Home >> Projects >> 2011 Sask Survey >> Executive Summary
Introduction
In September 2011, IPAC CO2 Research Inc. contracted Insightrix Research, Inc. to conduct an online survey of Saskatchewan residents. Overarching objectives of this research include:
Saskatchewan responses were collected between September 27th and October 10th, 2011 using Insightrix’s proprietary online panel, SaskWatch Research™. Additional survey completions were sought in Saskatoon and Southeast Saskatchewan so that differences in opinion of residents in these two areas could be more accurately compared. Throughout the report, a random, representative sample of Saskatchewan residents is used for the Saskatchewan results (total of 849 responses) but the full dataset is used for regional comparisons. The sample distribution is as follows:
|
Representative Sample |
Booster Sample |
Total |
||
|
Count |
Percent |
Count |
Count |
|
|
North |
165 |
19% |
0 |
165 |
|
Regina |
165 |
19% |
0 |
165 |
|
Saskatoon |
166 |
20% |
142 |
308 |
|
South |
338 |
40% |
0 |
338 |
|
SouthEast |
15 |
2% |
113 |
128 |
|
Total |
849 |
100% |
255 |
1104 |
Study Results
Climate Change
Although less than one in six respondents believe that they are very well informed about the different causes (13%), consequences (13%) and ways in which we can fight (12%) climate change, a majority in each case believe that they are fairly well informed about each of these three subjects. A total of about three quarters claim that they are at least fairly aware (60%, 61%, 59%, respectively). Claimed knowledge levels of Saskatchewan residents far exceed the levels found in the Eurobarometer results, which showed a minority of Europeans feel that they are at least fairly well informed in each of these areas. As with the Eurobarometer results, television is the most cited source of information on climate change in Saskatchewan (80% in Saskatchewan, 81% in Europe). Generally, Saskatchewan residents cited more information sources than did respondents in Europe; two thirds mention the Internet (67% vs. 44% in Europe), six in ten newspapers (59% vs. 44%) and four in ten radio (42% vs. 26%) or magazines (41% vs. 23%).
In Saskatchewan, belief that climate change is due to natural climate variation or that climate change is not occurring at all is in the minority; one in six respondents (16%) hold this belief. Most (59%) believe that climate change is occurring partially due to human activity and partially due to natural climate variation (59%) and one quarter (22%) that climate change is occurring due to human activity. Women (11% vs. 17%) and those who have completed a University degree (9% vs. 16%) are least likely to believe that climate change is occurring due to natural climate variation.
Overall, respondents showed division in their opinion of the priorities for fighting climate change. When asked to choose a maximum of two from a list of eight potential aspects that they believe should be prioritized to fight climate change, no suggestion was chosen by a majority of respondents, and the top four were selected by approximately the same proportion. In all, the top choices are:
Comparing the priorities of Saskatchewan residents to the European results showed several differences. While about the same proportion chose stimulating the development of industries that supply environmentally friendly technologies and services (30% in Saskatchewan and 29% in Europe) or promoting cleaner cars running on electricity or low-carbon fuels (both 29%) as a priority, Saskatchewan residents tend to be more supportive of raising the energy efficiency of industrial processes (36% vs. 18%), encouraging the building of energy efficient homes and the insulation of existing homes (30% vs. 22%), and securing a reliable energy supply for Canada (21% vs. 10%).
Knowledge Levels
Awareness of other types of energy production is generally high, with nine in ten indicating that they are aware of solar energy (97%), nuclear energy (92%) and geothermal energy (88%). Solar energy (95%), wind energy (94%) and hydroelectric energy (88%) and natural gas (82%) are all highly favoured by respondents, while respondents are divided on whether they favour nuclear energy (49%), biomass energy (44%) or coal (43%).
CO2 Perceptions
Respondents were asked to select from a list of six items which statements they believe apply to carbon dioxide. A majority (58%) of respondents believe that CO2 is unhealthy, a smaller proportion than found in the Eurobarometer study (74%). One in five (19%) believe that it is a water pollutant and 9% that it is flammable. A total of 14% believe that it is safe to breathe and 9% believe that it is harmless. When asked to indicate which of a list of five items produce the most CO2 annually, respondents are divided with one quarter each believing that power plants burning fossil fuels (28%), factories (26%) and passenger or freight transport (25%) produce the most carbon dioxide annually. A small minority believe that farming (6%) and heating or cooling homes (3%) produces the most carbon dioxide. Respondents in the Eurobarometer study were also divided on what they believe produces the most carbon dioxide annually, but were more likely to believe that factories produce the most CO2 (35% vs. 26%), while Saskatchewan residents are more likely to believe that passenger or freight transport (25% vs. 15%) produces the most carbon dioxide. The same proportion (both 28%) believe that power plants burning fossil fuels produce the most carbon dioxide globally.
Although most (66%) Saskatchewan residents believe that carbon dioxide has a fairly high (47%) or very high (19%) impact on the environment, the proportion who do so is notably lower (83% vs. 66%) than in the Eurobarometer study.
CCS
Overall, four in ten (40%) claim that they have heard of CO2 capture and storage and know what it is, and an additional one third (36%) have heard of it but don’t really know what it is while one quarter (23%) have not heard of it at all. Regionally, awareness of CCS is highest in Regina (52%) and Southeast Saskatchewan (45%) and lowest in Northern Saskatchewan (26%). Comparing the awareness levels to the Eurobarometer study shows a much higher level of awareness in Saskatchewan compared to Europe, where two thirds (67%) have not heard of the technology and just one in ten (10%) have heard of it and know what it is.
The most trusted source of information about CCS is scientists and researchers (77%). Scientists and researchers are the only source for which a majority indicates that they trust them to give accurate information about CCS. A total of 44% trust non-governmental organizations, while government sources, such as the provincial government (18%), the regional and local authorities (18%), and the federal government (11%) were chosen as a trustworthy information source about CCS less than two in ten. Journalists (17%) are also considered a trustworthy source about CCS by one in six.
Overall, respondents are divided on how effective they believe that CCS would be in combating climate change. Few (6%) respondents believe that CCS technology will be very effective in fighting climate change, while an additional 31% believe that it would be fairly effective. One third (33%) believe it would be not very effective (33%), one in ten believe that it would be not at all effective (10%) while the remaining 20% are unsure of its effectiveness. Regionally, respondents in Southeast Saskatchewan tend to be more favourable towards CCS technology, possibly due to their greater knowledge levels of the technology. Within this region, 59% believe it would be at least fairly effective in fighting climate change. Overall, about the same proportion of respondents in Saskatchewan believe that CCS would be very (6% in both cases) or fairly (31% in Saskatchewan; 33% in Europe) effective in fighting climate; however the proportion who are unsure of its effectiveness is much higher in Europe (36%) compared to Saskatchewan (20%), likely related to the very different knowledge levels in the two areas.
Similarly, respondents are divided on whether they believe that CCS technology would (30%) or would not (33%) benefit them. The remaining 37% are unsure whether they would benefit. The most common reason that respondents believe that they would benefit is that it would improve air quality (58%) while the most common reason respondents gave for why they do not believe that they would benefit is that it would not have a positive impact on the environment (43%).
When asked how worried they would be if a CO2 storage site between 1.5 and 3 kilometers below the ground was located within 5 kilometers of their home, one in five (19%) indicated that they would be very worried and a further three in ten (30%) would be fairly worried. In contrast, three in ten would be not very worried (28%) and one in ten (12%) would be not at all worried while the remaining 10% are unsure. Women are more likely to indicate that they would be fairly or very worried (61%) than men (40%). In general, concern tends to be lower among Saskatchewan residents compared to European respondents in the Eurobarometer study (49% vs. 61%). The top reasons for concern are the possible negative effects on the environment, groundwater, wildlife or health (54%) and the risk of leaks while the site is in operation (43%).
When asked to indicate which of three storage options for CO2 they would prefer, about the same percentage believe that it should be stored underground and onshore, near the power plant that generates CO2 (20%) or in an underground onshore storage where the human population is very low (19%). Less than one in ten (7%) believe that CO2 should be stored offshore, but under the seabed. The results generally mirror the Eurobarometer results, except that European respondents are much more likely to believe that CO2 should be stored offshore under the seabed (21% vs. 7%).
Four in ten (42%) believe that there are other chemicals or gases injected of stored in the ground. Of these respondents, 37% mentioned natural gas, 22% water or steam for oil wells or fracking and 20% mentioned nuclear waste.
Generally, respondents would like several levels of consultation if a CO2 storage site were to be proposed 5 kilometers from their home. More than eight in ten would like to be directly consulted (84%), would like NGOs to be consulted (86%) or would like the government to be consulted (84%). Women are more generally stronger in their agreement that they would like to be consulted directly in the decision making process (58% vs. 51%) or that NGO’s should be consulted (57% vs. 49%) while men are more likely to strongly agree that the government (54% vs. 46%) should be consulted.
Future use of CCS
Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they agree or disagree with each of a list of eight statements. Most (84%) respondents are in agreement that public authorities should be able to monitor carbon capture and storage operations (7% disagree) and agreement is also fairly strong that capturing and storing CO2 should be compulsory when building a new coal-fired (62% agree; 17% disagree) or natural gas (58% agree; 19% disagree) power plant.
Despite this, many also (51%) agree that the storage of CO2 presents a safety risk in the future (25% disagree) and only one in five (19%) agree that CCS will ensure lower and more stable energy prices (47% disagree).
As found in the Eurobarometer study, respondents are divided on whether or not they believe that the storage of CO2 will help to combat climate change. While more than four in ten (45%) agree, three in ten (29%) disagree.
Many (65%) respondents believe that fossil fuels will still be used after the year 2050 for electricity production in Canada.
To download a copy of the Executive Summary, click here.
By A Web Design