Posted on 11/20/2006 10:20:29 AM PST by presidio9
Europeans are overwhelmingly convinced that human activity is contributing to global warming, and a majority would be prepared to accept restrictions on their lifestyle to combat it, according to a poll for the Financial Times.
Research carried out this month by Harris Interactive in Germany, France, the UK, Italy and Spain found that 86 per cent of people believed humans were contributing to climate change, and 45 per cent thought it would be a threat to them and their families within their lifetimes.
ADVERTISEMENT More than two-thirds – 68 per cent – said they would either strongly or somewhat support restrictions on their behaviour and purchases in order to reduce the threat.
Climate change has been rising up the political agenda in Europe. The recent British government report by Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank, argued that the economic costs of global warming could be far greater than the costs of acting to limit it.
The poll also found Europeans were more willing to accept curbs on their lifestyles in principle than to endorse specific additional burdens.
Less than half – 43 per cent – either strongly or somewhat supported a charge on airline passengers to pay for environmental damage, while 36 per cent opposed it, either strongly or somewhat. Support was weakest in Italy and Spain, possibly because of fears about the effect on their tourist industries.
Only a minority were prepared to make significant financial sacrifices to eliminate the threat of global warming. A quarter said they would pay one week’s wages or more – roughly the 2 per cent of national income figure that Sir Nicholas Stern suggested rich countries might need to pay – but a third said they would not pay anything at all.
However, concerns about climate change and energy security have not translated into majority support for investment in new nuclear power stations.
Only 12 per cent of Europeans polled were strongly in favour of investment in new nuclear capacity, while a further 18 per cent were somewhat in favour – a total of 30 per cent. Almost as many – 29 per cent – strongly opposed new nuclear construction, with a further 17 per cent somewhat opposed.
There is also a remarkably deep gender divide, with a balance of men in favour of new nuclear building in France, Italy and the UK, but a majority of women opposed everywhere except the UK, where there is a large number neither for nor against.
Public opinion need not stand in the way of nuclear development. France is pressing ahead with a new reactor, which will go into construction next year, even though the poll shows just 29 per cent of the population supports it. But in Spain and Germany, where some in the industry hope government policy can be turned away from its official anti-nuclear stance, the high level of public opposition will provide a significant obstacle to a U-turn: 53 per cent of Germans and 62 per cent of Spaniards are against new nuclear building.
The answer, Europeans think, is renewables: 85 per cent believe their governments should spend more on renewable energy, while only a handful believe they should spend less. In France and Spain, more than 90 per cent backed more investment in renewables. The potential problem is the cost of that renewable energy.
Ahead of a summit of the leaders of the European Union and Russia at the end of this week, the poll also found widespread mistrust of Russia as an energy supplier. Only 21 per cent of Europeans believed Russia would be a reliable source of oil and gas in the future, while 35 thought it would not be.
"Quick! Dam up the Chunnel before it infects the sane Brits."
The Brits are hardly sane on this. It is the Brits that are pushing this Global Warming nonsense. Germany and the others historically are actually the followers of the Brits lead on the topic.
Are the two mutually exclusive?
I may be wrong on this, but I think that garbage in a landfill degrades very slowly. Basically, it just sits there very slowly decomposing. Composting speeds the process up significantly.
This is kind of an old article, but it has what I was looking for. It's about a researcher that digs into landfills researching what people throw away:
"Every three foot bucket of trash produces 10 to 30 readable newspapers, which does make it east for Rathje to date materials. In 15 landfill digs, Rathje said he has recovered 2,425 datable, readable newspapers. ... They have also recovered lettuce that was thrown out in 1991, a kaiser roll from 1981 and an 18-year-old ear of corn. Hot dogs often last 15 years."
Volcanoes aren't a significant source of greenhouse gases. Annually, SO2 (sulfur dioxide) emissions from volcanoes are about 1/4 of human emissions.
First, fix your punctuation. To answer your question, it depends on the dirt. The last time I looked, rotting vegetables don't morph into ground up rocks.
Uh, so the Europeans will accept $10 per gallon gas and 25% unemployment, then?
And what is CO2 from volcanoes? About 1 percent of human emissions?
You may want to re educate yourself on the dangers of Volcanos.
NASA's ozone monitoring instrument (OMI) onboard the Aura satellite detected SO2 emissions from the vicinity of Home Reef beginning on 8 August . . .. Emissions appear to have peaked sometime on 8-9 August, indicated by the large SO2 cloud detected east of Tonga on 9 August. The total SO2 mass detected by OMI on 9 August was ~25 kilotons. The emission episode was over by 15 August. HYSPLIT forward trajectories indicate that the SO2 released on 8 August may have reached altitudes of 5 km or more. To our knowledge this is the first example of satellite detection of emissions from a submarine volcano. (SI/uSGS GVP
another samll one
During 24-31 March, activity at Santa Ana decreased to low levels in comparison to the previous 4 months of moderate activity. During the report period, seismicity was at relatively low levels, steam plumes occasionally rose ~200 m above the volcano (or 8,400 ft a.s.l.), and the daily sulfur-dioxide flux was between 500 and 1,000 metric tons. The Alert Level remained at red, the highest level, within 5 km of the volcano's summit crater.
Sources: Servicio Nacional de Estudios Territoriales (SNET)- "Report provided courtesy of the Smithsonian's Global Volcanism Program and the US Geological Survey's Volcano Hazards Program."
Remeber the depression and the dust bowls? (maybe not:))
I believe the volcanos name was tamara, it left Africa, Europe and the US without much of a harvest for over 3 years. It decreased temperatures by 4 degrees celcius on average.
Try to watch that program about Yellowstone. It is amazing if that one were to erupt, we wouldn't hVE TO WORRY ABOUT THE WORLD OVERPOPULATING.
SORRY, THAT SHOUND BE WHEN, NOT IF
What was my punctuation error?
I do not believe dirt is simply ground up rocks, it includes a great deal more composition than that.
"Chesterton was right (if apocryphal) - once people stop believing in God, they don't start believing in nothing, they start believing in ANYTHING.
"
Love that quote !!
According to the source I quote all the time, less than that -- 0.67%.
I hit some links about landfill mining while trying to find that thing about persistence in a landfill. Landfill mining is an idea whose time will come.
That's probably not necessary.
As I noted, SO2 emissions from volcanoes are, on average, annually, about 1/4 of human emissions. A large eruption like Pinatubo can increase this for a given year, but not something as small as Home Reef. CO2 is not SO2.
Tambora's immense eruption was in 1815; the "year without a summer" was in 1816. The Dust Bowls were in the 1930s, so there was no relationship to the Tambora eruption.
I agree that a full-scale Yellowstone eruption would have the potential to disrupt human civilization significantly. The odds of it happening tomorrow vs. 10,000 years from now, or anytime in between, are about the same.
Euro-peons have accepted the dull, rusty blade of Mohammet at their collective throat.
They'll accept anything.
.
Has science now become a matter of opinion and consensus?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.