Canadians more concerned than Americans about climate policy

Two-in-three Canadians say Ottawa should be doing something about climate change


A new poll conducted by U.S. and Canadian think tanks and released by Public Policy Forum and Sustainable Prosperity shows the Harper government might want to rethink its laissez-faire approach to climate change policy. It found 80 per cent of Canadians believe the science behind climate change, as opposed to 58 per cent of Americans. In Canada, 65 per cent think the government has a role to play in addressing climate change, while only 43 per cent of Americans believe their federal government has a responsibility to address the issue. Twice as many Canadians as Americans are also willing to pay the price of a carbon tax, according to the poll. “Canadians continue to believe in very high numbers that climate change is a significant issue,” said Sustainable Prosperity’s Alex Wood. “They want to see federal leadership on the issue in terms of a policy regime that will set the course for Canada.”

CBC News

Filed under:

Canadians more concerned than Americans about climate policy

  1. This comment was deleted.

    • Nice to know the views of the CPC supporters.

      Incidentally, this means you're positing that about half of the CPC supporters are gullible idiots as well.

      Not that I'd disagree with that assessment, just surprised to see you being so honest about it.

      • First off, Im not affiliated with the CPC, nor am I a CPC supporter – I do think the CPC is by far the least bad option on the Canadian political menu though.

        Second, yes, it shows that at least half of people who would vote for the CPC believe in global warming. But that would require 100% of Liberals and Dippers to believe in global warming – and if there was ever a reason to keep these clowns away from power, this is it.

        • My apologies. That you consistently attack Liberal and NDP initiatives, and when you make any comment about CPC initiatives, it is in their defence, somehow lead me to believe that you support their activities.. even if you don't donate to the party. Something about ducks walking and talking comes to mind.

          • No apologies required. It is not incorrect to view me as a CPC supporter, but I can and have criticized them when needed.

          • Holly, are you still incapable of making arguments for yourself? still have to rely on the websites of dishonest propagandist wannabe scientists?

          • And where do you get your arguments? Out of your butt? Or from lying denier websites?

          • No from logic and facts, and a simple application of the scientific method. It goes like this:

            Theory -> prediction.

            Then you make observations. If the observations match the prediction, the theory is not falsified. Otherwise, the theory is falsified and needs to be tweaked or rejected outright.

            There simply have not been any predictions made by the AGW theory which stood up to observations.

          • Provide specific examples.

          • Pics or it didn't happen.

    • Nearly 50 years since an alleged UFO was sighted at Roswell, New Mexico, a CNN/Time poll shows that 80 percent of Americans think the government is hiding knowledge of the existence of extraterrestrial life forms. http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc830.htm

      ELVIS: DEAD OR ALIVE ? http://members.fortunecity.com/sivlenoramoran/mys

      “Michael Jackson, like Elvis, is sick and tired of being larger than life and wants to get a life,” said world-renowned psychic and metaphysician Dr. Andy Reiss. http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/9352/michael

      • i.e. they won't believe in global warming until it's front-page news every issue in the Weekly World News.

      • Well over 60 years. The Roswell incident was in 1947.

        Bill Clinton asked about Roswell when he became president. The Air Force admitted that the accident was a classified high-altitude balloon program…a pre-satellite reconnaissance effort…that failed to make altitude and crashed after launch from White Sands, New Mexico. Clinton directed the Air Force to publish what it knew, and it did. No one pays attention, because the truth isn't as much fun as fiction. Some might say the same thing about climate change.

  2. Not very surprising really.

    It's now abundantly clear that Climate Change is happening, so the deniers have lost that battle. The issue about it being man-made is rapidly becoming a non-ssue: whatever is causing it isn't going to change the fact that we need to adapt to it.

    I'd rather the government focus on ways to deal with climate change rather than look for ways to reverse it. I don't think it's possible toreverse something this big, and if it is man-made we're ont going to be able to reverse it soon enough.

      • CO2 emissions will go down on their own.

        Peak oil is likely behind us and you can't force change

        • I think the idea is that if you're in a car headed for a brick wall, you should at least take your foot off the accelerator even if you can't avoid hitting it.

          • good analogy !

        • Also, there is plenty of coal, nat gas, etc. to get us into the thousands of ppm carbon dioxide.

          • And how do you come up with this number? Just pull it out of the air(pun intended). With 200 years of heavy industry behind us we have gone from something like 385 ppm to something over 425. Amazing how a trace element of less than .5% of the entire atmosphere could have any effect. FYI, of that "massive" amount only 2% is man made. Of that, Canada's contribution is less than 2%. The oil sands is about 5% of that. If we shut Canada down and we all froze to death in the dark it would have about the same effect as taking a cup of water out of the ocean. If you are serious about this I invite you to be the first. I think I will wait however for Al Gore to turn the lights down at one of his four mansions. Cheers.

          • Bull.

            If only 2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, or about 7 ppm, is from human activity, where did the other ~103 ppm increase since 1850 come from? Check your facts, sport. To help you out, our current CO2 concentration is around 390 ppm and we started the industrial revolution around 280. This doesn't include the increase in dissolved CO2 in the oceans. I know you're not overly concerned with facts. Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

            Well over half of the fossil fuels that existed in 1850 is still in the ground. There are vast reserves of coal and natural gas, to say nothing of all the biomass such as peat bogs and permafrost that are releasing CO2.

            I'm not making any policy prescriptions here, Wayne. That's not what we're talking about.

  3. I guess the 'AGW is a liberal hoax' plank of the Conservative election platorm isn't going to be revealed anytime soon.

    • They've been very clever. They claim to have a plan as a sop to those who think the government should, but their supporters can catch the wink that goes with it, saying "Don't worry, this is just to keep these suckers from raising a fuss."

      • And the new minister is the smoothest at this so far. Even better than Prentice.

      • Thank goodness they're promised not to reopen the abortion debate when they get their majority.

  4. I do wish these polls would reveal the number of refusals to participate that they encounter.
    I'm not disputing this poll per se but polls in general aren't binding nor easily confirmed by independent sources.
    It's not that hard to limit the sample pool to create favourable results.
    While limiting man made damage is important, perhaps it would be prudent to explore the options should planetary conditions change dramatically.

    • Well yes, we need to cut emissions to avoid the worst case scenarios in the future, but also to prepare for more extreme weather and other consequences of the warming that has already happened and is happening now.

  5. This is a significant report because Canada has the second largest oil reserves in the world, it is critical that our politicians are able to look at this poll and mandate sustainable change instead of listening solely to one of its largest revenue sources (dirty oil). I wrote quite an extensive blog on the subject today. http://www.pacificrimbiodiesel.com/?p=182

  6. Well if that's true, what the hell are Canadians waiting for. Let's make it happen. The question is how?

    • Simple, it's not true. Cheers.

      • Liar

    • If we all just come together in peace and love, our planet will forgive the sins we have committed to her and all will be well and ……………………….AAAaK! I'm going to be sick. Can't do it.
      You fake radicals bow like fools to a fat American politician promising to make the weather colder with taxes. Nice.

  7. Left-wing think tanks using an anti-American slant in Canada to push their political agenda with a fabricated push- 'poll', unsurprising.

    It's called weather, it actually changes all the time, always has, always will.

      • Listen Dumb Stick, evangelical environmentalists like you want the rest of us to take vows of poverty and live by your recycling rituals, and you especially want the government to hammer us into your belief system.

        Well forget it, I'm not doing it for Jesus or Buddha or Allah either. Go sit in a circle and preach to each other like the rest of the hypocrites and liars.

  8. Well as they say, there are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics. Who ever pays for the poll can get whatever result they want. The only people I have ever run into who want a carbon tax are the likes of fraudsters like Al Gore who's making billions of of this fraud. They don't give a rat's a** about the environment. If "Big Al" did he wouldn't own four mansions. If Canadians are sooo concerned about Global Warming or Climate Change or what ever they are calling it this week why are the roads still full of new SUVs, monster pickups, etc.? Harper just took a page out of the old master's(Cretian) play book, talk it to death and do nothing. The dustbin of history is filling up with political-eco nitwits. Dion, Campbell and soon MacGoofy in Ontario. Cheers.

  9. Read the names of the organizations and "think tanks" behind this "poll". Can you say "fraud".
    These people will do anything to keep the big lie of AGW alive. Sorry guys, It's dead.

      • Holly, the very notion that a practically inert gas comprising 4/100ths of one per cent of our atmosphere has a greater bearing on global temperature than the sun, water vapour, cloud cover, you name it, is foolish to begin with. The AGW crowd's argument is 100% dependent on the outputs of human-made computer models, which ignore the effects of changes in solar output, water vapour and cloud cover and focus on CO2. This would be like me spending all of my time trying to determine the link between the number of layers of paint on the walls of my house and its internal temperature, while ignoring how much wood I burn in my stove, the number and aspect of windows, how much insulation is in my walls, external temperature, wind speed, internal and external humidity, and the number of appliances and people present in the house. Yes, the thickness of paint obviously has a bearing on temperature, but its relative effect is so minuscule compared to these other things that it is absolute foolishness to focus on it while ignoring everything else. People go on about the "science" of global warming. Does this approach seem in any way scientific to you? Are you familiar with the scientific method? I would really like to know.

        Where were you when Climategate broke? Have you heard of the SurfaceStations.org website?

        Have you ever heard of Piers Corbyn? If not, please open your closed mind and read his work or check out his YouTube stuff. He has been accurately predicting global seasonal temperature and weather trends for the last few years, because as an astrophysicist, he uses the predictable, cyclic variations in solar output as the basis of his forecast. All of the predictions the warmists have made over the past 20 years, based solely on atmospheric CO2 levels, have SIMPLY BEEN WRONG. That in itself should be enough to cast doubt on the process.

  10. -The Republican majority cut the IPCC's US funding
    -Carbon markets evaporated long ago.
    -The crisis predicted for 25 years never arrived.
    -Funding for lab coat consultants has evaporated.
    -The NOAA declared "exaggeration".
    -The Weather Channel has bailed.
    -REAL global financial and security dangers and world unrest will evaporate the CO2 mistake.
    Charges WILL be laid. Leading us to a false war of climate variation is grounds for treason, just like Bush and his lying and fear mongering. WE were the neocons this time, only of climate change as we issued CO2 death warrants to our kids, just to get them to turn the lights out more often.
    Meanwhile, the UN had allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over a quarter of a century of climate control instead of needed population control.
    Call the courthouse. Make the liars pay.
    If any of you fading doomers that wish and pray and hope for other people's misery to happen, think the majority former believers will all of a sudden reverse and vote YES to sacrifice and taxes to lower the seas and make the weather colder, YOU are the new DENIER.

    • You are spouting ignorant nonsense. We are seeing more and more the effects of global warming in the weather catastrophes which have taken place lately, destroying crops and raising food prices (which played a part in the uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East).

      • Ug ug. Cave man see warm.Cave man put out fire to please angry weather gods. Ug.
        Your New Age dogma is a joke for the history books.
        If you really think the end is near, get a sign and start marching. At least act like it's a crisis.
        Shouldn't your scientists be marching too? This IS the world's biggest emergency ever.
        You remaining faded doomers want this misery to have happened.
        It's sick. Stop scaring my kids.
        Love, not windmills and CO2 death threats to our children.
        Drop the CO2 and begin anew with optimism and bravery. Not the CO2 spear of fear at our backs. No kids, the planet is not dying.

    • There is not one actual scientific fact in your list. Not one.
      Talking points and a list of political actions but nothing of any substance.
      It's so bad it isn't even handwaving. The fact that you've dumped this word vomit on so many other sites amazes me.

  11. This proves that we are a fundmentally liberal country, CONS! Get over it!

    • 'A proof is a proof because it's a proven proof' by the Crook Chretien, corrupt Liberals are hilarious.

  12. The source is CBC. ‘nuf said.

  13. Stop selling hydrocarbons, Canada. Someone has to behave like an adult and that lot falls to you.

  14. To You Faded Believers Selfishly Scaring Our Kids With: DEATH BY CO2:
    In Southern Ontario, the city of London Ontario Canada has not had one single smog day in over 5 years, just alerts to a possible smog day, (a "smog warning").
    And you still insist on condemning our children to a death by unstoppable warming? Pollution is real, death by SUV gas was not.
    If you faded doomers had any credibility at all, you would stop calling unstoppable warming "severe weather" snowstorms and cold snaps. It's a death threat, not disagreeable weather and we former believers promise you this, history will not be kind to this CO2 evnironMENTAL era.
    Has this great source of news reported that the Republicans pulled all American funding from the IPCC on Feb 20th?
    Climate change has done to journalism and science what abusive priests and suicide bombers did for religion

    • You need to calm down. All caps are never cool and make you look like a fundie whackjob.
      Using the fact that the Repubs have pulled US climate funding as a basis for showing that the science is flawed is not productive. In fact it would be like quoting the vatican on the efficacy of prophylactics.

      • And telling my kids they will die on a dying planet isn't good enough to get a little emotional?
        You climate cowards hide behind the dogma, shooting your mouths off and condemning billions to a death by CO2. Nice.
        Meanwhile, the UN had allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over a quarter of a century of climate control instead of needed population control.
        Call the courthouse. Make the liars pay.
        If any of you fading doomers that wish and pray and hope for other people's misery to happen, think the majority former believers will all of a sudden reverse and vote YES to sacrifice and taxes to lower the seas and make the weather colder, YOU are the new DENIER.

        • again as above
          calm down and try and cite some science instead of emotion. you appear a tad unhinged

  15. In a court of law, an expert witness is a witness, who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience, is believed to have expertise and specialized knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person.

    That said, if we went to court to settle this issue, who would the deniers like mememine call as their expert witnesses?

    The deniers would bring James "Mountain Jim" Inhofe, along with his new book.

    We'd bring the National Academy of Science of the United States.

    As a matter of fact, we could pick anyone of 32 national science academies that have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

    The deniers would bring Patrick Michaels, the denier who's in hot water right now for lying to congress about who signs his paycheck.

    We'd counter with the American Geophysical Union and its 58,287 members.

    The AGU was established over 90 years ago, and for more than 50 years has operated as an unincorporated affiliate of the National Academy of Sciences. These aren't “NOBODIES.” The National Academy of Sciences is like the Supreme Court of science; they are the best of the best when it comes to science, of an entire nation.

    The deniers would bring to the stand Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a 70 yr old Russian astrophysicist.

    We'd bring Stephen Hawking.

    The deniers would bring 87 year old Fred Singer.

    We'd bring the American Institute of Physics.

    The AIP has been publishing scientific journals for almost 80 years.

    The deniers would bring Henrik Svensmark a physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen who studies the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation.

    We'd bring NASA.

    We'd bring every scientific organization that knows anything at all about this subject because they all agree with the conclusions of the IPCC.

    The Republican Party is practically the only political party in the world to be in denial?

    As a matter of fact, since 2001, 32 National Science Academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

    • Proving once again it was all politics, not science.
      You miserable fear mongers will be cursed in history for this criminal exaggeration of climate change.
      Pollution is real. Death by CO2 was not.
      This was a libeal Iraq War. Admit the mistake and stop showing such glee in scaring the kids.

    • Explain how all the publicly funded groups are believer scientists and the deniers are all private? Private as in independent and free and up to date entities. What you don't understand is that ”worst case scenario” research cannot have denier and believer and liar attached to it. And almost all of the study is about effects, not causes. Did you even know the CO2 theory in the first place? It goes like this and spare us your arm chair climatologist and personal definitions please. All of the scientists, all agree, both denier and believer alike, that there will 1-, be effects and 2-, the effects could range from negligible to none, to unstoppable warming (death in terms of reality). What's not to agree on? It was a free pass. We former believer voters, now the majority, will not accept the science at the voting booth and have done so with the help of a wave of former believer rage you see now. We believe CO2's effects are nothing, like farting in tornado. We know what pollution is, CO2 wasn't.

    • Obama has bailed and the IPCC is being dismantled by a democratically voted party. So hanging on to this CO2 mistake is seen now as unpopular and therefore unprofitable. That's how it works. And you faded doomers thought government bodies and academia were free from politics. Believer funding has dried up. Since you bow to the consensus myth, as making unstoppable warming true (you can't have a little crisis), why then are these thousands of consensus scientists out numbering any protesters? Why are they not on Oprha and CNN declaring an emergency? They have kids too.

  16. Here's what the most recent survey of climate scientists' opinions concluded:

    A 2010 paper in the proceedings of NAS of U.S. reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and resulted in the following two conclusions:

    (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

    In other words, only a very, very small percentage of crappy scientists are in denial.

    Take Patrick Michaels for example:

    It was recently reported that he lied to congress about where he received the $4,000,000 that he made last year for churning out rubbish. He flat out lied to congress when he told them that only about 3% of his pay comes from the oil and gas industry when in fact it was 40%.

  17. I will never forgive my fellow liberals who fear mongered billions of kids to a CO2 death just because we hate the neocons so much. WE have become the fear mongering neocons of CO2 environMENTALism.

  18. Climate Change was like calling strangulation an extended period of tightness around the neck area. These spineless climate pansies scaring our kids for 25 years didn't have the stones to call unstoppable warming what it was; DEATH.

    REAL planet loves are happy and relieved the crisis is averted.
    REAL progressives don't bow to a fat American politician promising to lower the seas and make the weather colder with TAXES.
    REAL civilized people don't threaten their kids with a CO2 death, just to get them to turn the lights out more often.
    REAL civilized people spread love, not fear with vague death threats like “SAVE THE PLANET!”
    REAL science includes “worst case scenario study” nothing was corrupt. It was a free ticket for *exaggeration. (*lies to the history books)
    Meanwhile, the UN had allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over a quarter of a century of climate control instead of needed population control.

  19. Taxpayer: " There is a fly in my soup."
    Climate Scientist: "Strange, considering you eat up anything else we dish out to you."

    Climate Scientist: "How sir, would he like his steak done sir?"
    Taxpayer: "Just cook things up the way you always do."

    Taxpayer: "The roast is really hot but the parsnips are cold."
    Climate Scientist: "And thus, clear evidence sir, that it IS warming."

    Taxpayer: "This lunch special was just an excellent meal. Will you be serving it again next week?"

  20. Climate Scientist: "We don't have a menu for next week, but we DO have a menu for the year 2153."

    Why did the climate change believer cross the road?
    He left his purse on the other side.

    Taxpayer: “I'll have a bowl of climate change please but can you heat it up this time?

    Climate Scientists are to Science as: what abusive priests and suicide bombers are to organized religion.

    How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
    None, but they DO have consensus that it WILL change!

    What do you call someone who condemns their very own children to a “death by CO2” and then bows obediently to a fat American politician promising to lower the seas and make the weather colder with taxes?
    A Climate Change believer.

    What do you call sitting in the dark for an hour once a year for Earth Hour with the lights turned out, texting friends, smoking pot and warming up a frozen pizza in the oven?

    What did the climate scientist find under some melting ice?
    Tropical fossils.

  21. I would propose that Canadians aren’t necessarily as concerned about climate change policy as these statistics seem to suggest. If Canadians care that much, it would follow that federal parties would make sure to include climate change policy stances on their websites. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have any such information online.  To me, this shows that they do not think that climate change policy is a concern for Canadian voters.

Sign in to comment.