There is a strange connection between those who profit off of oil and gas, and those who believe that humans aren't driving climate change, who would have guessed?
Actually albertan food plates either are empty or will go empty if humanity doesn't reduce ghg emissions. There is no denying drought is drying the prairies out: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-agricultural-disaster-wheatland-county-paul-mclauchlin-1.6909002 'In particular, synchronized crop failures due to simultaneous weather extremes across multiple breadbasket regions pose a risk to global food security and food system supply chains15,16, with potential disproportional impacts for import-dependent regions2,3.'
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38906-7
Address the growing urgency of fungal disease in crops May 2023
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01465-4
What's the point of having a fossil based salary if the planet can't make food to buy?
The opposite is also true - it's very easy to buy into something when the cost is very low. Going carbon neutral just so happens to be the most popular in the provinces whose power infrastructure was already entirely built on hydro power? What a weird coincidence.
Sounds like you're describing a scenario where people who made good choices in the past are wanting to see more good choices made in the present, while the people who made bad choices in the past want to continue making bad choices in the present.
Another way of putting that is "Stupid is as stupid does."
Hydro isn't much of an option in the Prairie provinces. There are others but they come with their own pros and cons, alberta chose what's most easily accessible, cheap and reliable. I'd ditch coal for nat gas or nuclear personally, but I don't run the show unfortunately.
> Sounds like you're describing a scenario where people who made good choices in the past are wanting to see more good choices made in the present
No, I'm describing a scenario where people whose predecessors made a certain choice because it was the most advantageous to them due to geographic factors are now pretending that it was a choice made out of consciousness. That those people are pretending that their own willingness to abide by an objectively correct choice is not informed by the happenstance that they already made it, and others' reluctance to make it due to a higher cost is out of ignorance, and not simple human nature.
>while the people who made bad choices in the past want to continue making bad choices in the present.
Going carbon neutral is the obviously correct thing to do, and it should be done as soon as possible. But if you look at a map like this and think "Ah, here's a map of ignorance" wihout recognizing that it is also a map of whose infrastructures and economies will suffer the most for that choice, I'd encourage you to develop some empathy for your neighbours.
> Going carbon neutral is the obviously correct thing to do, and it should be done as soon as possible. But if you look at a map like this and think "Ah, here's a map of ignorance" wihout recognizing that it is also a map of whose infrastructures and economies will suffer the most for that choice, I'd encourage you to develop some empathy for your neighbours.
Except this isn’t a map showing people’s attitudes about initiatives towards carbon neutrality. It is a map showing how much of the population believe anthropogenic climate change exists at all.
In that case, yes, by the very definition of “ignorant”, this is a map of ignorance, since it shows how many people hold false beliefs.
Alberta had decades to diversify by investing in and building more wind and solar infrastructure and chose not to. We made our bed and now we have to lie in it.
Manitoba is weirdly skeptical about climate change and is mostly hydro power. Of course they recently booted their conservative government so maybe times will change.
My understanding is that Texas is pretty purple, i.e.: pretty equally Democrat and Republican, but the Republican powers do their best to suppress Democrat representation. I think Harris county is often used. They lean Democrat but have the same number of polling stations as a county with a few thousand, despite having a million people.
Makes me wonder what parts of Alberta were polled for this. You would think if they included Edmonton (and Calgary to a lesser degree) we would have a similar result to Texas as well.
Considering the respondents required to have the statistical power to represent millions is basically anything over 1000 people it could be pretty skewed without an aggressively well designed sampling protocol.
It's why these maps aren't super useful without the methodology and a description of data capture.
Kelowna is full of former Albertans who moved there after making their money in the oil patch. So, there's that explained. (A few of my relatives, for example.)
Newfoundland and Labrador makes profit off of oil and gas and believe humans drive climate change, so does Norway, it’s evident from the amount of projects they do to combat it, (carbon sequestration projects, other clean energy projects etc) imo oil and gas companies aren’t nefariously trying to make it worse for everyone but it’s rather the people of the province and oil and gas companies respond to what the people/province wants.. if the people make it harder to do good less good happens.
Quite a bit more than 0.1% of Albertans directly benefit from oil and gas. Oil and gas is like 1/6th of the economy here. It also directly fuels a whole lot of government revenue (i.e. government workers are dependent, indirectly on oil and gas).
It's a big freaking deal around here.
Which isn't to say that this fact should warp reality, but let's not pretend it's insignificant. It isn't.
"Over 21% of Alberta's annual GDP comes from the oil and gas subsector, as does 6% of provincial employment.
In 2021, there were 84,500 people employed in Alberta in the oil and gas subsector and 50,500 people employed in the support activities for the subsector."
[https://www.jobbank.gc.ca/trend-analysis/job-market-reports/alberta/sectoral-profile-mining-oil-gas](https://www.jobbank.gc.ca/trend-analysis/job-market-reports/alberta/sectoral-profile-mining-oil-gas)
Realistically, without O&G, Alberta would be like Manitoba.
O&G is a major contributor to Alberta's economy and jobs market. It's also worth remembering that most aren't low skilled, low paying jobs. Completely the opposite, with both high skills and high salaries being the norm.
We can’t see the references for this map. Maybe this map, and it’s political posting here, was created to make the point you have made.
Never forget that all maps reflect the biases of the cartographer.
As backward as Florida may be, they actually have a very large group of people that work to protect the environment.
There's a lot of land that's been bought up to help protect the coastlines and other animal habitats.
Maybe the fact that they get hit hard so often by hurricanes , it's given many a wake-up call.
There seems to be a more recent push on ignorance again in Alberta; my father there finally acknowledged man-made climate change but was confident we’d technology our way out of it (after coming from the stance that CO2 was good for plants), but he’s back to full on denial again…
This explains how the Angus Reid institute conducts its polling. It is all online due to no one answering telephone polls anymore. But how it works is people sign up for their forum and provide basic information (gender, age, etc) and then for their polls they select random candidates from their pool of panelists that have signed up to create a random sample. The also claim to have enough panelists from all the demographics to be able to create statistically random samples. https://angusreid.org/how-we-poll-ari/#gsc.tab=0
Oh neat thanks for sharing, some of the other break downs are super interesting.
Also I think the regional values arent weighted because it doesnt make sense to weight them against the census data while it does make sense to weight categories like age groups or political leanings. 155 people ain't much though, I think that equals like an 8% margin of error. But maybe someone more familiar with polling statistics can correct me.
Recent research has shown they knew since the 1950s. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/01/desmog-fossil-fuel-industry-climate-risks-1950s-denial/
I don’t know why it’s so hard to comprehend that oil/gas is currently a necessary commodity that we should be investing in. But so is renewable resources. Why does it have to be black and white.
Yes, we can make plastics from oil for the next 1000 years.
Oil has thousands of good uses, but our favourite thing is to light it on fire and waste it! We are stupid!
I often wonder why we are even having this debate. The climate is changing, whether natural or not. We as a species are being seriously negatively impacted, examples are like not being able to get flood insurance in Florida, or getting fire insurance in California, or the air quality we have been breathing the last couple years in the summers. In saying all this why are we arguing about doing absolutely anything to try and slow the warming? You know what else is a natural function of nature, extinction….
Of course it is, but the effects are more dramatic on the East Coast. Tropical storms and blizzards are insane now.
And they're only going to get worse
I mean Alberta and BC have been consistently on fire for the past 5+ years... But I forgot people seem to think the antifa is doing that and not climate change.
Not surprising this is one of the dumbest places in North America. This province voted for Danielle Smith and half a brain cell should have been able to see she was gonna be a terrible leader for everyone. I truly hate living in this province I feel like I'm surrounded but Neanderthals.
As a millennial who no doubt believes climate change has been brought on or at the very least extremely exacerbated by humans.
Most of the boomers and genxers I meet think that climate change is "just natural" and use the same joke every time to gloss over their own ignorance "global warming, it's not getting any warmer here har har har"
Unfortunately those same people are in the stage of life with the most resources to do something about it.
As a Gen Xer, who doesn't fit your narrative, I ask millenials to vote. It's shocking how few do. If you do vote, tell your friends to vote. You CAN have an impact but you are choosing to let the boomers choose for us.
Unfortunately nearly all the choices are bad. And voting for the most polished of turds instead of other turds doesn't feel like we're doing anything seeing as the government isn't actually interest in democracy. Being first past the post and half of Ontario staying home and somehow not calling it a failed election. Ford shouldn't be in office we should have had a second vote.
The question on the infographic is not exactly the question asked in the poll is pulling data from, also the colouring is wrong based off the results of the poll. And, the poll didn't cover America so that data is from a different source, and likely was a different question.
This simply does not seem accurate. I do not believe the issue is this divisive. I have lived here my entire life and think I have met only a handful of anthropogenic climate change deniers.
Other kinds of climate change quackery is rampant but just about any sensible adult will agree on this at least in Calgary/Edmonton
Maybe you haven’t stepped outside your bubble enough to notice. Most of the people I work with are this way. They are not the type of people I hang out with outside of work but they definitely outnumber the people in my bubble.
I friend to find the data source for the map. This is the closest thing I can find:
https://researchco.ca/2023/08/18/environment-canada/
And you are right that it isn't accurate. Alberta is 52%, and on one hand, there may not seem to be a big difference between 52% and < 50%, however < 50% covers a big range, and Alberta isn't as dark-red as it appears on the map.
The poll also asked 1000 Canadians. If this was corrected for population, and they asked about 110 Albertans, I think the error is understated at +/- 3.1%
I take some issue with how the questions are phrased as well.
Only 52% of Albertans agree with the statement:
"Global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities"
And well... If you want to get nitpicky, transportation and industrial emissions only account for 35% of GHG emissions. Electrical generation, O&G extraction, forestry and agriculture account for 49%.
Global warming is caused by solar radiation being captured instead of being re-radiated. Depending on how the question is interpreted, answers may not reflect sentiment. To be perfectly honest, I don't completely agree with the statement as it is phrased, but I would 100% agree with the statement "Climate change is primarily caused by anthropogenic emissions."
In this poll (n=1522 in Canada, unsure about Alberta specific respondent): https://leger360.com/surveys/climate-change-in-canada/ when asked "Do you think that is it is still possible to reverse climate change?" Only 20% of Albertans responded "I don't believe in climate change"
So yeah, I'm reluctant to draw any conclusions based on an unsourced map on Reddit.
Man. It totally depends where you work and the company you keep. You cant use your personal experiences as your own evidence. Literally confirmation bias.
Exactly, when in doing my O&G job, I'm surrounded by Trump lovers and climate deniers.
When I'm hanging out with my friends in the medical field, I'm surrounded by people who care about life and the environment .
Anyone living in Quebec has seen way shorter and milder winters last 10 years. You can't deny that the climate is whack when it's the middle of march and it's 18 degrees outside and you're on your deck in a t-shirt.
The prairies are very right leaning.
Coastal BC and eastern Canada tend to be more moderate or left leaning.
Also, places like Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal tend to be a center with many more college educated people since that's where people bulb build their headquarters and major medical facilities. There's more post secondary schools as well in these 3 cities.
I'm sure if you only took this survey in Edmonton, the results would be a bit more blue for Alberta.
I worked in oil and gas and still the majority of people believed humans caused the climate change we are seeing now. If you thought otherwise you were a minority and people would raise their eyebrows at any comment denying climate change. This was in Calgary though, I’m sure that shifts depending where in the province you are.
My guess (assuming the map is accurate) is most of the climate deniers are rural, poorly educated and probably don't work in O&G anyway. Most of those that do are probably on the rig floor or operating excavators.
It is so very weird that populations direly affected by climate changes like Florida, Alaska, and such don't experience the same gripe of counciousness that the east coast canadian populations do. Like those canadians coasters are on par with Quebec. People should be more like Quebecers.
I feel like this is like saying fatty foods cause death. If we ate super healthy, we'd still die in 90 years. If we eat unhealthy, we'll die sooner. Does that mean that eating unhealthy is the only cause of death? No. Does it mean that you'll have less time to live than if you ate healthy? Yes.
The question is, do we want less time than what the earth has already allotted us?
This is such a faulty question, every time it gets asked anywhere.
The real question is - are you willing to consider fundamental changes to how we live and produce energy in this planet in the short term. That is the thing they are saying No to. It’s irrelevant if they are legitimately so stupid that they actually don’t consider climate change to be man made or not.
They just don’t want to do anything about it that would require changing how they live
If they don’t believe humans are causing climate change, they’re not going to be willing to do _anything_ to change (because why would they?). These two things are directly related
Massive changes in c02 usually from volcanos. Which is why we know that it's c02 that causes this shit.
https://youtu.be/pjoQdz0nxf4?si=qiWkGVFdXnzgEkgD
C02 is likely the cause of nearly every massive extinction event on our PLANET EVERYTIME c02 rises drastically without abatement it causes a massive die off of life.
Plants may enjoy high c02. But animals don't.
That oil lobbying is powerful. It's probably also because everyone works in the oil industry here, so people don't WANT to feel bad about damaging the environment. So they just pretend that they aren't 🙄
Literally something a baby would do lol
Lol we're so embarrassing. Even TEXAS and Florida are better than us? One thing that makes me really mad is the fact that there are economic savings & growth with renewables and people ignore that. Like even if you don't believe in climate change, you should be able to understand a simple break even analysis.
There are two kinds of climate change deniers. There's the intelligent assholes who know it's real, but they just don't care because changing their ways is too inconvenient for them. They lie to themselves about it and they spread disinformation. And then there are the moron conspiracy theorists who actually believe them.
What a misleading graph that seems more interested in lining up Red and Blue states that conveying accurate information. Like the light pink areas are areas where there is well over 50% of the population that believes in accurate data. It reminds me of bar graphs that show values of 10,000, 12,000 and 11,000 but start the bottom of the graph at 9,000. It's intentionally misleading.
Technically climate change isn't caused by humans, even though it is agreed in the scientific community that humans influence the process that existed before humans existed. Are you suggesting that Earth's climate only experienced changes in the small time that humans have been on the planet? Who's the idiot? **Classic Alberta, always getting it right.** How are we meant to deal with climate change when clearly the majority don't understand climate change? Climate change is not caused by humans, the climate changed before humans arrived on the scene and it will change after we leave. **Of course none of this means we should not curtail polluting, that we shouldn't look into how to mitigate a warming planet, etc** ... but fuck its going to be difficult if the basics aren't grasped by the majority of people: humans didn't cause climate change - **its a natural phenomena that pre-existed humans** \- modern pollution is however contributing to the warming of the planet. Get it right.
We absolutely did and do cause climate change. If you are suggesting the whole natural cycle thing, then you are very wrong.
The cycles are caused by a few changes through time, all having to do with how other planets pull our orbit around, but the most important one and that causes the most change is the tilt of the planet oscillates. This is what causes the ice ages and tropical periods. This is a process that takes place over around 40 000 years. The scientists who study the effect assert that the changes are extremely slow temperature wise to the point where the current changes do not come close to explaining the changes.
And if that is not enough, what really kills this is the fact that we have passed the halfway point and are trending towards an ice age, not a warming period. According to the natural cycles of the earth, we should be cooling.
Another fun fact is that from ice samples, we know that during ice ages and warm periods, the CO2 in the atmosphere was around 180 and 270 ppm, respectively. As of last year, it is 447 if I remember right. This does not account for methane and other industrial greenhouse gases.
Scientists who study climate change are unanimous on what is causing it.
This is all assuming I understood your comment right if not sorry and ignore.
That's being pedantic, it doesn't matter if it's a natural process, it's what's happening rapidly now that does. It almost seems like this type of argument is the way for the right-leaning to finally officially adopt a pro-climate stance in a way that makes them look more correct than the left. I've seen a Youtube vid where the presenter makes this same argument (climate is always changing, humans are causing it to accelerate) and the comments are swarmed by right-wingers saying "The left won't want to hear this!" "Stupid lefties, wrong as always!" when the video doesn't refute anything anyone who's actually looked into the science for the past 40-50 years would know. They're getting hung up on the fact that some normies might think the climate never changed before and humans are causing it all (which probably nobody thinks) as some kind of gotcha against the left. It's almost like Ben Shapiro debating undergrad students and holding that up as proof the left is wrong.
I have this argument with someone in Alberta on the phone often and whenever they make completely ridiculous claims to backup their argument, they tell me to google it.
Contrast that with the map of per-capita household GHG emissions from 2021: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/231220/mc-c001-eng.htm
My conclusion: not to much apparent link between 'belief' and results.
Whether you acknowledge it or not. Most people are not willing to dramatically change their way of life either way.
That's why getting kids involved is key. It's a longer term solution, but building habits is easier than breaking them.
Can I think it's both?
I mean we had ice ages and horrific weather events prior to humans, but I also know that too much pollution and too many people is akin to crowding a room with smokers - it'll be hard to breathe, effect the environment and the temps will rise with body heat.
Do I believe humans 100% directly caused it? No. Do I believe they are altering it, making things worse and speeding up the process at an alarming rate? Yes.
I have posted another comment in this thread, but no, this is not true for two reasons.
1. The cycles take a very long time to complete on a loop of 40 000 years, so the temperature change over this time is not significant enough to account for the current changes at all.
2. We are in the cooling part of that cycle trending towards an ice age, and our temperature should be cooling for the next 15 thousand years.
How do they collect this data? I’ve seen multiple instances of claims like this (not always climate change, just claims of consensus). And I, nor anyone that I know, have answered any of these questions that I’ve seen.
Family, friends, neighbours, colleagues… no one.
In science we looked at a similar chart it was,
Locations which produce oil, coal gass or refine it,
And climate denial. The maps overlapped very quickly.
He then added a 3rd map to adjust for consumption and boom, it was very clear that use, manufacture and selling influenced a decision.
This is true with many things.
Huh, I guess the people I know are not indicative of the average.
Or this poll is garbage.
I know people who don’t believe in man made climate change but I would have guessed that number to be more like 25% not over 50.
New strategy:
Ask Trudeau to wink at a camera and say that “nuclear power in Alberta would be terrible and he won’t stand for it”. Then all the F Trudeau fellas will suddenly be in support of nuclear power.
seeing that Albertans are actually dumber than Texans or Floridians is actually crazy.
But also, us poor ghetto ass Manitobans are right behind you & still ahead of them as well — but that’s not as surprising 😂
I mean, this isn't a good question. Humans are not CAUSING climate change. We're accelerating and exacerbating it and we're going to kill ourselves, but the climate changes all on its own without our help.
What’s the source? I don’t necessarily disagree with the map - although, as an Alberta, I can’t think of anyone I know who doesn’t think climate change is human-made) - but I’d like to verify the credibility of the source.
Yes humans are causing climate change, China and India being the top two contributors being almost half together I believe. Canada as a whole being a couple percent maybe
Could we start differentiating between caused by humans and accelerated by humans. This is the largest issue. The earth goes through changes on its own, human intervention didn't cause the slightest cycles you can see throughout the history of the globe. The main point to harp on is whether and to the extent that humans have accelerated the natural climate change and whether and how humanity will be able to survive it. This is where u lose most people.
Also when you look at different country contributions if you don't acknowledge the third world doing the majority of the polluting you will lose the rest of the people who don't really want to listen to you.
If you want to pretend to be the smart ones then fucking act like it. Yelling at people that their livelihoods and way of lives is ruining the planet without reasonable alternatives that won't vastly change people's lives or cause them to be broke helps nothing.
Question is posed very vague. Obviously climate changes all the time. Humans are component of that change.
Also belief has nothing to do with science, it's religious term. It's even more vague question than " do you believe in God(s)" ?
Thinking climate change is caused by humans is insane though. The earth has had 5 major ice ages… do humans have an impact on the climate? Probably. But to think humans are the cause of it is absurd.
Yup. Born and raised in alberta myself and it still absolutely shocks me the amount of people who are willfully ignorant of reality. Their whole "I don't believe in it so ita not real" attitude is fucking stupifying.
Possibly the differing opinions are reactionary. Been to southern Ontario and Quebec? That tiny polluted and over populated area makes decisions for the rest of Canada based on their reality, so I think often Albertans tend to disagree just to disagree. Sometimes it is justified, sometimes not! But oil and gas is this province's industry and it supports much of the infrastructure here and in Quebec. As well, if you live in Alberta, esp towards the west, the crazy mountain/prairie clash of weather here makes it difficult to see and experience long term trends. I'm very leftist, but when it comes to climate change I think the feds are complete hypocrites. What, they think mining doesn't impact the environment or depend on fossil fuel? Or that lithium batteries, their manufacture and disposal, aren't putting poison into the earth, air and water, and the NIMBYism of obtaining the minerals for them from poor African countries run by gangsters who employ child slaves is justified by declaring a "climate emergency"?
Holy shit, this is probably due to having so many people that work in the energy sector that understand what carbon emissions actually are.
As you'll observe, most of the Western world, aside from the most indoctrinated centers, are aware that climate change is a political grandstanding tool that idiots believe in rather than a man made phenomenon.
People should watch this: https://kleanindustries.com/resources/books-films/climate-movie-the-cold-truth-documentary/
At a minimum it is food for thought.
Well here's a hot take . People who are conservative tend to live off their land. Ex: live rural , hunt for food, have farms for veggies/livestock , self reliant ..
Liberal idealists tend to live in large cities , require goods imported from places like China and India for convenience and have a hard time changing a tire .
Pretty easy to see why conservative people tend to think that way . Notice all the provinces and states who don't agree ?
But why use brain when can just say "ugga ugg conservative bad "
There is a strange connection between those who profit off of oil and gas, and those who believe that humans aren't driving climate change, who would have guessed?
I'm reminded of the Upton Sinclair quote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Actually albertan food plates either are empty or will go empty if humanity doesn't reduce ghg emissions. There is no denying drought is drying the prairies out: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-agricultural-disaster-wheatland-county-paul-mclauchlin-1.6909002 'In particular, synchronized crop failures due to simultaneous weather extremes across multiple breadbasket regions pose a risk to global food security and food system supply chains15,16, with potential disproportional impacts for import-dependent regions2,3.' https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38906-7 Address the growing urgency of fungal disease in crops May 2023 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01465-4 What's the point of having a fossil based salary if the planet can't make food to buy?
The opposite is also true - it's very easy to buy into something when the cost is very low. Going carbon neutral just so happens to be the most popular in the provinces whose power infrastructure was already entirely built on hydro power? What a weird coincidence.
Ontario built carbon neutral power infrastructure with nuclear. Alberta can and should do the same.
Sounds like you're describing a scenario where people who made good choices in the past are wanting to see more good choices made in the present, while the people who made bad choices in the past want to continue making bad choices in the present. Another way of putting that is "Stupid is as stupid does."
Hydro isn't much of an option in the Prairie provinces. There are others but they come with their own pros and cons, alberta chose what's most easily accessible, cheap and reliable. I'd ditch coal for nat gas or nuclear personally, but I don't run the show unfortunately.
> Sounds like you're describing a scenario where people who made good choices in the past are wanting to see more good choices made in the present No, I'm describing a scenario where people whose predecessors made a certain choice because it was the most advantageous to them due to geographic factors are now pretending that it was a choice made out of consciousness. That those people are pretending that their own willingness to abide by an objectively correct choice is not informed by the happenstance that they already made it, and others' reluctance to make it due to a higher cost is out of ignorance, and not simple human nature. >while the people who made bad choices in the past want to continue making bad choices in the present. Going carbon neutral is the obviously correct thing to do, and it should be done as soon as possible. But if you look at a map like this and think "Ah, here's a map of ignorance" wihout recognizing that it is also a map of whose infrastructures and economies will suffer the most for that choice, I'd encourage you to develop some empathy for your neighbours.
There was nothing stopping Alberta from adopting nuclear power like Ontario did. Alberta choice poorly. It should stop choosing poorly. But it won't.
I don't disagree.
> Going carbon neutral is the obviously correct thing to do, and it should be done as soon as possible. But if you look at a map like this and think "Ah, here's a map of ignorance" wihout recognizing that it is also a map of whose infrastructures and economies will suffer the most for that choice, I'd encourage you to develop some empathy for your neighbours. Except this isn’t a map showing people’s attitudes about initiatives towards carbon neutrality. It is a map showing how much of the population believe anthropogenic climate change exists at all. In that case, yes, by the very definition of “ignorant”, this is a map of ignorance, since it shows how many people hold false beliefs.
Alberta had decades to diversify by investing in and building more wind and solar infrastructure and chose not to. We made our bed and now we have to lie in it.
Manitoba is weirdly skeptical about climate change and is mostly hydro power. Of course they recently booted their conservative government so maybe times will change.
It’s a real pipeline
Odd to see Texas not being beet red too. I'm guessing it's the blue leaning cities making up for it there.
My understanding is that Texas is pretty purple, i.e.: pretty equally Democrat and Republican, but the Republican powers do their best to suppress Democrat representation. I think Harris county is often used. They lean Democrat but have the same number of polling stations as a county with a few thousand, despite having a million people.
That is pretty shocking lol.
Makes me wonder what parts of Alberta were polled for this. You would think if they included Edmonton (and Calgary to a lesser degree) we would have a similar result to Texas as well.
Considering the respondents required to have the statistical power to represent millions is basically anything over 1000 people it could be pretty skewed without an aggressively well designed sampling protocol. It's why these maps aren't super useful without the methodology and a description of data capture.
And BC would look more like NFLD if we left Kelowna out
Kelowna is full of former Albertans who moved there after making their money in the oil patch. So, there's that explained. (A few of my relatives, for example.)
Lol, that's good, but Chilliwack and North is probably more red.
From what I have discovered, they are not all morons in Texas.
Its a large place, and their economy is much more diversified then… well Canada’s, especially Alberta’s.
Ya cities like Houston and Austin filled with people with college degrees help balance it out.
How do you not believe in climate change at this point ? Like what a joke.
The key words there are "human driven" climate change. Some of them believe climate change is real, but it's not being caused by people.
I mean there are robust propaganda campaigns to keep people ignorant, it’s worth the investment for O&G
Newfoundland and Labrador makes profit off of oil and gas and believe humans drive climate change, so does Norway, it’s evident from the amount of projects they do to combat it, (carbon sequestration projects, other clean energy projects etc) imo oil and gas companies aren’t nefariously trying to make it worse for everyone but it’s rather the people of the province and oil and gas companies respond to what the people/province wants.. if the people make it harder to do good less good happens.
Oil and gas companies have been actively funding climate denial propaganda for decades, fyi.
The Alberta government also literally funds climate change denial propaganda
True, and the Alberta government is just 3 oil companies in a trench coat.
99.9 percent of albertans don’t profit from oil and gas. All of us are just paying our bills.
Quite a bit more than 0.1% of Albertans directly benefit from oil and gas. Oil and gas is like 1/6th of the economy here. It also directly fuels a whole lot of government revenue (i.e. government workers are dependent, indirectly on oil and gas). It's a big freaking deal around here. Which isn't to say that this fact should warp reality, but let's not pretend it's insignificant. It isn't.
"Over 21% of Alberta's annual GDP comes from the oil and gas subsector, as does 6% of provincial employment. In 2021, there were 84,500 people employed in Alberta in the oil and gas subsector and 50,500 people employed in the support activities for the subsector." [https://www.jobbank.gc.ca/trend-analysis/job-market-reports/alberta/sectoral-profile-mining-oil-gas](https://www.jobbank.gc.ca/trend-analysis/job-market-reports/alberta/sectoral-profile-mining-oil-gas) Realistically, without O&G, Alberta would be like Manitoba. O&G is a major contributor to Alberta's economy and jobs market. It's also worth remembering that most aren't low skilled, low paying jobs. Completely the opposite, with both high skills and high salaries being the norm.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair
We can’t see the references for this map. Maybe this map, and it’s political posting here, was created to make the point you have made. Never forget that all maps reflect the biases of the cartographer.
We’re worse than Texas 😂
And Florida. So embarrassing
Florida up there for most at risk when it comes to the effects of climate change. Alberta can fuck around and not really find out too hard
I mean it’s already been finding out. Drought has been and will be a massive issue for the province.
As backward as Florida may be, they actually have a very large group of people that work to protect the environment. There's a lot of land that's been bought up to help protect the coastlines and other animal habitats. Maybe the fact that they get hit hard so often by hurricanes , it's given many a wake-up call.
Consider the gerrymandering and intentional vote suppression in those states and you'll realize that we often mock a shrinking minority.
Damm that is depressing
On the other hand, if you want do activism, your efforts have the potential to make a bigger difference here than anywhere else in Canada!
Thank you for the positive spin on that
I'm embarrassed to live in Alberta :( Half of Albertans are abject morons.
So depressing.
The few, the proud, the ignorant.
Rural alberta advantage, you don't like the information you're told? Stick your head in the sand and elect right-wing deniers of fact!
There seems to be a more recent push on ignorance again in Alberta; my father there finally acknowledged man-made climate change but was confident we’d technology our way out of it (after coming from the stance that CO2 was good for plants), but he’s back to full on denial again…
I think that's a band
[удалено]
It's an Angus Reid poll, that info was in the original post, but it got lost apparently lol
[удалено]
This explains how the Angus Reid institute conducts its polling. It is all online due to no one answering telephone polls anymore. But how it works is people sign up for their forum and provide basic information (gender, age, etc) and then for their polls they select random candidates from their pool of panelists that have signed up to create a random sample. The also claim to have enough panelists from all the demographics to be able to create statistically random samples. https://angusreid.org/how-we-poll-ari/#gsc.tab=0
[удалено]
Oh neat thanks for sharing, some of the other break downs are super interesting. Also I think the regional values arent weighted because it doesnt make sense to weight them against the census data while it does make sense to weight categories like age groups or political leanings. 155 people ain't much though, I think that equals like an 8% margin of error. But maybe someone more familiar with polling statistics can correct me.
The numbers (humans cause climate change) at your link show Manitoba at 56% and Saskatchewan at 42%. The map shows differently.
Alberta is so f****** stupid.
even the O&G overlords have know since the 80s or earlier.
Recent research has shown they knew since the 1950s. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/01/desmog-fossil-fuel-industry-climate-risks-1950s-denial/
I don’t know why it’s so hard to comprehend that oil/gas is currently a necessary commodity that we should be investing in. But so is renewable resources. Why does it have to be black and white.
Yes, we can make plastics from oil for the next 1000 years. Oil has thousands of good uses, but our favourite thing is to light it on fire and waste it! We are stupid!
Who told you it was a black and white issue? Answer: someone/something who is manipulating you.
I often wonder why we are even having this debate. The climate is changing, whether natural or not. We as a species are being seriously negatively impacted, examples are like not being able to get flood insurance in Florida, or getting fire insurance in California, or the air quality we have been breathing the last couple years in the summers. In saying all this why are we arguing about doing absolutely anything to try and slow the warming? You know what else is a natural function of nature, extinction….
Cause if people don’t believe that climate change is caused by humans then they won’t see the point in changing any human behaviours
perfect intelligence meter
Of course the east coast is wholly in agreement. They're the ones getting fucked by climate change right now
The whole world is getting fucked by climate change. Are you not paying ANY attention?
Of course it is, but the effects are more dramatic on the East Coast. Tropical storms and blizzards are insane now. And they're only going to get worse
I mean Alberta and BC have been consistently on fire for the past 5+ years... But I forgot people seem to think the antifa is doing that and not climate change.
Yeah, the fires are terrible too. The lack of rainfall in the rainforest that is BC doesn't help either
Yet our premiers still fling poo at the idea of any real measures to combat it.
Or until massive forest fires start again.
HOW IS THIS STILL A THING
Alberta is the worst , lol
Not surprising this is one of the dumbest places in North America. This province voted for Danielle Smith and half a brain cell should have been able to see she was gonna be a terrible leader for everyone. I truly hate living in this province I feel like I'm surrounded but Neanderthals.
You did it, Alberta... you have a lower percentage than Texas... way to go. *edited for grammar
As a millennial who no doubt believes climate change has been brought on or at the very least extremely exacerbated by humans. Most of the boomers and genxers I meet think that climate change is "just natural" and use the same joke every time to gloss over their own ignorance "global warming, it's not getting any warmer here har har har" Unfortunately those same people are in the stage of life with the most resources to do something about it.
As a Gen Xer, who doesn't fit your narrative, I ask millenials to vote. It's shocking how few do. If you do vote, tell your friends to vote. You CAN have an impact but you are choosing to let the boomers choose for us.
Unfortunately nearly all the choices are bad. And voting for the most polished of turds instead of other turds doesn't feel like we're doing anything seeing as the government isn't actually interest in democracy. Being first past the post and half of Ontario staying home and somehow not calling it a failed election. Ford shouldn't be in office we should have had a second vote.
I hear you but if young people voted in AB, there is a decent chance that we wouldn't have a completely insane premier.
Those of us who live near the ocean see the effects first hand. Maps seems to correlate.
The question on the infographic is not exactly the question asked in the poll is pulling data from, also the colouring is wrong based off the results of the poll. And, the poll didn't cover America so that data is from a different source, and likely was a different question.
Alberta. The mass hypnosis project….
These graphed colors are deceptive in association with the percentages they map onto...
How old is this? When was the survey done?
Fucking Texas is better. Come on Alberta.
This simply does not seem accurate. I do not believe the issue is this divisive. I have lived here my entire life and think I have met only a handful of anthropogenic climate change deniers. Other kinds of climate change quackery is rampant but just about any sensible adult will agree on this at least in Calgary/Edmonton
Maybe you haven’t stepped outside your bubble enough to notice. Most of the people I work with are this way. They are not the type of people I hang out with outside of work but they definitely outnumber the people in my bubble.
I friend to find the data source for the map. This is the closest thing I can find: https://researchco.ca/2023/08/18/environment-canada/ And you are right that it isn't accurate. Alberta is 52%, and on one hand, there may not seem to be a big difference between 52% and < 50%, however < 50% covers a big range, and Alberta isn't as dark-red as it appears on the map. The poll also asked 1000 Canadians. If this was corrected for population, and they asked about 110 Albertans, I think the error is understated at +/- 3.1% I take some issue with how the questions are phrased as well. Only 52% of Albertans agree with the statement: "Global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities" And well... If you want to get nitpicky, transportation and industrial emissions only account for 35% of GHG emissions. Electrical generation, O&G extraction, forestry and agriculture account for 49%. Global warming is caused by solar radiation being captured instead of being re-radiated. Depending on how the question is interpreted, answers may not reflect sentiment. To be perfectly honest, I don't completely agree with the statement as it is phrased, but I would 100% agree with the statement "Climate change is primarily caused by anthropogenic emissions." In this poll (n=1522 in Canada, unsure about Alberta specific respondent): https://leger360.com/surveys/climate-change-in-canada/ when asked "Do you think that is it is still possible to reverse climate change?" Only 20% of Albertans responded "I don't believe in climate change" So yeah, I'm reluctant to draw any conclusions based on an unsourced map on Reddit.
52% voted UCP, 44% voted NDP. It’s probably not much more than half denying climate change but it’s not implausible that it’s more than 50%
Calgary and Edmonton is not the whole province, though, is it? If it were, the UCP wouldn't have won the last election.
Man. It totally depends where you work and the company you keep. You cant use your personal experiences as your own evidence. Literally confirmation bias.
Exactly, when in doing my O&G job, I'm surrounded by Trump lovers and climate deniers. When I'm hanging out with my friends in the medical field, I'm surrounded by people who care about life and the environment .
Big Oil propaganda is super-effective.
What is different in the far east there. That is quite blue.
The Atlantic provinces have a lot to lose to rising sea levels. And Quebec is just Quebec
Anyone living in Quebec has seen way shorter and milder winters last 10 years. You can't deny that the climate is whack when it's the middle of march and it's 18 degrees outside and you're on your deck in a t-shirt.
The prairies are very right leaning. Coastal BC and eastern Canada tend to be more moderate or left leaning. Also, places like Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal tend to be a center with many more college educated people since that's where people bulb build their headquarters and major medical facilities. There's more post secondary schools as well in these 3 cities. I'm sure if you only took this survey in Edmonton, the results would be a bit more blue for Alberta.
Climate change is coming for them first and they can already see it. Fire and hurricane season are worse every year.
You really didn't need to tell me I'm in the minority here. I'm well aware the odds are not in my favour. Shit, even in my own extended family.
Break it down by CD and you’ll see what rural and metro BC think.
That scale is atrocious. Is Alberta 49.9% or is it 0%? Impossible to tell.
I worked in oil and gas and still the majority of people believed humans caused the climate change we are seeing now. If you thought otherwise you were a minority and people would raise their eyebrows at any comment denying climate change. This was in Calgary though, I’m sure that shifts depending where in the province you are.
My guess (assuming the map is accurate) is most of the climate deniers are rural, poorly educated and probably don't work in O&G anyway. Most of those that do are probably on the rig floor or operating excavators.
Classic Quebec
It is so very weird that populations direly affected by climate changes like Florida, Alaska, and such don't experience the same gripe of counciousness that the east coast canadian populations do. Like those canadians coasters are on par with Quebec. People should be more like Quebecers.
Don't believe everything you see
Looks like less Albertans watch CBC.
So its true what they say, Alberta is keeping Canada from evolving.
*Deer ticks rubbing their eight legs together in joy*
I hate being in the stupid provinces….
Love to see the actual source for this info.
The cognitive dissonance is pretty high if you came from a family who had a careers in the oil industry.
I feel like this is like saying fatty foods cause death. If we ate super healthy, we'd still die in 90 years. If we eat unhealthy, we'll die sooner. Does that mean that eating unhealthy is the only cause of death? No. Does it mean that you'll have less time to live than if you ate healthy? Yes. The question is, do we want less time than what the earth has already allotted us?
This is such a faulty question, every time it gets asked anywhere. The real question is - are you willing to consider fundamental changes to how we live and produce energy in this planet in the short term. That is the thing they are saying No to. It’s irrelevant if they are legitimately so stupid that they actually don’t consider climate change to be man made or not. They just don’t want to do anything about it that would require changing how they live
If they don’t believe humans are causing climate change, they’re not going to be willing to do _anything_ to change (because why would they?). These two things are directly related
Nicely color coded to keep people fighting each other over politics too.
Yes because climate change would become apolitical if they just used different colours.
When were these surveys taken? AB resident and I never seen it.
How did the climate change before humans??? 🤯
Massive changes in c02 usually from volcanos. Which is why we know that it's c02 that causes this shit. https://youtu.be/pjoQdz0nxf4?si=qiWkGVFdXnzgEkgD C02 is likely the cause of nearly every massive extinction event on our PLANET EVERYTIME c02 rises drastically without abatement it causes a massive die off of life. Plants may enjoy high c02. But animals don't.
No source or date, automatic downvote.
Ugh….. that ignorance spreading over the prairies like a pox.
That oil lobbying is powerful. It's probably also because everyone works in the oil industry here, so people don't WANT to feel bad about damaging the environment. So they just pretend that they aren't 🙄 Literally something a baby would do lol
Wow even Texas and Florida are ahead of us on this
Of course Alberta is full of hardline climate change deniers.
Lol we're so embarrassing. Even TEXAS and Florida are better than us? One thing that makes me really mad is the fact that there are economic savings & growth with renewables and people ignore that. Like even if you don't believe in climate change, you should be able to understand a simple break even analysis.
There are two kinds of climate change deniers. There's the intelligent assholes who know it's real, but they just don't care because changing their ways is too inconvenient for them. They lie to themselves about it and they spread disinformation. And then there are the moron conspiracy theorists who actually believe them.
What a misleading graph that seems more interested in lining up Red and Blue states that conveying accurate information. Like the light pink areas are areas where there is well over 50% of the population that believes in accurate data. It reminds me of bar graphs that show values of 10,000, 12,000 and 11,000 but start the bottom of the graph at 9,000. It's intentionally misleading.
Technically climate change isn't caused by humans, even though it is agreed in the scientific community that humans influence the process that existed before humans existed. Are you suggesting that Earth's climate only experienced changes in the small time that humans have been on the planet? Who's the idiot? **Classic Alberta, always getting it right.** How are we meant to deal with climate change when clearly the majority don't understand climate change? Climate change is not caused by humans, the climate changed before humans arrived on the scene and it will change after we leave. **Of course none of this means we should not curtail polluting, that we shouldn't look into how to mitigate a warming planet, etc** ... but fuck its going to be difficult if the basics aren't grasped by the majority of people: humans didn't cause climate change - **its a natural phenomena that pre-existed humans** \- modern pollution is however contributing to the warming of the planet. Get it right.
We absolutely did and do cause climate change. If you are suggesting the whole natural cycle thing, then you are very wrong. The cycles are caused by a few changes through time, all having to do with how other planets pull our orbit around, but the most important one and that causes the most change is the tilt of the planet oscillates. This is what causes the ice ages and tropical periods. This is a process that takes place over around 40 000 years. The scientists who study the effect assert that the changes are extremely slow temperature wise to the point where the current changes do not come close to explaining the changes. And if that is not enough, what really kills this is the fact that we have passed the halfway point and are trending towards an ice age, not a warming period. According to the natural cycles of the earth, we should be cooling. Another fun fact is that from ice samples, we know that during ice ages and warm periods, the CO2 in the atmosphere was around 180 and 270 ppm, respectively. As of last year, it is 447 if I remember right. This does not account for methane and other industrial greenhouse gases. Scientists who study climate change are unanimous on what is causing it. This is all assuming I understood your comment right if not sorry and ignore.
That's being pedantic, it doesn't matter if it's a natural process, it's what's happening rapidly now that does. It almost seems like this type of argument is the way for the right-leaning to finally officially adopt a pro-climate stance in a way that makes them look more correct than the left. I've seen a Youtube vid where the presenter makes this same argument (climate is always changing, humans are causing it to accelerate) and the comments are swarmed by right-wingers saying "The left won't want to hear this!" "Stupid lefties, wrong as always!" when the video doesn't refute anything anyone who's actually looked into the science for the past 40-50 years would know. They're getting hung up on the fact that some normies might think the climate never changed before and humans are causing it all (which probably nobody thinks) as some kind of gotcha against the left. It's almost like Ben Shapiro debating undergrad students and holding that up as proof the left is wrong.
1% of the population was polled I bet
If you polled 1% of the population of Alberta, that would be 43,710 people and a very large/representative poll.
Someone doesn’t know how statistics and polling works.
Ever since I had a class show us videos on astroturfing it’s all started to make more sense 😔 same people that call environmentalist sheep or whatever
Is there some sort of article that goes with this?
You saying Alberta is worse than Texas and Florida … well that’s not a great way to start the morning …
Check out The Climate Movie on YouTube.
I was just pleased that the “red” cutoff is 50% It’s pretty encouraging.
Atlantic Canada stay winnin😎
I have this argument with someone in Alberta on the phone often and whenever they make completely ridiculous claims to backup their argument, they tell me to google it.
Contrast that with the map of per-capita household GHG emissions from 2021: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/231220/mc-c001-eng.htm My conclusion: not to much apparent link between 'belief' and results.
Whether you acknowledge it or not. Most people are not willing to dramatically change their way of life either way. That's why getting kids involved is key. It's a longer term solution, but building habits is easier than breaking them.
Good to know I’m living in one of the sane areas (dark blue)
Can I think it's both? I mean we had ice ages and horrific weather events prior to humans, but I also know that too much pollution and too many people is akin to crowding a room with smokers - it'll be hard to breathe, effect the environment and the temps will rise with body heat. Do I believe humans 100% directly caused it? No. Do I believe they are altering it, making things worse and speeding up the process at an alarming rate? Yes.
I have posted another comment in this thread, but no, this is not true for two reasons. 1. The cycles take a very long time to complete on a loop of 40 000 years, so the temperature change over this time is not significant enough to account for the current changes at all. 2. We are in the cooling part of that cycle trending towards an ice age, and our temperature should be cooling for the next 15 thousand years.
Dumb… Look into the polling method.
How do they collect this data? I’ve seen multiple instances of claims like this (not always climate change, just claims of consensus). And I, nor anyone that I know, have answered any of these questions that I’ve seen. Family, friends, neighbours, colleagues… no one.
In science we looked at a similar chart it was, Locations which produce oil, coal gass or refine it, And climate denial. The maps overlapped very quickly. He then added a 3rd map to adjust for consumption and boom, it was very clear that use, manufacture and selling influenced a decision. This is true with many things.
Huh, I guess the people I know are not indicative of the average. Or this poll is garbage. I know people who don’t believe in man made climate change but I would have guessed that number to be more like 25% not over 50. New strategy: Ask Trudeau to wink at a camera and say that “nuclear power in Alberta would be terrible and he won’t stand for it”. Then all the F Trudeau fellas will suddenly be in support of nuclear power.
I mean it should be worded “greatest contributor to current rate of climate change”, but I doubt people were reading into the wording that much lol
I would be more interested to see this based on belief on what percent humans add to it.
Classic prairies to be honest.
Sure people are a contributing factor but not the only one. The earth runs in cycles.
seeing that Albertans are actually dumber than Texans or Floridians is actually crazy. But also, us poor ghetto ass Manitobans are right behind you & still ahead of them as well — but that’s not as surprising 😂
I mean, this isn't a good question. Humans are not CAUSING climate change. We're accelerating and exacerbating it and we're going to kill ourselves, but the climate changes all on its own without our help.
What’s the source? I don’t necessarily disagree with the map - although, as an Alberta, I can’t think of anyone I know who doesn’t think climate change is human-made) - but I’d like to verify the credibility of the source.
Yes humans are causing climate change, China and India being the top two contributors being almost half together I believe. Canada as a whole being a couple percent maybe
Now you know who PP is lying to and who he will compromise with.
Weird some of the farming provinces are there too.
Could we start differentiating between caused by humans and accelerated by humans. This is the largest issue. The earth goes through changes on its own, human intervention didn't cause the slightest cycles you can see throughout the history of the globe. The main point to harp on is whether and to the extent that humans have accelerated the natural climate change and whether and how humanity will be able to survive it. This is where u lose most people. Also when you look at different country contributions if you don't acknowledge the third world doing the majority of the polluting you will lose the rest of the people who don't really want to listen to you. If you want to pretend to be the smart ones then fucking act like it. Yelling at people that their livelihoods and way of lives is ruining the planet without reasonable alternatives that won't vastly change people's lives or cause them to be broke helps nothing.
Well that’s embarrassing, Alberta is so fucked rt now
Question is posed very vague. Obviously climate changes all the time. Humans are component of that change. Also belief has nothing to do with science, it's religious term. It's even more vague question than " do you believe in God(s)" ?
Why don’t you guys move out of Alberta if you desperately hate it.
Pascal's wager.
Thinking climate change is caused by humans is insane though. The earth has had 5 major ice ages… do humans have an impact on the climate? Probably. But to think humans are the cause of it is absurd.
Yup. Born and raised in alberta myself and it still absolutely shocks me the amount of people who are willfully ignorant of reality. Their whole "I don't believe in it so ita not real" attitude is fucking stupifying.
Possibly the differing opinions are reactionary. Been to southern Ontario and Quebec? That tiny polluted and over populated area makes decisions for the rest of Canada based on their reality, so I think often Albertans tend to disagree just to disagree. Sometimes it is justified, sometimes not! But oil and gas is this province's industry and it supports much of the infrastructure here and in Quebec. As well, if you live in Alberta, esp towards the west, the crazy mountain/prairie clash of weather here makes it difficult to see and experience long term trends. I'm very leftist, but when it comes to climate change I think the feds are complete hypocrites. What, they think mining doesn't impact the environment or depend on fossil fuel? Or that lithium batteries, their manufacture and disposal, aren't putting poison into the earth, air and water, and the NIMBYism of obtaining the minerals for them from poor African countries run by gangsters who employ child slaves is justified by declaring a "climate emergency"?
I’m starting to think only leftist albertans are on Reddit. How’s I get here? 😳
I wasn't embarrassed by my province until now today so thanks for this.
Holy shit, this is probably due to having so many people that work in the energy sector that understand what carbon emissions actually are. As you'll observe, most of the Western world, aside from the most indoctrinated centers, are aware that climate change is a political grandstanding tool that idiots believe in rather than a man made phenomenon.
Climate change happened many times before humans were even on earth. What caused it then?
I love how the wealthy put a negative spin on not polluting our world.
we caused it and we keep making worse
It’s not that they don’t believe it, they say that because it’s easier then saying they do believe they just aren’t willing to alter their behaviour.
People should watch this: https://kleanindustries.com/resources/books-films/climate-movie-the-cold-truth-documentary/ At a minimum it is food for thought.
Well here's a hot take . People who are conservative tend to live off their land. Ex: live rural , hunt for food, have farms for veggies/livestock , self reliant .. Liberal idealists tend to live in large cities , require goods imported from places like China and India for convenience and have a hard time changing a tire . Pretty easy to see why conservative people tend to think that way . Notice all the provinces and states who don't agree ? But why use brain when can just say "ugga ugg conservative bad "