̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - Polling

Public awareness of ‘nuclear winter’ too low given current risks, argues expert

fpjl2 — Tue, 14 Feb 2023 09:36:22 +0000

There is a lack of awareness among UK and US populations of 'nuclear winter', the potential for catastrophic long-term environmental consequences from any exchange of nuclear warheads.

This is according to the researcher behind new polling conducted last month and released today by the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge’s Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER).

Paul Ingram, CSER senior research associate, says that – despite risks of a nuclear exchange being at their highest for 40 years due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine – what little awareness there is of nuclear winter among the public is mainly residual from the Cold War era.

̽��ֱ��scientific theory of nuclear winter sees detonations from nuclear exchanges throw vast amounts of debris into the stratosphere, which ultimately blocks out much of the sun for up to a decade, causing global drops in temperature, mass crop failure and widespread famine.

Combined with radiation fall-out, these knock-on effects would see millions more perish in the wake of a nuclear war – even if they are far outside of any blast zone. Ideas of nuclear winter permeated UK and US culture during the Cold War through TV shows and films such as Threads and ̽��ֱ��Day After, as well as in novels such as Z for Zachariah.

̽��ֱ��latest survey, conducted online in January 2023, asked 3,000 participants – half in the UK, half in the US – to self-report on a sliding scale whether they felt they knew a lot about “nuclear winter”, and if they had heard about it from:

Contemporary media or culture, of which 3.2% in the UK and 7.5% in the US said they had.
Recent academic studies, of which 1.6% in the UK and 5.2% in the US claimed they had.
Beliefs held during the 1980s, of which 5.4% in the UK and 9% in the US said they had heard of or still recalled.*

“In 2023 we find ourselves facing a risk of nuclear conflict greater than we’ve seen since the early eighties. Yet there is little in the way of public knowledge or debate of the unimaginably dire long-term consequences of nuclear war for the planet and global populations,” said Ingram.

“Ideas of nuclear winter are predominantly a lingering cultural memory, as if it is the stuff of history, rather than a horribly contemporary risk.”

“Of course it is distressing to consider large-scale catastrophes, but decisions need to account for all potential consequences, to minimise the risk,” said Ingram.

“Any stability within nuclear deterrence is undermined if it is based on decisions that are ignorant of the worst consequences of using nuclear weapons.”

̽��ֱ��survey also presented all participants with fictional media reports from the near future (dated July 2023) relaying news of nuclear attacks by Russia on Ukraine, and vice versa, to gauge support in the UK and US for western retaliation.

In the event of a Russian nuclear attack on Ukraine, fewer than one in five people surveyed in both countries supported in-kind retaliation, with men more likely than women to back nuclear reprisal: 20.7% (US) and 24.4% (UK) of men compared to 14.1% (US) and 16.1% (UK) of women.

̽��ֱ��survey used infographics summarising nuclear winter effects laid out in a recent study led by Rutgers ̽��ֱ�� (published by Nature in August 2022). ̽��ֱ��Rutgers research used climate modelling and observations from forest fires and volcanoes, and found that even a limited nuclear war could see mass starvation of hundreds of millions in countries uninvolved in any conflict.

Half the survey sample in each country (750 in the UK and US) were shown the infographics before they read the fictional news of nuclear strikes, while the other half – a control group – were not.

Support for nuclear retaliation was lower by 16% in the US and 13% in the UK among participants shown the “nuclear winter” infographics than among the control group.**

This effect was more significant for those supporting the parties of the US President and UK Government. Support for nuclear retaliation was lower by 33% among UK Conservative Party voters and 36% among US Democrat voters when participants were briefly exposed to recent nuclear winter research.***

Added Ingram: “There is an urgent need for public education within all nuclear-armed states that is informed by the latest research. We need to collectively reduce the temptation that leaders of nuclear-armed states might have to threaten or even use such weapons in support of military operations.”

Ingram points out that if we assume Russia’s nuclear arsenal has a comparable destructive force to that of the US – just under 780 megatons – then the least devastating scenario from the survey, in which nuclear winter claims 225 million lives, could involve just 0.1% of this joint arsenal.

̽��ֱ��findings are published in a report on the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk website.

* ̽��ֱ��responses to each of these three questions were not mutually exclusive, with some participants claiming to know about nuclear winter from two or three different sources.

** Support for nuclear retaliation in the UK was 18.1% in the group that were presented with the infographic, against 20.8% in the control group.
Support for nuclear retaliation in the US was 17.6% in the group that were presented with the infographic, against 21% in the control group.

***22.3% of informed UK Conservative Party voters supported nuclear retaliation, against 33.3% of those uninformed. Among US Democrats these figures were 15.8% and 24.6% respectively.

̽��ֱ��fieldwork was conducted online by polling company Prolific on the 25 January 2023, with a total of 3000 participants (1500 in the UK and US respectively).

Survey study of awareness in UK and US populations also shows that brief exposure to latest data on ‘nuclear winter’ deepens doubts over nuclear retaliation.

Ideas of nuclear winter are predominantly a lingering cultural memory, as if it is the stuff of history, rather than a horribly contemporary risk

Paul Ingram

Getty Images

US Navy nuclear test, Bikini Atoll.

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Europeans want climate action but not lifestyle change – poll

sc604 — Wed, 20 Oct 2021 06:07:36 +0000

̽��ֱ��results – part of a collaboration with Cambridge Zero, the ̽��ֱ��’s climate initiative – also found that as the UK prepares to host crucial climate talks in Glasgow next month, barely a third of British adults have noticed that the event is taking place.

According to polling conducted last week, just 31% of British adults have read or heard much about COP26 so far, compared with 63% answering to the contrary – either “not very much” or “nothing at all”. These numbers have also barely changed in two months.

When the same question was asked as part of the main, international fieldwork in August, results showed a slightly larger difference of 28% versus 67%. Predictably, the other populations showed even less impact, such as 17% versus 75% in France, 9% versus 84% in Sweden and 7% versus 83% in Germany.

However, the poll indicates that while survey participants may not be following COP26, a significant majority of the 9,000 people polled across the UK, Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden, Spain and Italy strongly support many of the aims of the talks, at least in principle.

Dr Emily Shuckburgh, Director of Cambridge Zero, said:

“As the impacts of climate change are starting to be felt everywhere, COP26 should be seen as a vital summit where the world must deliver immediate and meaningful climate action. But the bad news is that most people have still barely noticed that the world leaders who can actually take the actions needed will be in our own backyard.”

Dr Joel Rogers de Waal, Academic Director of YouGov, said:

“ ̽��ֱ��good news for COP26 organisers is that in every country surveyed, the vast majority are on board with the programme, at least in principle. In each national sample, most agreed that climate change is a genuine phenomenon and a considerable concern, and rejected the idea that its seriousness is being exaggerated.”

Beyond overall terms of debate, however, the same findings also indicate both strong support for certain environmental agendas – the polling showed widespread enthusiasm for “rewilding”, with 70% support in Britain and 79% in Spain for programmes to restore parts of the country to their natural state – and some obvious challenges.

However, when it comes to making lifestyle changes, participants were less enthusiastic. Despite the clear environmental benefits of eating less meat, all seven countries showed majorities who eat meat at least several times a week. Within the meat-eating section of respondents, only a small proportion claimed to have reduced their meat consumption over the past 12 months, and of those, generally around half or under had done so for environmental reasons.

Attitudes towards environmental action at the policy level are a mixed bag. In nearly every country, large portions support the policy of greatly expanding government investment in renewable energy, such as solar, wind and tidal power, including majorities or pluralities in Britain (66%), Germany (52%), Denmark (65%), Sweden (47%), Spain (74%) and Italy (69%). Only France was an outlier in this respect, where just 24% said the same.

But in other areas, public support is tentative and variable, such as bans on the sale of petrol or diesel cars and vans, or a frequent flyer tax.

Poll results also give a sense of public attitudes towards the new environmental activism. Additional polling for the project at the start of September asked British voters two questions regarding Extinction Rebellion – one about methods, the other about message. On the former, a 53% majority said the methods used by the protest group generally go too far, compared with only 10% saying they got the balance about right and 7% saying they didn’t go far enough. On the latter, however, only 38% thought the environmental warnings of Extinction Rebellion generally overstate the situation, next to a combined 41% saying that they describe the situation about right (32%) or even understate it (9%).

“ ̽��ֱ��most powerful protest movements are those that ultimately manage to inspire and co-opt the wider population, creating a sense of social momentum that becomes impossible for the political centre to ignore,” said de Waal. “By contrast, acts of civic vandalism that specifically target the basic necessities of daily life are more likely to do the opposite, since by infuriating the public, they only make it easier for governments to ignore the message behind the action.”

All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample sizes were: Britain= 1767; Germany=2108; France=1035; Denmark=1009; Sweden=1015; Spain=1050; Italy=1000. Fieldwork was undertaken online between 6th – 23rd August, 2021. For each country, the figures have been weighted and are representative of the adult population aged 18+.

Europeans want urgent action on climate change but remain committed meat-eaters and question policy proposals such as banning the sale of new petrol vehicles after 2030, according to a new poll from the YouGov–Cambridge Centre for Public Opinion Research that surveyed environmental attitudes in seven European countries, including the UK.

As the impacts of climate change are starting to be felt everywhere, COP26 should be seen as a vital summit where the world must deliver immediate and meaningful climate action.

Emily Shuckburgh

Alexander Savin

Extinction Rebellion London

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution