Download Europeans` perceptions of climate change and global warming: A

ESA2009 - 9th Conference of European Sociological Association, Lisbon
Research Network 12 "Environment and Society"
Udo Kuckartz Department of Education, Philipps-University Marburg, Germany
[email protected], tel. +49 6421 2823026
Europeans' perceptions of climate change and global warming:
A micro-macro analysis.
Abstract:
This paper discusses the problem of how global climate change is perceived on two levels: on the
international level by use of the data of different Eurobarometer studies and on the level of the
individuals by use of two qualitative studies that our research group has conducted in Germany in
2009.
Based on the Eurobarometer studies EBS 300, EBS 295 and EB Flash 219, the first part of the
paper will compare selected European countries with regard to the perception of climate change
and global warming. The major effects, for instance the extremely significant effect of the
people’s education, will be mentioned and compared between the different European countries.
The main focus will be on the gap between knowledge, attitudes and behaviour.
The second part of the paper will focus the results of qualitative studies on the micro level. What
role does the climate change issue play in people’s every day life? Why is there a gap between the
perception and the attitudes on one side and the behaviour on the other side? What explanations
do people give for this discrepancy?
We are especially interested in contrasting the results of the large international surveys with the
micro studies. For instance, EBS 300 tells us that the most common practices are the choice of a
more environmental mode of transport (28%), reduced car use (25%) and the purchase of a lesspolluting vehicle (18%), but it does not tell us why the percentage is so low compared with the
high percentage (75%) of Europeans who think that climate change is a very serious problem.
1
Preliminary remark
The IPCC has reported in a very detailed analysis that a global climate change (CC) is happening
on our planet. Hundreds of scientists were involved in the analytical process and they have
warned the world community to continue with “business as usual” and in particular with the
incredibly high consumption of fossil energy1. The European governments, and since the
election in last November also the US, have taken this warning into their policies. In its selfconception and self-image, the European Union is one of the front-runners in the global fight
against climate change.
As social scientists, we have no reason to doubt these computations and the consequences of
analysis. We do not have enough knowledge or the ability to re-analyse the data, which would
probably lead to different conclusions. More than 90% of the climate researchers agree with the
IPCC conclusions. All the IPCC results of the analysis are open to the public. All of their reports
are available on the IPCC website and, in my opinion as a sociologist, we have to discuss the
effects of the global warming problem on the societies, not the reports themselves.
The Context
The European countries and also the European Union have been a driving force in the field of
climate policy. A couple of really ambitious decisions have been made, for instance a reduction of
CO-2 emission of 20% by 2020 and even of 30% if an international agreement can be achieved.
These announcements sound great, but in fact it will not be enough to face the problem. Experts
from PIK (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research) like Schellnhuber and Edenhofer tell
us that we should reduce the CO-2- emissions at a significantly higher rate and we should to do it
very fast. Anyway, it seems that the process of global warming cannot be stopped anymore. So
the reaction of the governments of the world's leading economic countries is in some sense
ambiguous. It’s similar to an alcoholic who diminishes his consumption of alcohol. Of course,
that reduction can be taken as a good sign, as a first step to a new life, but on the other hand it
signals continuity – the problem is not really taken as VERY seriously, only somewhat serious.
Obviously the administrations, all of the ministries, prime ministers and presidents, they do not
have the political power to face the problem – and the public notices this lack in decisiveness.
1
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.htm
2
In this paper, I will focus on the perception of the European citizens, on how individuals view
the problem of climate change. My paper is divided into two parts:
In the first (longer) part, I will argue on the macro level and compare different European
countries. My paper is based on Eurobarometer 3002 survey. In the meantime a new
Eurobarometer survey (Special Eurobarometer 313) has been conducted and the first results
were published in July. The data itself is not yet available for secondary analysis. So, I will only
mention some aspects of the first results of Eurobarometer 313 in my paper.
The second part of my paper will shift the attention to the micro level and report some results
from a German study that we started in 2008, a qualitative study titled "Climate Change and Me."
Europeans perception of climate change: Results of the
Eurobarometer survey
I will mention here three aspects of the citizens' perception of climate change.
1. Has the climate change problem reached the citizens? Are the European citizens aware of
the problem and do they see it as serious problem?
2. How well informed are the Europeans? Do they think that climate change can still be
stopped?
3. What’s about the citizen’s individual action? Have they done something against climate
change in their daily life?
Ad 1) Climate change as serious problem
How serious is the problem of climate change? Here are the respondents answers to what they
consider to be the most serious problems of the world. The table shows a comparison of last
years date (EB 61) with the new Eurobarometer EB71 survey of 2009.
2 The study was conducted in May 2008 and first published in September 08.
3
Fig. 1 Which do you consider the most serious problems currently facing the world as a
whole? (max three answers)
It can be seen that CC is seen as one of the major problems and that also the financial crisis has
not changed the public opinion as much as one would have expected. The media hype that was
characteristic for the first few months of 2009 (the data was collected in February 2009!), of
course, has brought this subject on top of the ranking, but CC is still among the top 4 with a
percentage of 50%.
Can we see differentiations by countries? Yes, the range is huge with Cyprus on top (92%) and
the Czech Republic on the bottom (45%). It’s difficult to see patterns in the differences between
countries: The Scandinavian Countries, Germany and France are above the European average in
the first third of the ranking, the “new” members like Bulgaria, Romania, Litovia, etc. are below
the average. At first glance, the European map seems to show a North-South-divide, but this is
not true for Greece and Cyprus, both countries are on the top of the list.
4
Figure 2 Climate Change as the most serious problem of today’s world (Source: EB 313)
The Eurobarometer report tells us that the following socio-demographics have a considerable
effect:
 Sex: male +
 Political attitude: left +
 Age 15-24 +
 Age 55  End of education 20+ +
 Occupation: Students ++
 Occupation: Managers ++
 Occupation: Housekeepers – Occupation: Retired –
5
So, well educated young males working as managers or still students are more likely to see climate
change as a very serious global problem. The respondents were also asked how serious the
problem of global warming is and to give a score on a 1 to 10 scale (10 means that it is extremely
serious. With a value of 8.0 the average is astonishingly high).
Fig. 3 Seriousness of climate change on a one to ten scale
In regard to socio-demographic characteristics, the results are similar as mentioned above, again
education, occupation and age are relevant factors. Additionally the degree of information about
the causes and consequences of climate change makes a difference: people who feel wellinformed are more likely to consider CC a very serious problem.
Ad 2) How well informed are the Europeans? Do they think that climate change
can be stopped?
We have no statistical data on the European level that would tell us what Europeans really know
about climate change, its causes and consequences. In Germany, in 2007 a survey with some
open-ended questions was conducted by Emnid-Institute (sponsored by BP) that showed that
people had rather good knowledge about the crucial phenomena associated with CC – much
more knowledge in comparison to other political fields.
The Eurobarometer survey does not ask for knowledge in terms of facts, but in terms of selfassessment. In general, a majority of the Europeans feel well or very informed about the causes
(56%), the consequences (56%) and also about ways to fight climate change (52%). It’ remarkable
6
that only 8%-9% feel very well informed, and the percentage of the not very well informed is
rather high with more than 40%.
The three questions are highly correlated with r= .83 (causes and consequences) .77 (causes and
info about how to fight) and .76 (consequences and info about how to fight).
What’s about the difference between the European countries? Citizens of the Scandinavian
countries and the Netherlands feel best informed, also Germany, France, and the UK range
above the median. Almost all the new members of the European Union range below the average,
Slovakia, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Portugal and Romania are at the far end of the
scale. Again the differences are remarkable: In Sweden 86% feel well or fairly well informed, but
in Romania only 37% and even less in Portugal 34%. It’s even worse in Turkey, where only 27%
feel well informed about the causes of CC.
The original question was: “Personally, do you think you are well informed or not about the
consequences of climate change.” Again the Eurobarometer report tested the effect of sociodemographic variables – but only in bivariate analysis – with the following results:
 Sex: Male
 Age 55+
++
-
 End of education 20+
++
 End of education 15-
––
 Occupation: Students ++
 Occupation: Managers
+++
 Occupation: Housekeepers
––
 Occupation: Retired
–
 Large town
+
Education seems to be the most influential factor. The pattern found is quite similar to the
pattern above, describing the differences concerning the seriousness of the climate change
problem. But it is obvious that some of the variables are correlated like education and
occupation. We then re-analysed the data with stepwise regression to get a more valid view of the
independent effects of the socio-demographic variables.
The following shows the influence of the variables in a clockwise direction. Since “well
informed” is coded with “1” in this survey, the negative sign of the beta coefficients means a
positive effect and vice versa.
7
Figure 4
Who feels well informed on climate change
Having left school with 15 or younger has the most important negative effect on feeling wellinformed about CC. The opposite is with respondents having completed their education with 20
years older, they feel much better informed. Males, students, and managers also feel better
informed. Respondents who are closer to the political left are better informed than respondents
close to the right.
Ad 3) Citizens action against climate change
Nearly two third of European citizens do not believe that CC has been exaggerated, but at the
same time 60% think that it still can be stopped, 31% think it can’t and 9% don’t know. The
highest proportion of “don’t know "answers are found in Spain, Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey.
The differences between the countries are not as big as on the subjects mentioned above.
Particularly the countries with huge population like Germany, UK, France, Spain have only a
range between 53% and 67% of respondents that believe that CC is not an unstoppable process.
A majority of 70% thinks that alternative fuels should be used and in general 56% think that
fighting against CC have a positive impact on the European economy.
8
In the Eurobarometer study it was asked: “Have you generally taken actions aimed at helping to
fight climate change?” About 61% confirm that they have taken actions. Among those people,
the ranking of the different types of behaviour starts with recycling, which was done by 76%.
Here is the complete ranking of the top 7:
1. Recycling
76%
2. Reducing energy consumption at home
64%
3. Reducing water consumption at home
55%
4. Reducing the consumption of disposable items
40%
5. Chosen an environmentally friendly mode of transportation 28%
6. Buy seasonal and local products
27%
7. Reducing the use of car
18%
The following shows the factors that influence if people take action to fight climate change or
not. Again we have computed a stepwise regression model that is highly significant.
Figure 5
Who has taken actions helping to fight climate change
The diagram displays the beta coefficients, again a reverse of the polarity of the sign has to be
made because of the underlying scaling. Information is extremely important for becoming active.
9
Younger people between 15 and 24 are less active, as are women and unemployed respondents.
Education has also an effect on action but the effect is only marginal and not as strong on the
attitudes (see above).
To get a more detailed view, we have repeated the stepwise regression analysis with a more
specific item that is particularly relevant for climate change, the question of having reduced the
consumption of energy at home. Again the regression model is highly significant.
Fig. 6 Who has taken actions to reduce energy consumption at home
Again information has the strongest effect. Having left school with 15 or younger has as well
negative effects as being in the age group from 25 to 39. Manual workers and people close to the
political right have less frequently reduce their energy consumption. A long education has a
positive effect.
So far with the results of the international survey. The stepwise regression models showed that
attitudes can be much better explained by socio-demographic variables than the behaviour. Now
let us move to micro level and the results of a qualitative study.
10
Individual Level: Results of a qualitative study
Design
of
the
study
All the surveys on the macro level have in common that they only explain a very small percentage
of the individual behaviour. The models that are used to explain the behaviour are usually based
on the idea of linear and causal relationships. In other statistical analysis of the survey data, we
found out that the most important difference between persons with high commitment and low
commitment was the reaction of their social environment, their friends and their peers, and not
the presence or absence of a socio-demographic characteristic as itself. The question, if the peers
show a high acceptance of personal engagement, is the crucial point. These results brought us to
the idea to start a study using qualitative methods, to find out more about individual motives and
the context of their behaviour towards CC.
In our study we conducted open interviews with 35 persons ( age 16 thru 45). The interview
guide covered three main topics:
•
models of the world (most serious global problems; can the problems be successfully
managed)
•
perception of the society (the “others”)
•
self-perception in the global world
In this I will only mention the second point.
The trick of our study was to take the respondents as experts – as experts for the behaviour and
the motives of the "others". Therefore we asked:
"In the general public, it is often discussed that some people‘s knowledge and attitudes
towards climate change are different from their behaviour. According to your opinion,
what are the reasons for this gap."
Thus, we did not ask the people directly what they themselves are doing, how they behave, we
asked them as experts for the behaviour of the others what they identify as reasons that people
do not behave as expected on the basis of their knowledge and behaviour.
The
Results
The first astonishing result of our study was that many of the interviewed people had a different
interpretation of the gap between knowledge and action.
When we as social scientists discuss about this issue, we always look from knowledge and
attitudes to action. And ask how can the knowledge and the high sensibility for the climate
11
question that is obviously there be transformed into action. But many of the interviewed people
interpreted the gap in another way. Their diagnosis was that people’s attitudes are highly
influenced by social desirability and social norms.
They think that there is a certain pressure today in our society to give statements pro
environment and someone would set himself out of the common sense if he or she would say:
"What do I have to do with climate change, that does not interest me, I behave in the same way
as ever."
So, the gap results in high percentage in these socially desired attitudes.
We have sorted and categorized the answers and differentiated between internal and external
factors that cause the gap in the citizen’s opinion.
Internal
Factors
By far, the reason that was most frequently mentioned by our respondents can be described as
"Habits and Convenience". People have acquired their habits during long periods of their lives
and they want to keep them. That may start with the temperature in their living room and
continue with family holidays that people spend at the same places, such as on the Spanish
beaches or in the Austrian mountains.
Also convenience is something that the respondents assume as a reason for the gap: The others
are simply too lazy to change their behaviour.
Another reason is „Don’t think about it“ – people are living their daily lives, they are not thinking
about what they are doing. They are not willed to orientate all their action to one leading
paradigm.
External
Factors
External Factors that are seen by our experts for the gap are:
Social Desirability – (this is in some sense a reverse factor since it explains the gap by focusing
the other side, the high sensibility and the high degree of knowledge). People feel under pressure
to give statement pro environment, it is like compensation for what hey are doing in fact, they
claim that anything has to be done to avoid climate change, but these are only words.
The second external reason that was mentioned is "lack of knowledge." People are confused by
the complexity of problems. They buy only regional products and then they read in the journals
that vegetables brought from Spain have a smaller ecological footprint than vegetables grown in
Brandenburg’s greenhouses around the corner.
12
The third reason: "lack of infrastructure" – e.g. persons live in small villages with poor public
transport, people cannot behave as they would like to behave.
The fourth reason that we found in the interviews "the costs of appropriate behaviour are too
high." But this reason has been mentioned astonishingly seldom just in contrast to the public
discussion where it is often mentioned that people do not have the money to show the
appropriate behaviour. Additionally, it is interesting that this point in our interviews has only be
mentioned in association with food or better to say buying organic food.
What is really remarkable in the interviews, is the difference between the term “we” and the
person him or herself. A good example is the following segment of one of our interviews: After
a critical statement about the mass media that are always on the run for disasters and
catastrophes, the respondent said:
“The overstated news of the mass media do not effect the fact that we all should be
conscious of the environmental. And – yes – if one should eat cherries from wherever in
the winter time – I don’t know, there is no need to do it. I don't know. But if the world
gets two degrees warmer, really because I eat cherries from (laughs ..) Timbuktu, I don’t
believe that, I don’t believe that human beings can have such an impact. Hmm, yes …”
It is obvious: The “we” does not include “me”!
Conclusion
and
Perspectives
The macro part of this paper showed that European are highly aware of the problem of climate
change and a majority of them have not given up the fight against it. Differences between the
European countries are in some cases rather huge, but in general people are judging CC to be a
very serious global problem. The behaviour stays clearly behind the attitudes and the statistical
analysis can only explain a much smaller proportion of the people’s behaviour than of their
attitudes. Qualitative studies can help to understand more about the gap between knowledge and
action.
In general, we need to know more about how individuals perceive climate change. We have to
think about how to define climate awareness.
Then we could start to construct an indicator that could be measured all around the world. Today
it takes only one minute to go to Wikipedia and find out the GDP of Portugal (it is $). But it is
nearly impossible to find out the perception of global climate change in the same country, not to
mention the trend of the last years. So I would inspire you all to start an international co13
operations and partnerships in this field and start with the ambition to bring this idea of an
international index on its way. At the same time, qualitative studies can help us to understand
how the climate awareness is embedded in the daily life of the population in the European
countries. If the prognosis of climate researchers is true – and as I said at the beginning of my
paper, there is no reason to take this into doubt – than we have a field that will be increasingly
important during the next decade.
Websites
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/campaign/index_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm
http://www.gesis.org/dienstleistungen/daten/umfragedaten/eurobarometer-data-service/
14