air and 18 per cent their trips by car. The conclusions are quite simple: there is a very clear gap between the theoretical commitments by individuals and their practical application. A majority say they are mobilised to fight global warming but these great principles are not translated into facts with the same intensity.
P. I. — People talk a lot but act less, even very little…
B. T. — Let us say that the room for progress remains considerable: for example, should we welcome the fact that people are buying more seasonal fruit and vegetables? About 40 per cent do so, according to our study. Fortunately, we might be tempted to think, so basic does this reflex seem. Globally, we expect of citizens that they take initiatives that are even more dynamic. Over time, we could think that technological innovations might open the field more to actions to protect the environment. I’ll come back to the fruit and vegetables: it is those over 55 years of age who make their purchases coincide with the harvest calendar. Our study shows that the coming generation is late taking this element into consideration, as is the case for many others.
P. I. — Quite. Among preconceptions that your study demolishes is the fact that the young are at the forefront of the struggle against global warming…
B. T. — Let’s finetune the language. Listening to many observers, the young would seem to have the monopoly of the fight for the protection of the planet. And seniors would be the last to make ecological gestures. Our study does not show that the young are disinterested in the climate issue — on the contrary, in Europe as in North America, the anxiety is significant — but it is often concentrated more on protests against existing systems than on action. In parallel, the older generations, whose immobilism is stigmatised, can be more reactive. In several countries, the Observatory bears witness to a real sensibility among the over-55s to environmental problems and a desire to act to improve the situation. The young suffer — with other age groups — from a lack of knowledge about the climate emergency. Events such as natural disasters are perfectly identified; on the other hand, real problems such as the fall in biodiversity and the impoverishment of agricultural land are less well known, whereas they also involve crucial stakes. The same for migrations; the movements of populations linked to global warming are worrying phenomena but a majority of the people questioned are often unaware of them.
P. I. — This Observatory uses a number of indicators with, in return, a large range of replies. Are the positions of those questioned rigid or, on the contrary, susceptible to change in the near future?
B. T. — These positions can evolve very quickly. We can measure this well through our different barometers of studies of opinion: the environment has become a mobilising subject, just like politics or employment. It also gathers rapid variations in responses, following current events, reforms begun by governments or the emergence of one or other personalities. The perception of the climate, as well as the behaviour of people towards these problems are not sacrosanct givens: the figures that we have collected are destined to move. That is why Ipsos decided to carry out this largescale task at regular intervals. Does it mean that populations, as the perception of global warming becomes sharper, will be more committed in favour of the struggle against CO2? We shall see. The coupling between decisions taken by the authorities and citizens’ gestures still has room for improvement. It is not because governments make great commitments that people follow. By the same token, it is not because groups of individuals mobilise for the planet that their leaders back them. We are not yet at the stage of community of action. When the two spheres start to move together, the environmental process will become more efficient. In the meantime, for 70 per cent of people questioned, governments have to be on the frontline to head off the threat to the climate. They are placed before citizens (45 per cent) and companies (32 per cent).
P. I. — In the end, what surprised you the most in the study? Are there salient elements that could not be foreseen?
B. T. — Who could have imagined the strong showing of climate-sceptics? In several countries, 30 to 45 per cent of those interviewed still ostensibly doubt the harmful consequences of climate change. A stereotype would have it that reflection on the climate emergency is the privilege of developed countries. The implication: emerging economies have too many obstacles to surmount to be able to deal with this problem. This is false. In the countries of the south such as India, Brazil, Mexico or Chile, eight people out of 10 are conscious of being confronted by a major challenge. In parallel, our study shows clearly that climate scepticism draws on a significant audience in the most advanced countries. The United States is often singled out, but it is not an isolated case: even in Germany, often cited as an example for the environmental considerations of its people, the impact of global warming is doubted. There are even countries such as Norway where a majority of people (57 per cent) believe that climate change can have positive effects. This state of affairs cries out even more because these developed countries are very well informed on the matter: the mass of documents on CO2 and its dangers is impressive, as is the list of people who express themselves on the subject. Democracy, and this is good, does not restrict space only to climate defenders. But they are not always heard. Far from it.
* Deputy Managing Director of Ipsos.
