But today, concern about the environment seems to be much more prominent among Democrats. Pew Research Center writes: "Overall, 85% of Democrats say protecting the environment should be a top Dishonesty from politicians is nothing new for Americans. The real question is whether we are lying to ourselves when we call this country the land of the free. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University. Washington Post (Sunday) January 15, 2012. Twitter. Consequently, this has heightened the incidence of violence, including murder, as well as new forms of slavery and the degradation of the dignity of the human person. - Environmental damage sustained by this territory that covers 11,847 km: deforestation; arson; mining that has caused damage to the land, the wildlife and the environment. SHANNON VALLOR: The recent rise of social networking as an Internet phenomenon generates a host of ethical concerns, some of which have already garnered considerable public attention. These include worries about privacy and safety in an environment where we have already found it necessary to coin the term cyberstalking. Mainstream concern is crucial, because this must be a collective effort. This story is part of Covering Climate Now, a global collaboration of more than 250 news outlets to strengthen coverage Concerns about drinking water tainted with lead and exposure to "forever" chemicals. And a country once again leaning on fossil fuels for energy production despite a global push to reduce The cost of living has become the leading concern among Gen Zs and millennials in the UK, according to Deloitte's latest Gen Z and Millennial Survey. 31% of Gen Zs and 38% of millennials cited this as their greatest concern, overtaking climate change from the top spot in last year's findings. The report reflects the survey responses of over 76dWfPN. The environmental movement seeks to protect the natural world and promote sustainable living. It had its beginnings in the conservation efforts of the early 1900s. During this time, conservationists aimed to slow the rapid depletion of Canadian resources in favour of more regulated management. Many scholars divide the evolution of the environmental movement into “waves.” These waves are periods in time easily characterized by certain themes. While the number of waves and their characterization may differ from scholar to scholar, they’re often defined as follows The first wave focused on conservation; the second, pollution; the third, the professionalization of environmental groups; and the fourth, climate change. The environmental movement seeks to protect the natural world and promote sustainable living. It had its beginnings in the conservation efforts of the early 1900s. During this time, conservationists aimed to slow the rapid depletion of Canadian resources in favour of more regulated management. Many scholars divide the evolution of the environmental movement into “waves.” These waves are periods in time easily characterized by certain themes. While the number of waves and their characterization may differ from scholar to scholar, they’re often defined as follows The first wave focused on conservation; the second, pollution; the third, the professionalization of environmental groups; and the fourth, climate change. Indigenous Peoples For centuries Indigenous peoples lived off the land causing little to no destruction. Many Indigenous peoples believe that human beings are part of an interconnected environment. There is no superiority over the land, plants or animals they share space with. Such practices as clearing areas for settlement and agriculture, or driving game by lighting fires, would have affected the natural environment. However, there is little evidence that these activities caused any long-term damage. Furthermore, First Nations and Inuit family groups often moved their settlements to new areas for better hunting. This allowed the regions left behind to grow back and repopulate with wildlife. For these reasons, there were few large-scale conservation problems before the first permanent European settlement in the 17th century. Early Influences Upon their arrival, explorers and European colonists began to catalogue Canada’s natural history. These studies laid the foundation for botany, geology, paleontology and zoology in Canada. Notable among these early naturalists were Samuel de Champlain. Champlain kept detailed accounts of the flora, fauna and climate he was experiencing for the first time. Other examples include pioneer writer Catharine Parr Trail and later, Frère Marie-Victorin. Initially, European scientific traditions shaped the views of these early naturalists. Writers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, William Wordsworth, Lord Byron, and Archibald Belaney and his wife, Anahareo, were also influential. American thinkers had an even greater effect. These thinkers included ornithologist John James Audubon, who visited Canada in the 1830s, and writers James Fenimore Cooper, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau. American conservationists John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club 1892, and Gifford Pinchot were also significant. First Wave Late 1800s-Early 1900s Initially, European colonists viewed North America’s vast wilderness as inexhaustible. However, as the landscape shifted from forest to farmland, efforts to preserve the continent’s natural resources grew. These conservationist efforts came to characterize North America’s first wave of environmentalism. Individuals with close ties to the forestry industry initiated many of Canada’s early conservation efforts. These lumbermen witnessed the rapid depletion of Canadian forests. They advocated for controlled harvesting and reserved areas for future use. In 1900, Henri-Gustave Joly de Lotbinière, former premier of Quebec, led the establishment of the Canadian Forestry Association. See also Forestry; Lumberjacks. Despite these early efforts, Americans were generally ahead of Canadians in organizing around conservationist goals. This was likely because there was more extensive settlement in the United States. This settlement demonstrated the harm that civilization could do. In Canada, the pioneer mentality of “unlimited” forests, lakes and wildlife persisted longer. It was American President Theodore Roosevelt, for example, who invited Mexico and Canada to join the United States at the North American Conservation Conference in 1909. The conference led to the establishment of Canada’s Commission of Conservation. Clifford Sifton, former minister of the interior, chaired the commission. It made recommendations that foreshadowed the tenets of more modern environmentalism. They included not overcutting forests, the use of organic agricultural fertilizers and recycling. First Wave National and Provincial Parks The development of national parks also illustrates the difference between early American and Canadian conservation action. For example, the first American national park, Yellowstone, opened in 1872. By comparison, while the first Canadian national park, Banff, wasn’t formed until 1885. Moreover, the purpose of Banff as well as Yoho and Glacier national parks, both created in 1886 was more economic than conservationist. In creating these Rocky Mountain reserves, the government aimed to generate revenue and promote tourist travel along the newly minted Canadian Pacific Railway. In 1916, the United States passed the National Park Service Act. The Act stated that parks were to be “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” As with the development of parks themselves, Canada also lagged behind the States in adopting this type of language. Finally, in 1930, the Canadian National Parks Act incorporated this type of wording. In this respect, 1930 marked a turning point in Canadian conservation thought. In the area of wildlife conservation, however, Canada did create several protected areas quite early see Wildlife Conservation and Management. For example, the first federal bird sanctuary in North America was created in Saskatchewan in 1887. By 1889, the plains bison had been reduced from about 60 million to less than 2,000 animals. So, in 1907 and 1909, the government purchased about 700 bison and placed them in national parks. In addition, between 1910 and 1920, three areas were set aside as reserves for antelope in Alberta and Saskatchewan though they were later abolished. In 1911, Canada formally established a parks branch. James Harkin was appointed the Dominion parks commissioner. The American conservation movement deeply influenced Harkin. He was probably the first leading Canadian to argue for protection of wilderness for its own sake. Canada’s first significant international conservation effort was a treaty with the United States 1916 for the protection of migratory birds. Until 1945, conservation in Canada focused on establishing national and provincial parks in remote areas. With increased urbanization and the proliferation of the automobile, parks increasingly became an escape for city dwellers. Emphasis shifted to expanding parks for recreational purposes by creating hiking trails, camping grounds and swimming facilities. Second Wave 1960s–1970s The 1960s marked a different era for conservation and the environmental movement in Canada. Conservationist attitudes were no longer restricted primarily to naturalist groups. In addition to using resources wisely, a growing number of Canadians became concerned about the effects of human activity on the environment. Second Wave Environmentalism During the 1960s, concern about pollution became a major public issue. Environmentalists, particularly those in urban areas, organized specialized groups. These groups included the Society for the Promotion of Environmental Conservation in British Columbia now Society Promoting Environmental Conservation, or SPEC, Pollution Probe in Ontario, and the Ecology Action Centre in the Maritimes. Scientists such as Donald Chant led these groups. Issues such as air pollution, water pollution, hazardous wastes and the careless use of pesticides deeply concerned Chant. In 1971, Greenpeace was founded in Vancouver. The organization soon became a high-profile, international activist force for various environmental causes. During the 1970s, Canadian environmentalists also focused on major energy projects. These projects included the James Bay Project in Quebec and the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline in the Northwest Territories and Yukon. In each case, environmentalists brought the project’s ecological impacts, as well as its impact on Indigenous communities Cree and Inuit in Quebec; Dene, Inuit and Métis in the territories to the fore. While the James Bay Project went through, the pipeline was cancelled. Second Wave Conservation The nature conservation movement received a boost from the environmentalism of the 1960s. The Canadian Wildlife Federation was established in 1961, the National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada now the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society in 1963, the World Wildlife Fund Canada in 1967 and the Canadian arm of the Sierra Club in 1970. In addition, in 1971, the Canadian Audubon Society and several of its affiliates established the Canadian Nature Federation now Nature Canada, a national assembly of naturalist groups from across the country. Scientific biological associations and groups traditionally less active in conservation issues, such as game and fish associations, also increased their emphasis on environmental issues. During this period, the concern for nature conservation centred on preserving wilderness and protecting unique areas or ecosystems as ecological reserves. Each province experienced a burst in the growth of local groups focusing on local conservation and environmental issues. Provincial naturalist and conservation federations became increasingly active and vocal. In a single decade, federal and provincial governments established ministries or departments of the environment, environmental protection Acts and environmental assessment legislation see Environmental Impact Assessment. Acts to protect endangered species, such as that passed in Ontario in 1971, were unique in the world because they sought to protect rare or endangered species of all plants and animals including insects. In 1978, the intergovernmental Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada COSEWIC began to define a national list of species at risk see alsoEndangered Animals in Canada; Endangered Plants in Canada. In 1972, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment convened in Stockholm. Canada was well represented. As a result, Canadian conservation efforts began to include participation in certain international agencies. These agencies included the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. As awareness grew that all people depend on clear air, water and healthy ecosystems, Canadians began to see environmental concerns in a global context. Third Wave 1980s–1990s Environmentalism at the end of the 20th century continued to focus on issues of global concern. Whereas earlier environmentalists were wary of business, environmentalists during this period were more willing to work with corporate culture in order to find solutions to environmental problems. In addition, non-governmental organizations NGOs began to play a stronger role in the environmental movement in Canada. For example, the Canadian Coalition on Acid Rain 1981–91 helped obtain agreements between Canada and the United States to reduce sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions see Acid Rain. In 1985, Ducks Unlimited launched the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The plan was a $ billion, 15-year effort to conserve wetlands in Canada. In late 1989, World Wildlife Fund Canada launched its 10-year national Endangered Spaces Campaign. The campaign aimed to complete a network of protected areas representing all terrestrial natural regions of Canada. Although the organization did not reach its goal, the campaign helped establish of over 1,000 new parks, wilderness areas and nature reserves. This effort more than doubled the number of protected areas across the country. Did you know? On 16 September 1987, 24 countries and the European Economic Community signed the Montreal Protocol in Montreal, Quebec. Sometimes referred to by its formal title, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, the agreement regulates the consumption and production of approximately 100 man-made, ozone-depleting chemicals. By fall of 2009 it had been signed by every recognized nation on Earth, amounting to 197 signatories in total. To date, the Montreal Protocol is the only United Nations treaty that every country in the world has ratified. Canadian environmentalists also made huge gains through multi-party negotiations and agreements. For example, beginning in 1994, environmental groups focussed their efforts on British Columbia’s Great Bear Rainforest. They worked with companies such as Home Depot and Ikea to put pressure on logging companies. In 2006, these groups, along with multiple First Nations and the BC government, signed the Great Bear Rainforest Agreement. The agreement laid out measures to protect the forest through sustainable logging practices. Finally, this period marked the movement’s formal entry into politics with the founding of the Green Party of Canada in 1983. Since then, the party has witnessed major growth. In 2004, Green Party candidates ran in every federal riding for the first time. In 2011, leader Elizabeth May became the first Green Party member to be elected to the House of Commons. Fourth Wave 2000s At the turn of the 21st century, climate change emerged as an overarching global and national concern for environmental activists and nature conservationists alike. In the late 1980s, Canada was a leader in terms of climate change action. In 1988, for example, Canada hosted the World Conference on the Changing Atmosphere in Toronto, one of the earliest global meetings on the topic. Climate change drew international attention with the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. The protocol required nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — the gases responsible for climate change — by a certain amount. With the notable exceptions of the United States, Australia and Monaco, every industrialized country ratified the agreement. Canada ratified the agreement in 2002 under the leadership of Jean Chrétien’s Liberals. In 2011, Canada withdrew from the agreement. The government of the day, Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party, cited a number of reasons for withdrawing, including how far Canada lagged behind the protocol’s targets. In the years that followed, the same administration made it increasingly difficult for environmentalists and their organizations to operate in Canada. Scientific institutions were eliminated or had their federal government funding reduced, and the public’s access to scientific research became increasingly limited. For example, environmental charities faced an increasing number of federal government audits, a time-consuming process that slowed their work and put them at risk of losing their charitable status. Critics also accused the government of trying to put a chill on environmental protest by branding environmental groups as radicals or potential threats to national security. For example, a 2012 anti-terrorism strategy referred to environmental grievances as a source of domestic extremism. “Environmentalism has failed,” David Suzuki wrote in a 2012 blog post. Against the backdrop of decreasing government support for environmental initiatives, the internationally renowned Canadian environmentalist lamented the global emphasis on “economy over environment.” Two years later he launched the Blue Dot campaign, an initiative aimed at having the right to a healthy environment recognized by all levels of government and enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Despite the setbacks articulated by Suzuki, certain initiatives instigated during environmentalism’s third wave now have a seemingly permanent place in Canadian society. Environmentally friendly products, for example, are often found on the shelves of grocery stores, and local food movements have taken hold in many communities across the country. Provinces have also made individual efforts at combatting climate change. For example, in 2014, Ontario closed the doors on its last coal-fired power plant, having replaced each with emission-free or lower-emission electricity facilities. Similarly, in 2008, British Columbia instituted a carbon tax an amount of money owed to the government for each tonne of greenhouse gases a company or individual produces. It was the first jurisdiction in North America to do so. In October 2015, Justin Trudeau was elected prime minister. He made climate change a focus of the first few months of his leadership, signing the Paris Agreement in April 2016. The agreement, signed by nearly 200 countries, outlines the ways in which the international community will cooperate to keep global warming to above pre-industrial levels. Trudeau also changed the name of Environment Canada to Environment and Climate Change Canada — an important semantic shift for many environmentalists. Fourth Wave Youth Movement Youth are also playing an increasing role in environmental activism. In 2005, Montreal hosted the United Nations’ 11th annual Conference of the Parties COP. During COP meetings, signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meet to discuss their progress in combatting climate warming. Prior to COP11, youth from around the world met in Montreal. Together they created the first Conference of Youth. These conferences now take place annually in advance of the COP meeting. In 2016, then 12-year-old Autumn Peltier attended the annual meeting of the Assembly of First Nations. Peltier is a water rights advocate and member of the Wiikwemkoong First Nation. At the meeting, Peltier confronted Prime Minister Trudeau on his government’s environmental policies. In particular, she drew attention to Trudeau’s support of pipelines and the risk they pose to local waterways. Following the passing of her great-aunt Josephine Mandamin in February 2019, Peltier was named Chief Water Commissioner of the Anishinabek Nation. In August 2018, Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg protested in front of her country’s parliament every school day for three weeks. Thunberg’s strike was against Sweden’s lack of action in fighting climate change. Later that year, Thunberg spoke at the United Nations Climate Change Conference COP24. Thunberg’s activism inspired the Fridays For Future movement. As part of this movement, students around the world, including in Canada, leave school on Fridays to demand climate action. On 27 September 2019, Thunberg met with Justin Trudeau in Montreal, ahead of a climate change rally. She told the prime minister he is not doing enough in the fight against climate change, the same message she gives to every politician she speaks to. IELTS Writing Task 2 with sample answer. You should spend about 40 minutes on this task. Write about the following topic The state of the environment is now a cause for concern in all countries across the world. Apart from government measures and policies, what can individuals do on a personal level to combat the negative effects that our lifestyles have on the environment? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. Write at least 250 words. Sample Answer Environmental pollution has become the most pressing issue in all countries around the globe. Each government has adopted several policies in order to deal with this problem. But, we as an individual can curb the negative effects stemming from environmental pollution by simply changing our lifestyles that contribute to the phenomena. To commence with, our lifestyle causes pollution. For example, electricity has become the bedrock of our society and we cannot think of a moment without it. But the electricity is generated through polluting sources for instance the burning of fossil fuels like oil and natural gas. We can reduce pollution by conserving energy. For instance, we can do it by turning off bulbs, computers, and other electric appliances when they are not in use. Apart from that, we can use green energy which does not deplete natural resources and does not contribute to environmental harm. Take solar energy as an example. Solar energy is the energy generated from the light and heat of the sun. In addition, vehicle exhaust is a major contributor to air pollution which harms the environment severely. Individuals can help prevent air pollution by changing driving habits. Vehicle emissions can be sharply reduced by less driving. Take me for example. I make a single trip to stock up on everything I need instead of driving to the grocery stores several times. In addition to this, everyone can ameliorate the environment by using public transportation. For example, more people can travel in a single bus or train, and if one chooses a private car rather than a bus or train, for instance, he will cause several times more CO2 emissions that will lead to environmental damage. To wrap up, the rise of concern about the environment ripples through the nations. Everyone should take part in the endeavour combatting the adverse effects of environmental damage in tandem with the government. Many doubt success of international efforts to reduce global warming Mud-covered cars stand piled up near Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler in western Germany on July 22, days after deadly floods caused major damage in the region. Christof Stache/AFP via Getty Images This analysis focuses on attitudes toward global climate change around the world. For this report, we conducted nationally representative Pew Research Center surveys of 16,254 adults from March 12 to May 26, 2021, in 16 advanced economies. All surveys were conducted over the phone with adults in Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, the UK, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. In the United States, we surveyed 2,596 adults from Feb. 1 to 7, 2021. Everyone who took part in the survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel ATP, an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. This study was conducted in countries where nationally representative telephone surveys are feasible. Due to the coronavirus outbreak, face-to-face interviewing is not currently possible in many parts of the world. Here are the questions used for the report, along with responses. See our methodology database for more information about the survey methods outside the For respondents in the read more about the ATP’s methodology. A new Pew Research Center survey in 17 advanced economies spanning North America, Europe and the Asia-Pacific region finds widespread concern about the personal impact of global climate change. Most citizens say they are willing to change how they live and work at least some to combat the effects of global warming, but whether their efforts will make an impact is unclear. Citizens offer mixed reviews of how their societies have responded to climate change, and many question the efficacy of international efforts to stave off a global environmental crisis. Conducted this past spring, before the summer season ushered in new wildfires, droughts, floods and stronger-than-usual storms, the study reveals a growing sense of personal threat from climate change among many of the publics polled. In Germany, for instance, the share that is “very concerned” about the personal ramifications of global warming has increased 19 percentage points since 2015 from 18% to 37%. In the study, only Japan -8 points saw a significant decline in the share of citizens deeply concerned about climate change. In the United States, views did not change significantly since 2015. Young adults, who have been at the forefront of some of the most prominent climate change protests in recent years, are more concerned than their older counterparts about the personal impact of a warming planet in many publics surveyed. The widest age gap is found in Sweden, where 65% of 18- to 29-year-olds are at least somewhat concerned about the personal impacts of climate change in their lifetime, compared with just 25% of those 65 and older. Sizable age differences are also found in New Zealand, Australia, the France and Canada. Public concern about climate change appears alongside a willingness to reduce its effects by taking personal steps. Majorities in each of the advanced economies surveyed say they are willing to make at least some changes in how they live and work to address the threat posed by global warming. And across all 17 publics polled, a median of 34% are willing to consider “a lot of changes” to daily life as a response to climate change. Generally, those on the left of the political spectrum are more open than those on the right to taking personal steps to help reduce the effects of climate change. This is particularly true in the where citizens who identify with the ideological left are more than twice as willing as those on the ideological right 94% vs. 45% to modify how they live and work for this reason. Other countries where those on the left and right are divided over whether to alter their lives and work in response to global warming include Canada, the Netherlands, Australia and Germany. Beyond individual actions, the study reveals mixed views on the broader, collective response to climate change. In 12 of the 17 publics polled, half or more think their own society has done a good job dealing with global climate change. But only in Singapore 32%, Sweden 14%, Germany 14%, New Zealand 14% and the United Kingdom 13% do more than one-in-ten describe such efforts as “very good.” Meanwhile, fewer than half in Japan 49%, Italy 48%, the 47%, South Korea 46% and Taiwan 45% give their society’s climate response favorable marks. Abroad, the response to climate change is generally seen as wanting. Among the 16 other advanced economies surveyed, only Singaporeans are slightly positive in their assessment of American efforts 53% say the is doing a “good job” of addressing climate change. Elsewhere judgments are harsher, with six-in-ten or more across Australia, New Zealand and many of the European publics polled saying the is doing a “bad job” of dealing with global warming. However, China fares substantially worse in terms of international public opinion A median of 78% across 17 publics describe China’s handling of climate change as “bad,” including 45% who describe the Chinese response as “very bad.” That compares with a cumulative median of 61% who judge the American response as “bad.” At the cross-national level, the European Union’s response to climate change is viewed favorably by majorities in each of the advanced economies surveyed, except Germany where opinion is split 49% good job; 47% bad job. However, there is still room for improvement, as only a median of 7% across the publics polled describe the EU’s efforts as “very good.” The United Nations’ actions to address global warming are also generally seen in a favorable light A median of 56% say the multilateral organization is doing a good job. But again, the reviews are tempered, with just 5% describing the UN’s response to climate change as “very good.” Publics in the advanced economies surveyed are divided as to whether actions by the international community can successfully reduce the effects of global warming. Overall, a median of 52% lack confidence that a multilateral response will succeed, compared with 46% who remain optimistic that nations can respond to the impact of climate change by working together. Skepticism of multilateral efforts is most pronounced in France 65%, Sweden 61% and Belgium 60%, while optimism is most robust in South Korea 68% and Singapore 66%. These are among the findings of a new Pew Research Center survey, conducted from Feb. 1 to May 26, 2021, among 18,850 adults in 17 advanced economies. People concerned climate change will harm them during their lifetimes Many people across 17 advanced economies are concerned that global climate change will harm them personally at some point in their lifetime. A median of 72% express at least some concern that they will be personally harmed by climate change in their lifetimes, compared with medians of 19% and 11% who say they are not too or not at all concerned, respectively. The share who say they are very concerned climate change will harm them personally ranges from 15% in Sweden to 57% in Greece. Roughly two-thirds of Canadians and six-in-ten Americans are worried climate change will harm them in their lifetimes. Only 12% of Canadians and 17% of Americans are not at all concerned about the personal impact of global climate change. Publics in Europe express various degrees of concern for potential harm caused by climate change. Three-quarters or more of those in Greece, Spain, Italy, France and Germany say they are concerned that climate change will harm them at some point during their lives. Only in Sweden does less than a majority of adults express concern about climate change harming them. Indeed, 56% of Swedes are not concerned about personal harm related to climate change. In general, Asia-Pacific publics express more worry about climate change causing them personal harm than not. The shares who express concern range from 64% in Australia to 88% in South Korea. About one-third or more in South Korea, Singapore and Australia say they are very concerned climate change will harm them personally. The share who are very concerned climate change will harm them personally at some point during their lives has increased significantly since 2015 in nearly every country where trend data is available. In Germany, for example, the share who say they are very concerned has increased 19 percentage points over the past six years. Double-digit changes are also present in the UK +18 points, Australia +16, South Korea +13 and Spain +10. The only public where concern for the harm from climate change has decreased significantly since 2015 is Japan -8 points. While many worry climate change will harm them personally in the future, there is widespread sentiment that climate change is already affecting the world around them. In Pew Research Center surveys conducted in 2019 and 2020, a median of 70% across 20 publics surveyed said climate change is affecting where they live a great deal or some amount. And majorities in most countries included as part of a 26-nation survey in 2018 thought global climate change was a major threat to their own country the same was true across all 14 countries surveyed in 2020. Those who place themselves on the left of the ideological spectrum are more likely than those who place themselves on the right to be concerned global climate change will harm them personally during their lifetime. This pattern is present across all 14 nations where ideology is measured. In 10 of these 14, though, majorities across the ideological left, center and right are concerned climate change will harm them personally. The difference is starkest in the Liberals are 59 percentage points more likely than conservatives to express concern for this possibility 87% vs. 28%, respectively. However, large ideological differences are also present in Australia with liberals 41 points more likely to say this, the Netherlands +35, Canada +30, Sweden +30 and New Zealand +23. Women are more concerned than men that climate change will harm them personally in many of the publics polled. In Germany, women are 13 points more likely than men to be concerned that climate change will cause them harm 82% vs 69%, respectively. Double-digit differences are also present across several publics, including the Sweden, the UK, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Australia and the Netherlands. When this question was first asked in 2015, women were also more likely to express concern than their male counterparts that climate change will harm them in the Germany, Canada, Japan, Spain and Australia. Young people have been at the forefront of past protests seeking government action on climate change. In eight places surveyed, young adults ages 18 to 29 are more likely than those 65 and older to be concerned climate change will harm them during their lifetime. The difference is greatest in Sweden, home of youth climate activist Greta Thunberg. Young Swedes are 40 points more likely than their older counterparts to say they are concerned about harm from climate change. Large age gaps are also present in New Zealand with younger adults 31 points more likely to say this, Australia +30 and Singapore +20. And young Americans, French, Canadians and Brits are also more likely to say that climate change will personally harm them in their lifetimes. While large majorities across every age group in Greece and South Korea are concerned climate change will harm them personally, those ages 65 and older are more likely to hold this sentiment than those younger than 30. Many across the world willing to change how they live and work to reduce effects of climate change Many across the publics surveyed say they are willing to make at least some changes to the way they live and work to reduce the effects of climate change. A median of 80% across 17 publics say they would make at least some changes to their lives to reduce the effects of climate change, compared with a median of 19% who say they would make a few changes or no changes at all. The share willing to make a lot of changes ranges from 8% in Japan to 62% in Greece. In North America, about three-quarters or more of both Canadians and Americans say they are willing to make changes to reduce the effects of climate change. Large majorities across each of the European publics surveyed say they are willing to change personal behavior to address climate change, but the share who say they are willing to make a lot of changes varies considerably. About half or more in Greece, Italy and Spain say they would make a lot of changes, while fewer than a third in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands say the same. Majorities in each of the Asia-Pacific publics polled say they would make some or a lot of changes to how they live and work to combat the effects of climate change, including more than three-quarters in South Korea, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand. But in Japan, fully 44% say they are willing to make few or no changes to how they live and work to address climate change, the largest share of any public surveyed. In eight countries surveyed, those ages 18 to 29 are more likely than those 65 and older to say they are willing to make at least some changes to how they live and work to help reduce the effects of climate change. In France, for example, about nine-in-ten of those younger than 30 are willing to make changes in response to climate change, compared with 62% of those 65 and older. Ideologically, those on the left are more likely than those on the right to express willingness to change their behavior to help reduce the effects of global climate change. The ideological divide is widest in the where 94% of liberals say they are willing to make at least some changes to how they live and work to help reduce the effects of climate change, compared with 45% of conservatives. Large ideological differences are also present between those on the left and the right in Canada a difference of 26 percentage points, the Netherlands 25 points, Australia 23 points and Germany 22 points. In most publics, those with more education are more likely than those with less education to say they are willing to adjust their lifestyles in response to the impact of climate In Belgium, for example, those with a postsecondary degree or higher are 14 points more likely than those with a secondary education or below to say they are willing to make changes to the way they live. Double-digit differences are also present between those with more education and less education in France, Germany, New Zealand, the Netherlands and Australia. And in most places surveyed, those with a higher-than-median income are more likely than those with a lower income to express willingness to make at least some changes to reduce the effects of climate change. For example, in Belgium, about three-quarters 76% of those with a higher income say they would make changes to their lives, compared with 66% of those with a lower income. Many are generally positive about how their society is handling climate change Respondents give mostly positive responses when asked to reflect on how their own society is handling climate change. Around half or more in most places say they their society is doing at least a somewhat good job, with a median of 56% saying this across the 17 advanced economies. Roughly two-thirds 64% of Canadians say their country is doing a good job, while nearly half of Americans say the same. In most of the European publics surveyed, majorities believe their nation’s climate change response is at least somewhat good. Those in Sweden and the UK are especially optimistic, with around seven-in-ten saying their society is doing a good job dealing with climate change. In Europe, Italians are the most critical of their country’s performance 20% say their society is doing a very bad job, the largest share among all publics surveyed. Around eight-in-ten in Singapore and New Zealand say their publics are doing a good job – the highest levels among all societies surveyed. This includes around a third 32% in Singapore who say they are doing a very good job. Adults in the other Asia-Pacific publics surveyed are more circumspect; about half or fewer say their society is doing a good job. Political ideology plays a role in how people evaluate their own public’s handling of climate change. For adults in 10 countries, those on the right tend to rate their country’s performance with regard to climate change more positively. The difference is most stark in Australia 69% of those on the right say Australia is handling climate change well, compared with just 19% of those on the left – a 50-point difference. A striking difference also appears in the where conservatives are 41 points more likely than liberals to say the is doing a good job dealing with climate change. Evaluations are also tied to how people view governing parties. In 10 of 17 publics surveyed, people who see the governing party positively are more likely than those with a negative view of the party to think climate change is being handled well. The opposite is true in the where only 33% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say the is handling climate change well, compared with 61% of those who do not support the Democratic Party. Only a median of 46% across the publics polled are confident that actions taken by the international community will significantly reduce the effects of climate change. A median of 52% are not confident these actions will reduce the effects of climate change. Canadians are generally divided on whether international climate action can reduce the impact of climate change. And 54% of Americans are not confident in the international community’s response to the climate crisis. In Europe, majorities in Germany and the Netherlands express confidence that international climate action can significantly address climate change. However, majorities in France, Sweden, Belgium and Italy are not confident in climate actions taken by the international community. South Koreans and Singaporeans say they are confident in international climate action, but elsewhere in the Asia-Pacific region, public opinion is either divided or leans toward pessimism about international efforts. Opinion of international organizations, like the United Nations, is linked to confidence that actions taken by the international community will significantly reduce the effects of global climate change. Those with a favorable view of the UN are more confident that actions taken by the international community will significantly reduce the effects of climate change than those with an unfavorable view of the UN. This difference is largest in the where 61% with a favorable view of the UN say international action will reduce the effects of climate change, compared with just 22% of those with an unfavorable view of the organization. Double-digit differences are present in every public polled. Similarly, in every EU member state included in the survey, those with favorable views of the bloc are more likely to have confidence in international efforts to combat climate change than those with unfavorable views. Little consensus on whether international climate action will harm or benefit domestic economies Relatively few in the advanced economies surveyed think actions taken by the international community to address climate change, such as the Paris climate agreement, will mostly benefit or harm their own economy. A median of 31% across 17 publics say these actions will be good for their economy, while a median of 24% believe such actions will mostly harm their economy. A median of 39% say actions like the Paris climate agreement will have no economic impact. In Sweden, about half 51% feel international climate actions will mostly benefit their economy. On the other hand, only 18% in France say their public will benefit economically from international climate agreements. In no public do more than a third say international action on climate change will harm their economy. But in the which pulled out of the Paris climate agreement under former President Donald Trump and has just recently rejoined the accord under President Joe Biden, a third say international climate agreements will harm the economy. For more on how international publics view Biden’s international policy actions, see “America’s Image Abroad Rebounds With Transition From Trump to Biden.” The more widespread sentiment among those surveyed is that climate actions will have no impact on domestic economies. In eight publics, four-in-ten or more hold this opinion, including half in France. And in two places – Japan and Taiwan – one-in-five or more offer no opinion. Those on the left of the ideological spectrum are more likely than those on the right to say international action to address climate change – such as the Paris Agreement – will mostly benefit their economies. respondents are particularly divided by ideology. Roughly half 53% of liberals feel international actions related to climate change will benefit the economy, compared with just 12% of conservatives. The next largest difference is in Canada, where those on the left are 24 percentage points more likely than those on the right to think this type of international action will benefit their economy. Those on the right in many publics are, in turn, more likely than those on the left to think international actions such as the Paris Agreement will mostly harm their economies. Here again, ideological divisions in the are much larger than those in other publics 65% of conservatives say international climate change actions will harm the American economy, compared with 12% of liberals who say the same. In several advanced economies, those who say their current economic situation is good are more likely to say that actions taken by the international community to address climate change will mostly benefit their economies than those who say the economic situation is bad. In Sweden, for example, a majority 55% of those who say the current economic situation is good also believe international action like the Paris Agreement will benefit the Swedish economy, compared with 31% who are more negative about the state of the economy. Evaluating the climate change response from the EU, UN, and China In addition to reflecting on their own public, respondents were asked to evaluate how four international organizations or countries are handling global climate change. Of the entities asked about, the European Union receives the best ratings, with a median of 63% across the 17 publics surveyed saying the EU is doing a good job handling climate change. A median of 56% say the same for the United Nations. Far fewer believe the or China – the two leading nations in carbon dioxide emissions – are doing a good job. EU handling of climate change receives high marks in and outside of Europe Majorities in all but two of the publics surveyed think the EU is doing a good job addressing climate change. However, this positivity is tempered, with most respondents saying the EU’s effort is somewhat good, but few saying it is very good. Praise for the bloc’s response to climate change is common among the European countries surveyed. In Spain and Greece, around seven-in-ten say the EU is doing at least a somewhat good job, and about six-in-ten or more in the UK, Italy, Sweden and France agree. The Dutch and Germans have more mixed feelings about how the EU is responding to climate change. Notably, only about one-in-ten say the EU is doing a very bad job handling climate change in every European country surveyed but Sweden, where only 5% say so. Seven-in-ten Canadians believe the EU is doing a good job dealing with climate change, and 62% in the express the same view. The Asia-Pacific publics surveyed report similarly positive attitudes on the EU’s climate plans. Around seven-in-ten Australians and Singaporeans consider the EU’s response to climate change at least somewhat good. About six-in-ten or more in New Zealand, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan echo this sentiment. Climate change actions by UN seen positively among most surveyed Majorities in most publics also consider the UN response to climate change to be good. A median of 49% across all publics surveyed say that the UN’s actions are somewhat good, and a median of 5% say the actions are very good. Canadians evaluate the UN’s performance on climate more positively than Americans do. In Canada, roughly six-in-ten say the multilateral organization is doing at least a somewhat good job handling climate change. About half of those in the agree with that evaluation, with 43% of Americans saying the UN is doing a bad job of dealing with climate change. In Europe, majorities in Spain, Sweden, the UK, Greece and Italy approve of how the UN is dealing with climate change. Fewer than half of adults in the Netherlands, France and Belgium agree with this evaluation, and only about a third in Germany say the same. Singaporeans stand out as the greatest share of adults among those surveyed who see the UN’s handling of climate change as good. This includes 14% who say the UN response is very good, which is at least double the share in all other societies surveyed. Majorities in Australia and New Zealand similarly say that the UN is doing a good job. Many critical of approach to climate change In most publics surveyed, adults who say the is doing a good job of handling climate change are in the minority. A median of 33% say the is doing a somewhat good job, and a median of just 3% believe the is doing a very good job. About half of Americans say their own country is doing a good job in dealing with global climate change, but six-in-ten Canadians say their southern neighbor is doing a bad job. Across Europe, most think the is doing a bad job of addressing climate change, including 75% of Germans and Swedes. And at least a quarter in all European nations surveyed except the UK and Greece say the is doing a very bad job. Singaporeans offer the approach to climate change the most praise in the Asia-Pacific region and across all publics surveyed; around half say they see the strategy positively. New Zealanders are the most critical in the Asia-Pacific region Only about a quarter say the is doing at least a somewhat good job. Political ideology is linked to evaluations of the climate strategy. In 12 countries, those on the right of the political spectrum are significantly more likely than those on the left to say the is doing a good job dealing with global climate change. The difference is greatest in Australia, Canada and Italy. Few give China positive marks for handling of climate change The publics surveyed are unenthusiastic about how China is dealing with climate change. A median of 18% across the publics say China is doing a good job, compared with a median of 78% who say the opposite. Notably, a median of 45% say that China is doing a very bad job handling climate change. Just 18% of Americans and Canadians believe China is doing a good job handling climate change. Similarly, few in Europe think China is dealing effectively with climate change. In fact, more than four-in-ten in nearly all European countries polled say China is doing a very bad job with regards to climate change. Criticism is less common in Greece, where a third give China positive marks for its climate change action. Adults in the Asia-Pacific region also generally give China poor ratings for dealing with climate change. South Koreans are exceptionally critical; about two-thirds say China is doing a very bad job, the highest share in all publics surveyed. About four-in-ten or more in New Zealand, Japan and Australia concur. Singaporeans stand out, as half say China is doing a good job, nearly 20 percentage points higher than the next highest public. In nine countries surveyed, those with less education are more positive toward China’s response to climate change than those with more education. Likewise, those with lower incomes are more inclined to provide positive evaluations of China’s climate change response. Those with less education or lower incomes are also less likely to provide a response in several publics. CORRECTION Oct. 13, 2021 In the chart “Publics are divided over the economic impact of international actions to address global climate change,” the “Don’t Know” column has been edited to reflect updated percentages to correct for a data tabulation error. These changes did not affect the report’s substantive findings. NEW YORK AP — Smoke from Canadian wildfires poured into the East Coast and Midwest on Wednesday, covering the capitals of both nations in an unhealthy haze, holding up flights at major airports, postponing Major League Baseball games and prompting people to fish out pandemic-era face officials asked other countries for additional help fighting more than 400 blazes nationwide that already have displaced 20,000 people. Air with hazardous levels of pollution extended into the New York metropolitan area, central New York state and parts of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Massive tongues of unhealthy air extended as far as North Carolina and Indiana, affecting millions of people.“I can taste the air,” Dr. Ken Strumpf said in a Facebook post from Syracuse, New York, which was enveloped in an amber pall. The smoke, he later said by phone, even made him a bit dizzy. The air quality index, a Environmental Protection Agency metric for air pollution, exceeded a staggering 400 at times in Syracuse, New York City and Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley. A level of 50 or under is considered good; anything over 300 is considered “hazardous,” when even healthy people are advised to curtail outdoor physical activity. In Baltimore, Debbie Funk sported a blue surgical mask as she and husband, Jack Hughes, took their daily walk around Fort McHenry, a national monument overlooking the Patapsco River. The air hung thick over the water, obscuring the horizon.“I walked outside this morning, and it was like a waft of smoke,” said Funk. Canadian officials say this is shaping up to be the nation’s worst wildfire season ever. It started early on drier-than-usual ground and accelerated very quickly, exhausting firefighting resources across the country, fire and environmental officials from the blazes in various parts of the country has been lapping into the since last month but intensified with recent fires in Quebec, where about 100 were considered out of control Wednesday — which, unsettlingly, was national Clean Air Day in Canada. The smoke was so thick in downtown Ottawa, Canada’s capital, that office towers just across the Ottawa River were barely visible. In Toronto, Yili Ma said her hiking plans were canceled and she was forgoing restaurant patios, a beloved Canadian summer tradition.“I put my mask away for over a year, and now I’m putting on my mask since yesterday,” the 31-year-old lamented. Quebec Premier François Legault said the province currently has the capacity to fight about 40 fires — and the usual reinforcements from other provinces have been strained by conflagrations in Nova Scotia and elsewhere. Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre spokesperson Jennifer Kamau said more than 950 firefighters and other personnel have arrived from the Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and more are due soon. In Washington, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said President Joe Biden has sent more than 600 firefighters and equipment to Canada. His administration has contacted some governors and local officials about providing assistance, she Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Twitter that he spoke by phone with Biden and “thanked him for all the help Americans are providing as we continue to fight these devastating wildfires.”The largest town in Northern Quebec — Chibougamau, population about 7,500 — was evacuated Tuesday, and Legault said the roughly 4,000 residents of the northern Cree town of Mistissini would likely have to leave Wednesday. But later in the day, Mistissini Chief Michael Petawabano said his community remains safe and asked residents to wait for instructions from Cree Quebec got some rain Wednesday, but Montreal-based Environment Canada meteorologist Simon Legault said no significant rain is expected for days in the remote areas of central Quebec where the wildfires are more National Weather Service meteorologist Zach Taylor said the current weather pattern in the central and eastern is essentially funneling in the smoke. Some rain should help clear the air somewhat in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic this weekend or early next week, though more thorough relief will come from containing or extinguishing the fires, he York Gov. Kathy Hochul said 1 million N95 masks would be available at state facilities. New York City closed beaches, and Mayor Eric Adams told residents to stay indoors as much as possible as smoke smudged out the skyline. Zoos in the Bronx and Central Park closed early and brought their animals inside. The Federal Aviation Administration paused some flights bound for LaGuardia Airport and slowed planes to Newark Liberty and Philadelphia because the smoke was limiting visibility. It also contributed to delayed arrivals at Dulles International Airport outside Washington, where a heavy haze shrouded the Washington Monument and forced the cancellation of outdoor tours. Major League Baseball put off games in New York and Philadelphia, and even an indoor WNBA game in Brooklyn was called off. On Broadway, “Killing Eve” star Jodie Comer had difficulty breathing and left the matinee of “Prima Facie” after 10 minutes; the show restarted with an understudy, show publicists said. “Hamilton” and “Camelot” canceled Wednesday evening performances, with “Hamilton” publicists saying the the deteriorating air quality “made it impossible for a number of our artists to perform.” In Central Park, the popular outdoor Shakespeare in the Park performances were put off through in multiple states canceled sports and other outdoor activities, shifting recess inside. Live horse racing was canceled Wednesday and Thursday at Delaware Park in Wilmington. Organizers of Global Running Day, a virtual 5K, advised participants to adjust their plans according to air Jersey closed state offices early, and some political demonstrations in spots from Manhattan to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, were moved indoors or postponed. Striking Hollywood writers were pulled off picket lines in the New York metropolitan area. The smoke exacerbated health problems for people such as Vicki Burnett, 67, who has asthma and has had serious bouts with bronchitis. After taking her dogs out Wednesday morning in Farmington Hills, Michigan, Burnett said, “I came in and started coughing and hopped back into bed.” Still, she stressed that she’s concerned for Canadians, not just herself. “It’s unfortunate, and I’m having some problems for it, but there should be help for them,” she reported from Toronto. Contributing were Associated Press journalists Randall Chase in Dover, Delaware; Michael Hill in Albany, New York; David Koenig in Dallas; Aamer Madhani in Washington; Brooke Schultz in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania; Mark Scolforo in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Lea Skene in Baltimore; Carolyn Thompson in Buffalo, New York; Ron Todt in Philadelphia; Corey Williams in West Bloomfield, Michigan; and Ron Blum, Mark Kennedy, Jake Offenhartz, Karen Matthews and Julie Walker in New York. ___This story has corrected the attribution of material about forecast for rain in Quebec to Montreal-based Environment Canada meteorologist Simon Legault, not Quebec Premier François Legault. The COP26 climate change conference in Glasgow is drawing to a close. And despite high hopes, many young people may be feeling disappointed with the progress at these landmark talks. They may be feeling anxious about their future, considering they’ll be bearing the brunt of the impact of decisions made over the past two weeks. Our soon-to-be published research in the journal Child and Adolescent Mental Health shows most young people in Australia are concerned about climate change. But that’s not necessarily a problem. For some, a growing concern can motivate them to take action. There’s a word for this concern – eco-anxiety Eco-anxiety relates to worry and despair about climate change. Connected terms include “ecological grief”, which reflects grief related to ecological loss. People can also experience emotions such as fear, guilt and anger about climate change. We know adults experience these types of climate-related emotions. Read more Feel alone in your eco-anxiety? Don't – it's remarkably common to feel dread about environmental decline However, understanding young people’s views about climate change is important as they are more likely to be alive to experience its worst potential effects. Young people have also had a prominent role in climate activism, including the School Strike 4 Climate movement involving millions of young people around the world. These Brisbane school students, protesting against climate change earlier this year, are part of a global youth movement. Dan Peled/AAP Image Given the level of young people’s worry or concern about climate change we identified in our study, we may see their views becoming more influential as they reach voting age. Listening to these climate change concerns is vital. However, only 13% of young people in Australia feel government leaders are listening to them. We asked young people about climate change In our study, we tracked concern and worrying about climate change in more than 2,200 Australian young people over a period of eight years. At the start of the study, participants were aged 10-11, so by the end, they were 18-19 years old. At 18-19 years of age, most young people 75% had at least some concern or worry about climate change. But we also identified different patterns of climate worry over time. About half had increasing or had maintained moderate levels of worry over time. A total of 13% maintained high levels of worry over the eight years we tracked them. But 17% had persistently low levels of worry. Some young people became less worried over time. Read more Greta Thunberg emerged from five decades of environmental youth activism in Sweden Compared to those who were moderately worried, adolescents with high levels of persistent climate worry had higher depression symptoms at age 18-19. However, those who increased their climate-related worry over time did not. This suggests developing an awareness and concern for the environment was not associated with general mental health difficulties. Those with persistently high and increasing levels of climate worry had greater engagement with politics and news at 18-19 years. There are some positives Some level of worry and anxiety is normal. Anxiety can play an important role in protecting ourselves from danger and threat. Some worry may also motivate people to engage in constructive responses to climate change. Although we did not specifically examine activism in our study, previous studies show climate worry is associated with greater feelings of personal responsibility to make changes to reduce the impacts of climate change. However, anxiety can become a problem when it preoccupies us, leads us to avoid the thing that makes us anxious, gets in the way of daily life or stops us from doing the things we want to do. Our study shows that for most young people, climate worry is not associated with general mental health difficulties. However we don’t yet know the relationship between climate-related worry and mental health difficulties in younger children, as our study only looked at mental health outcomes at age 18-19. Read more The rise of 'eco-anxiety' climate change affects our mental health, too What if your concerns are overwhelming? Open communication about climate-related worry is essential. Parents play an important role and can talk with their children about these issues and listen to and validate their concerns. Worrying about the environment is rational and grounded in reality, as we are increasingly seeing the impacts of climate change around us. It’s OK for young people to feel worried. And we shouldn’t assume these worries are unproductive or necessarily associated with broader mental health difficulties. Acknowledging and validating feelings is key, and supporting young people to engage in activities to take action, if they want to, may help. Reassuringly, most young people in our study were not presenting with levels of worry that would warrant further assessment or treatment. Read more Treating a child's mental illness sometimes means getting the whole family involved Where to go for support If young people and their parents want additional support, seeing a GP is a good first step. Young people can also visit specialist youth mental health services such as headspace. A psychologist or other mental health professional can help young people develop ways of coping with and managing their worries. If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

concern for the environment is now at the