Canada: 9 in 10 Fear Their Lifestyle is Not Sustainable
by Michael Graham Richard, Gatineau, Canada on 04. 2.06
James Hoggan and Associates conducted a survey of 2,500 Canadians and found that about 9 out of 10 "fear that over-consumption of the world’s resources threatens the health and welfare of their children — and lack of government leadership is the biggest cause of the problem". More than 8 out of 10 would want "stricter laws and regulations to support a more sustainable economy that protects and manages the country’s resources for future generations". More of the survey's findings after the jump.
- 92% of Canadians surveyed agree Canada should phase in mandatory standards requiring all new buildings and appliances to deliver 50% more energy efficiency within 10 years
- 83% agree Canada should reduce taxes on income, payroll and investment, and replace these with taxes on pollution and depletion of natural resources
- 82% agree Canada should introduce laws to promote denser, walkable cities that would make public transit more practical and reduce traffic congestion.
The survey was conducted in all Canadian provinces except Quebec between February 14 and 21, 2006 (and Quebec is one of the most eco-sensitive provinces in the country, so the results might have been even higher).
Hoggan also said companies and organizations need to do a better job of explaining the term "sustainability". The survey found that 53 per cent of respondents were not familiar with the term "sustainability", and 70 per cent of respondents could not define the term."Most Canadians don’t know what sustainability means. The term means different things to different people. The result is that most companies and organizations are talking to themselves and a small group of insiders when they use the term," said Hoggan.
"You can’t influence an audience until you understand where they are on an issue," said Hoggan. "This research goes a long way to identifying Canadians’ values on sustainability and addressing barriers and how to overcome them. This is important because as public opinion goes, so goes sustainability."
That interesting. We, at TreeHugger, will have to keep trying to explain the basics of what sustainability is...
The research found that once the term sustainability was defined, over 80% of Canadians ranked sustainability as a high or top national priority.
Because it is obviously worth it.
Via ::CSRWire
While I think this is an important survey, and the results are hopeful, you always have to be skeptical about this kind of thing, because very often the results are determined by the way the questions are asked. For example, when asked if the government should spend more money on enforcing environmental standards, almost everyone would say yes. But when asked if the government should divert money from X (be it an increase in taxes, cuts to funding for the arts, etc.) to enforcing environmental standards, the results are often very different. Either way though, I think this survey shows that education about issues of sustainability and the environment is key.
To the credit of Canadians - I wonder what the same survey would come up with in the U.S.??
While searching for some American survey info, I did just find this link from the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. If this truly reflects Americans' general mood, then the 2006/2008 elections may get very interesting for THers. As an American myself, I suspect this survey represents some kind of majority reality - or you would not see Mr. In-The-Pocket-Of-Legacy-Energy Bush out stumping on behalf of alternative energy.
On a tangent, while googling I stumbled upon this great read from The Economist back in 2002. Best bit: "...how many planets will it take to satisfy China's needs if it ever achieves profligate America's affluence?"
Interesting links, ProGrrl. Thanks for sharing your research with us.
It's great that such a majority think someone else (ie. the government) should be doing something about sustainability.
Lack of government leadership is not the biggest problem. Taking responsibility for your own actions is the biggest problem. We can all do our own little bit at home to contribute to a sustainable future.
That was my first thought too, Andrew, but I guess that we can't expect everybody to be leaders (unfortunately).
A certain portion of the population will almost always "follow the leader", and if our governments - in a unique position to make big changes happen - don't show any environmental leadership, it's harder to reach the tipping point and to reach these people who won't do the research on their own.
Not impossible, but it sure would move faster with a push from the big players (imagine an Apollo-type project but for sustainability) instead of having them try to maintain the status quo and help out their big industry friends.
The opinion that lack of government leadership is the biggest problem is not mutually exclusive to taking personal action. Having grown up in British Columbia, I can vouch not only for personal action but grassroots community action. To jump back to the US - when you consider that the US military may be the most polluting organization in the world - or the governmental role in creating current mass transit systems - or simply use of resources by the federal government, from paper use in the treasury building next door to travel by US government officials - it starts to become much more understandable for someone to think that lack of government leadership is the biggest problem.
Why didn't they ask their survey in Quebec? Did we separate and I didn't even notice?
Probably because they didn't have French-speaking employees to make the calls.
Is TreeHugger sustainable?
It earns $$ from ads that promote consumption. We can't consume our way to sustainability no matter how you define it.
It's trendy to be green and a lot of green efforts are poorly informed. How many readers and commenters educate themselves on both sides of environmental issues? Ill-informed opinionated greenies don't progress the cause of sustainability much, no matter how sweet or innocent their intentions.
TH never pretended that everybody should be hermits.
What we're saying is: If you're going to buy something, be aware of the consequences of that action, be informed about it and pick the best choice. Vote with your wallet and encourage those that are improving on the old unsustainable models.
People are going to move from point A to point B whether we at TH want it or not, so we might as well tell them about bikes, scooters, hybrids, public transportation, telecommuting, etc.
The point is to move people's habits and thinking in the right direction and constantly improve, even if it isn't immediately perfect.
Shouldn't there be a 'don't buy it unless you really need it cos we can't consume our way to sustainability' warning on every post for a consumer item? There are many 'wants' making up the bulk of TH posts, further encouraging greener trendy purchases - ie slightly greener conspicuous consumption.
We respect the intelligence of our readers and won't start to put warning signs everywhere. We do write often about the evils of overcomsumption and the benefits of frugality, but being as redundant as you ask would just be condescending.