Two-thirds of New Zealanders expect to see severe climate impacts in their area over the next 10 years, according to a new Ipsos poll released exclusively to Newsroom.
That’s up from the 44 percent who say they’re already experiencing climate impacts. Four in 10 respondents said they think it’s likely they will be displaced from their home as a result of climate change in the next 25 years.
“I think most of us would agree that the severe weather events in 2023 gave New Zealanders a new understanding of the impact climate change can have and this report shows that 44 percent of New Zealanders saw a severe impact of climate change in the area that they live, illustrating the impact that the Auckland floods and Cyclone Gabrielle had on our largest city as well as the devastation across the East Coast,” Carin Hercock, Ipsos NZ managing director, said.
“This real life experience has really impacted our long term view with more than two-thirds of New Zealanders expecting climate change to severely impact the area that they live in the next 10 years.”
Ipsos New Zealand polled 1000 people aged 18 to 74 between late September and early October. These results pre-date the results of the election, but align with polls taken by Ipsos in 30 other countries over the same period.
New Zealanders were less likely than the global average (57 percent) to say climate change was already having a severe impact on their area, but close to average on their worries about future effects.
The survey also found greater confidence in the Government’s response to climate change here than overseas.
Asked how much information the Government is providing to people to help them make better choices, 54 percent of Kiwi respondents said not enough was forthcoming and 36 percent said it was the right amount. That compares favourably with the global average of 59 percent who aren’t getting enough information from their governments and just 29 percent who are.
New Zealanders were similarly more likely than those overseas to say the Government keeps them well informed about climate impacts in their region (38 percent) versus not well informed (47 percent).
Respondents were roughly split on whether the Government was working very or fairly hard to tackle climate change (43 percent) or not hard enough or at all (48 percent). That still represented greater faith in the government policy response than the global average (36 percent).
Businesses also came in for scrutiny. Three in five Kiwi respondents said businesses were not providing enough information on climate. Less than a third thought businesses were working very or fairly hard to tackle the climate crisis.
New Zealanders were also more likely than average to say businesses make environmental claims without committing to real change (78 percent).
“There are quite widespread perceptions of greenwashing with 78 percent of New Zealanders believing that NZ businesses are at least occasionally (and 43 percent believe frequently/ all the time) making environmental claims without solid commitments,” Hercock said.
Just a quarter said news media were accurately representing the impacts of climate change, with another quarter saying the impacts were being exaggerated and 35 percent saying coverage underestimates the severity of the crisis.
Of the global findingsm, Lauren Demar, Ipsos’ global Chief Sustainability Officer, said: “As the world’s leaders gather at COP, this latest Ipsos research reveals a stark reality—with the majority of people not only witnessing the severe impacts of climate change but bracing for its escalation. A staggering seven in ten expect climate change will profoundly affect their local areas within the next decade.
“Our research underscores a critical disconnect. There is a pervasive sentiment that both governments and businesses are not matching the public’s concerns with equivalent levels of action and transparency.”
When you take the margin of error into account (assume it is around 3% for this sized poll) the only two graphed results where Aotearoa is different to the global average is severity of impacts now and how hard the government is working to tackle climate change.
On the later, we thought pre-election that the previous government was working harder on climate change than the global average would suggest. I expect this difference will disappear given the stated intent of this new government to reverse important mitigation and adaptation actions.
“There is a pervasive sentiment that both governments and businesses are not matching the public’s concerns with equivalent levels of action and transparency.”
Is this the same public who voted the current backward-looking government into power? The same public whose more affluent members are queuing up to resume international flying holidays and luxury cruises now the COVID restrictions have gone?
Do I sense cognitive dissonance? The tragedy of the commons? Blame deflection?
The excuses for inaction are well described in this article: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/discourses-of-climate-delay/7B11B722E3E3454BB6212378E32985A7
Our current disastrous trajectory will just accelerate until a clear majority of citizens are willing to get political and make their kids’ future a priority.
Hi Graham, an interesting article yesterday in The Guardian, regarding the damage bought about by wealth, the very thing governments continue to promote and support. And as you point out, it’s not only the extremely wealthy, it’s middle class wealth as well, people caught in the dichotomy between climate concerns and voting for tax breaks. This from George Monbiot, ‘There are many ways in which extreme wealth impoverishes us. The most obvious is money-spreading across our common ecological space. The recent reporting by Oxfam, the Stockholm Environment Institute and the Guardian gives us a glimpse of how much of the planet the very wealthy now sprawl across. The richest 1% of the world’s people burn more carbon than the poorest 66%, while multibillionaires, running their yachts, private jets and multiple homes, each consume thousands of times the global average. You could see it as another colonial land grab: a powerful elite has captured the resources on which everyone depends’.
The reality is that we face a global issue with climate change that can only be addressed by northern hemisphere countries. The emissions that are sourced from them are the singular cause of the problem. We can do no more than set an example, but there can be no doubt that what we (and all other southern hemisphere countries) can do will not itself address climate change. We can be the cleanest and greenest, but the weather bombs will continue unabated.
This central issue with this take on who’s responsible Brian is that it raises the totally unrealistic expectation that the northern hemisphere’s well-off population is going to be happy to make all the sacrifices necessary while they watch the southern hemisphere’s well-off continue on our merry way trashing the planet. Not going to work. We’re all going to have to address the crises.
Bill,
The fact is that the entire Northern Hemisphere will have to make the sacrifices needed to save itself. That it saves the rest of the world as well is of no direct consequence to them.
Brian you stated earlier that ‘… but there can be no doubt that what we (and all other southern hemisphere countries) can do will not itself address climate change’. Well of course not. No-one thinks that what we can do, by itself, will overcome the crises. You’re missing the point. We’re all citizens of a single planet. The crises will profoundly and adversely affect us all. We’re all responsible in banding together to solve the problem. No good whatsoever can come about by groups of us disassociating ourselves from attempts at reform to let someone else fix things whilst we actually do all we can to make their job more difficult. We would collectively become the ultimate global bludger. How do you see the new world order panning out if they (the northern reformists) were to be successful in stemming the crises? They designing a new economic model for themselves in order to prevent the crises restarting whilst we continue to trash our half of the planet? We’re still flying around our half of the planet in jets whilst they’re living sustainably? Our half of the biosphere, and this will actually be half, not some smaller percentage, would be totally destroyed in time. Then what? Who do we trade with? How do we then ask them to get us out of trouble? How do you see a future panning out for the Southern hemisphere?
Noble comments, Bill, but unrealistic. Russia, China and India in particular have not shown any inclination to accept this problem let alone address it. We are, unfortunately, doomed if the naysayers on climate change are correct that emissions reduction is required for us all to survive.
Yes, well the hypothetical picture I’ve painted is certainly an unrealistic one, not meant as a possible scenario, simply pointing out that all nations will have to be involved if there’s any solution to be had. Totally agree with you that the big three players aren’t interested, and they’re not on their own. A letter from the Scientist Rebellion group at Cop28 states that ‘No country is taking action in line with a 1.5C pathway’ so that basically shows that so far we’re getting nowhere. They want us all to become activists and pressure our governments, and point to the reality of a 3.0C world by the end of this century if we don’t act immediately. That’s the stupidity of not acting to curb our emissions isn’t it, we’re not going to be able to continue with the ‘good’ times anyway. We won’t have a healthy biosphere to support us by then. Might as well tighten our collective belts now and work towards salvaging some sort of sustainable existence.