World Public Opinion Assessing Governments on Climate Change July 29, 2009 Q33-CC1. How high a priority does the government place on addressing climate change? Please answer on a scale of 0-10 with 0 meaning “not a priority at all” and 10 meaning a “very high priority”. Mean Chile Mexico US France Germany Great Britain Poland Russia Ukraine Egypt Iraq Palest. ter. Turkey Kenya Nigeria China Hong Kong* Macau* India Indonesia S Korea Taiwan Average 5.07 5.51 3.84 5.42 7.02 5.92 5.89 4.57 2.18 5.23 3.65 4.18 4.69 4.29 5.43 7.31 4.67 4.60 5.41 5.85 4.61 4.80 5.06 Median 5 5 4 5 7 6 5 5 2 5 4 4 5 4 6 8 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 0-4 34 25 61 27 9 20 25 35 65 41 50 44 40 56 37 8 39 37 32 16 46 37 35 5 15 26 17 27 13 21 21 18 6 18 13 10 15 16 11 13 28 22 15 18 24 25 17 6 - 10 34 45 21 44 78 58 44 26 7 40 17 17 33 26 49 78 29 28 43 50 30 34 39 DK/ refused 17 5 1 2 0 1 10 20 21 2 19 29 11 3 3 2 4 13 10 15 1 4 9
1
Q34-CC2. Using the same scale, how high a priority do you think the government SHOULD place on addressing climate change? Mean Chile Mexico US France Germany Great Britain Poland Russia Ukraine Egypt Iraq Palest. ter. Turkey Kenya Nigeria China Hong Kong* Macau* Taiwan* India Indonesia S Korea Average 8.15 9.09 4.71 8.03 7.57 8.20 7.88 7.39 7.95 7.18 5.14 4.91 8.34 6.48 7.81 8.86 7.19 7.00 7.52 6.73 7.38 7.42 7.33 Median 9 10 5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 5 5 9 6 8 9 7 7 8 7 7 8 8 0-4 5 2 42 3 5 4 8 8 7 12 37 43 5 20 3 1 6 8 5 16 7 6 12 5 6 4 13 6 12 6 9 12 6 6 9 14 5 15 6 3 15 14 9 14 6 12 9 6 - 10 79 90 44 89 83 89 77 65 72 82 35 34 83 63 89 94 76 60 82 59 75 82 73 DK/ refused 11 4 1 3 0 1 6 15 16 0 19 9 8 2 2 2 4 18 4 11 12 0 6
2
Q35-CC3. What is your guess on how high a priority the average person in [Country] thinks the government should place on addressing climate change? Mean Chile Mexico US France Germany Great Britain Poland Russia Ukraine Egypt Iraq Palest. ter. Turkey Kenya Nigeria China Hong Kong* Macau* Taiwan* India Indonesia S Korea Average 6.49 7.98 3.71 6.77 6.47 6.52 6.25 7.22 7.76 6.65 5.05 6.21 6.98 6.31 7.49 6.05 6.55 6.57 6.88 6.76 6.34 4.98 6.42 Median 6 9 3 7 6 7 6 8 8 7 5 6 7 6 8 6 7 7 7 8 6 5 7 0-4 17 8 67 9 10 10 22 7 8 19 32 19 13 23 8 23 10 13 10 18 11 36 19 5 16 11 14 16 24 23 18 11 7 10 15 12 15 13 8 23 20 17 16 11 14 31 15 6 - 10 49 76 18 66 66 65 51 59 64 71 32 60 60 61 82 52 62 53 67 61 62 32 57 DK/ refused 18 5 0 9 0 3 10 23 21 1 22 9 12 3 3 2 7 17 6 11 14 1 9
3
CC1-CC2. Should your government place a higher priority on addressing climate change than it does? Should have a higher priority Chile Mexico US France Germany Great Britain Poland Russia Ukraine Egypt Iraq Palest. ter. Turkey Kenya Nigeria China Hong Kong* Macau* Taiwan* India Indonesia S Korea Average 62 79 52 76 46 77 54 56 68 60 39 29 65 71 70 62 67 52 77 43 53 81 60 Has placed the right priority 13 13 24 18 27 14 25 16 5 27 23 17 16 8 10 30 21 20 16 24 23 13 18 Should have lower priority 8 3 21 4 27 8 10 4 2 13 17 20 8 19 16 6 5 6 7 18 8 6 12 DK/Ref 18 5 2 3 0 1 10 23 24 2 20 34 11 3 4 2 6 23 0 16 16 1 10
4
CC2-CC3. Does individual perceive themselves differently from the public on how high a priority climate change should be? Individuals think they have a higher priority 42 38 52 49 52 66 49 22 15 37 28 18 40 40 36 77 38 26 35 23 47 75 42 Has the same priority as the public 29 45 22 29 38 18 27 35 50 39 20 15 37 19 30 16 40 36 47 29 27 16 28 Individuals think they have a lower priority 11 12 24 13 10 13 14 16 12 23 29 52 10 39 30 5 14 14 18 33 12 8 19
Chile Mexico US France Germany Great Britain Poland Russia Ukraine Egypt Iraq Palest. ter. Turkey Kenya Nigeria China Hong Kong* Macau* Taiwan* India Indonesia S Korea Average
DK/Ref 19 6 1 9 0 3 10 26 22 1 22 15 13 3 3 3 8 24 0 16 14 1 10
5
RESEARCH PARTNERS Country Chile Research Center MORI Chile Fudan Media and Public Opinion Research Center (FMORC), Fudan University Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme University of Macau Contact Dr. Marta Lagos mori4@morichile.cl +562 334 4544 Dr. Baohua Zhou zhoubaohua@yeah.net Dr. Robert Chung robert.chung@hku.hk +852 2859-2988 Dr. Angus, W.H. Cheong anguswhc@umac.mo +853 8397 4437 Mr. Yeh-Diing Wang ydwang@tvbs.com.tw +886-2-23568961 Mr. Mohamed Al Gendy mgendy@attitude-eg.com +202 22711262 Ms. Sandrine Hourlier sandrine.h@efficience3.com +33 3 26 79 07 97 Dr. Bernhard Rieder riquesta.rieder@t-online.de +49 (0)7641 934336 Dr. Robin Niblett rniblett@chathamhouse.org.uk +44 (0)20 7957 5702
China
Hong Kong
Macau
Taiwan
TVBS
Egypt
Attitude Market Research
France
Efficience 3
Germany
Ri*Questa GmbH
Great Britain
Chatham House (Royal Institute of International Affairs) /Facts International Centre for Voting Opinion & Trends in Election Research (CVoter) Synovate
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Asharq Research Center
Mr. Yashwant Deshmukh yashwant@teamcvoter.com 91 120 4247135 Ms. Eva Yusuf Eva.Yusuf@synovate.com (+62-21) 2525 608 Dr. Haitham Numan haitham@asharqcenter.com +964 770 444 6660
6
Kenya
Research Path Associates Limited
Mexico
Data OPM
Nigeria Palestinian territories Poland
Market Trends Research International
Palestinian Center for Public Opinion
CBOS
Russia
Levada Center
South Korea
East Asia Institute
Turkey
ARI Foundation / Infakto Research Workshop
Ukraine
Kiev International Institute of Sociology
United States
Program on International Policy Attitudes / Knowledge Networks
Mr. Jeremy Mwololo Jeremy.Mwololo@RPA.co.ke +254-20-2734770 Mr. Pablo Paras pp@dataopm.net (+55) 5575 1250 Mr. Michael Umogun m.umogun@research-intng.com + 234-1 791 79 87 Dr. Nabil Kukali kukali@p-ol.com (+972-2) 2774846 Dr. Miroslawa Grabowska m.grabowska@cbos.pl (+0-22) 693 47 25 / 693 46 93 Ms. Ludmila Khakhulina lkhahul@levada.ru (+7 095) 229-55-44 Mr. Han Wool Jeong hwjeong@eai.or.kr +82 2-2277-1683 Mr. Yurter Ozcan Yurter@arifoundation.org +1 (804) 868 0123 Dr. Emre Erdogan emre.erdogan@infakto.com.tr +90 212 231 07 08 Dr. Vladimir Illich Paniotto paniotto@kmis.kiev.ua (+38) 044 537-3376 / (+38) 044 501-7403 Dr. Stephen Weber sweber@pipa.org +1-202-232-7500 Dr. Michael Dennis mdennis@knowledgenetworks.com +1-650-289-2160
7
METHODOLOGY Country Chile China Hong Kong Macau Taiwan Egypt France Germany Great Britain India Indonesia Iraq Kenya Mexico Nigeria Palestinian territories Poland Russia South Korea Sample Size (unweighted) 1000 1006 1016 672 808 600 600 1008 600 1049 712 1235 1000 816 1000 500 1038 800 600 MoE (%) 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.8 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.2 4.1 3.1 3.7 2.8 3.2 3.5 3.2 4.5 3.1 3.5 4.1 Field dates Jun 25- Jul 9, 2009 May 14-21, 2009 Apr 27 – Jun 18, 2009 May 18-28, 2009 May 13-26, 2009 Apr 25 – May 12, 2009 May 25-29, 2009 Apr 29 – May 14, 2009 May 13 – Jun 4, 2009 June 4-6, 2009 May 12-21, 2009 Apr 29 – May 15, 2009 May 7-14, 2009 May 23 – Jun 12, 2009 May 31 – Jun 6, 2009 May 20 – Jun 1, 2009 May 27 – June 3, 2009 May 22-26, 2009 June 5, 2009 Survey methodology Face-to-face Telephone Telephone Telephone Telephone Face-to-face Telephone Telephone Telephone Face-to-face Face-to-face Face-to-face Face-to-face Telephone Face-to-face Face-to-face Face-to-face Face-to-Face Telephone Type of sample Urban 1 National 2
Representative of Hong Kong Representative of Macau Representative of Taiwan
Urban 3 National National National National 4 National 5 National 6 National National 7 National 8 National 9 National National National 8
Turkey Ukraine United States
720 1007 791
3.7 3.2 3.6
May 13-23, 2009 May 21-31, 2009 May 27 – Jun 4, 2009
Face-to-face Face-to-face Internet
National National National910
1 In Chile, the survey consisted of an urban sample conducted in 78 cities and communes and represents 85% of the Chilean population.
2
In China, the survey was a probability sample of urban and rural households with land-line telephones in the provinces of Anhui, Hebei, Heilongjiang, Hubei, Jiangsu, Shanxi, Shanghai, Sichuan, and Yunnan—representing approximately 60 percent of the mainland Chinese population. The sample was 40 percent rural, 60 percent urban (rural households make up approximately 55 percent of the population). In Egypt, the survey was executed in the urban areas of Cairo, Alexandria, Giza, and Subra. These four urbanized areas represent75 percent of Egypt’s urban population, which is 42 percent of the national population. In India, a face-to-face survey was conducted in urban and rural areas in 14 of the largest Indian states; these states comprise 77 percent of India’s population. The sample is 60 percent urban, India’s population is approximately 30 percent urban.
3
4
In Indonesia, a national probability sample was conducted in both urban and rural areas and covering approximately 87 percent of Indonesia’s population.
6 7
5
In Iraq, the survey was a national sample conducted across all 18 Iraqi provinces.
In Mexico, a random telephone sample of adults who had landline telephones was conducted in all 31 states and the Federal District. Telephone penetration in Mexico is 55 percent.
In Nigeria, the sample was developed by selecting six states, one per geographic region, based upon their size and representativeness. Within each state, sampling points were selected by means of a multi-stage random sample which disproportionately sampled urban areas. The final sample is 75 percent urban; Nigeria is approximately 50 percent urban.
9
8
In the Palestinian territories, a face-to-face national probability survey was conducted among the population of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.
In the United States, the poll was an online survey drawn from a nationally representative sample of the Knowledge Networks online panel. This panel is probabilistically-based, selected from the population of US telephone households and subsequently provided with an Internet connection if needed.
10
9