The Wrong Questions

WWViews, a worldwide consultation on global warming, failed to dig past the surface in its search for climate change solutions.

On September 26, there was a consultation on global warming (WWViews) that included 44 citizen meetings in 38 countries all across the world. The results were meant to inform the UN Climate Change negotiations (COP15), that will be taking place in Copenhagen from December 7 to 18, 2009. Although this project is admirable, I feel that the questions asked did not cover enough ground and could have led to more guidance.

The 12 questions were the following:

1. To what extent were you familiar with climate change and its consequences before joining WWViews?
2. Having been presented with various assessments of climate change and its consequences, to what extent are you concerned about climate change?
3. How urgent do you think it is to make a global climate deal?
4. If a new climate deal is made at COP15, should the politicians in your country give high priority to joining it?
5. What should be the long-term goal for limiting temperature increase?
6. Should countries that do not meet their commitments under a new climate deal be subjected to punishment?
7. Do you think the short-term reduction target for developed countries should be?
8. What do you think the short-term target should be for Non-Annex 1 countries with substantial economic income and/or high emissions?
9. What do you think the short-term target should be for lower-income developing countries?
10. Should the price of fossil fuels be increased?
11. Should a global financial system be instituted in order to generate funds for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries?
12. Which countries should be committed by a new climate deal to pay?

While the organizers felt that the results were illuminating, I think that the consultation failed to cover many important issues. Worldwide, 53 per cent of participants state that they had some knowledge of climate change. However the survey does not delve any deeper into what people actually know about climate change, such as local problems, the global situation, what areas will be impacted most, and proposals on how to fix things. Similarly, 62 per cent state that they are very concerned with climate change, but the questions did not allow participants to state exactly what concerns them. Different people could be worried about different things.

The background material that the participants received talks about different techno interventions, including the further development of “low carbon technologies,” increasing “energy savings and “energy efficiency,” the use of renewable energy sources, the use of nuclear power, CO2 capture, and even the possibility of geoengineering as a last resort.

However the questions do not ask the participants about their sentiments towards these different technologies and in which mix they should be used. The survey talks about goals to limit temperature increases and decrease greenhouse gas emissions, but does not ask the participants how they would prefer to achieve this. We should be asking people about the energy mix they want and to highlight the solutions they favour. Perhaps the most glaring omission is a social group angle.

It assumes that low- or high-income countries are homogenous and that different groups are not impacted differently within low- or high-income countries. I have shown elsewhere that there is a difference. The webpage states that the roughly 4,400 citizens who participated in WWViews were carefully chosen to reflect the demographic diversity of their respective nations or regions. However, looking at the list of participants at the different events, I would question whether they were a true representation of their area. As usual, they omitted marginalized groups in the different countries.

I hope that a follow-up consultation takes place that allows for greater diversity in the participants, and generates an insight as to what specific solutions people would actually prefer.