Course talk:POLI3802012/Survey/Environment

Question 10. Last year, the earthquake and tsunami in Japan severely damaged the nuclear power plant at Fukushima, causing the release of radioactive particles. As a result, some European countries decided to phase out their nuclear power programs, while others have decided to continue them.

Given this incident, what do you think is the best policy for Canada?

1. Phase out all nuclear power plants, within the ten years or so. 2. Phase out all existing nuclear power plants, as they come to the end of their natural lives, but don't build any new ones. 3. Build nuclear power plants when they seem like a good option. 4. Don't know

One of the reasons why it might be good to ask this question, is that nuclear proponents tout it as "green energy" compared to coal, etc., which is not true, but they are working away on public opinion on this.

Also, crazily enough, there have been proposals to build nuclear power plant in Albera!!! to help extract tar sands oil.

I feel this question will yield alot of "don't know's" since the options are relatively limited whereas people may have opinions outside the scope of the possible answers. I think alot of people are relatively uninformed about Nuclear energy and by offering the Fukushima example it will give people a negative connotation right off the bat.

Thanks for the feedback. I am not sure what the other opinions and options are.

It may be an issue that does not mean all that much to people in BC as it might to people in Ontario and New Brunswick.

But it did become a global issue this year, with major policy changes; like other plants, it was supposed to be safe, even though researchers at the University of Tokyo had already published research warning that tsunamis of this magnitude and potential destructive power happened with regularity in a longer scale time-frame.

One of nuclear power's big supporters is James Lovelock, author of the Gaia hypothesis. On the other hand, he believes climate change will be so devastating that the human population will crash from 7/8 billion down to 1 in the next hundred years. He also predicts that the survivors will be able to see crocodiles in the Arctic, like 70 million years ago...

Any other thoughts?

Question 11. What does the survey respondent do with toxic burned out compact fluorescent light bulbs? "

In recent years, governments have strongly promoted a new kind of light bulb, the compact fluroescent light bulb, because they are energy efficient. These bulbs, however, contain a small amount of the toxic element mercury, and are best recycled by taking the bulbs back to stores which sell them.

Which of the following statements, best describes what you do with compact fluorescent light bulbs after they have burned out?

a. I throw them in the garbage, like we always did with the older style incandescent light bulbs.

b. I try to recycle them by putting them in the city's blue box recycling program.

c. I return them to a store which sells and recycles them safely.

d. I don't use compact fluorescent light bulbs.

e. I don't remember. (Or Won't say).

Anyway, I propose this question for the short list because it connects concretely with most people's everyday behaviour, rather than asking them to weigh in on government policy issues, so they can try to think about both personal and social impacts of something we use everyday.

First off, I think how you direct this question towards people's everyday behaviour rather than government policy issues is a great idea. And I can see how the selection of answers justifiably addresses most of the behaviours expected from an individual. One thing I would like to add however, is to perhaps rephrase answers A).

From what I understand, the purpose of the question is to assess the respondents' consciousness of environmental protection through proper recycling behaviours. Therefore, it would be best if answers could accurately represent the respondent's real behaviour.

However, by phrasing answer A) with "I throw them in the garbage, like we always did with the older style incandescent light bulbs", it implies that the respondent throws CFLs in the garbage knowing the fact that CFLs contain mercury toxins and are potentially harmful for the environment. In doing so, this may discourage certain respondents to not choose answer A) simply because of the fact that those respondents may not want to feel as if they are doing so on purpose or seem like they just don't care enough for the environment (even if the action in answer A is what they do in real life). If this is the case, then the respondent may instead choose an answer that does not label them as individuals who purposely harms the environment, such as answer E).

Instead, what would probably allow more accurate assessments for the objective of this question, is to rephrase answer A) as "I was not aware of the proper methods of disposing them, so I throw them in the garbage", or something along those lines. This way the respondents who do take action A) in their behaviours, will not feel guilty enough to be discouraged to admit that they do throw CFLs into the garbage.

Question 9 With the recent proposed increase of transit prices in BC again, does this decrease your willingness to take transit as opposed to driving?

a) yes, and i take transit less now b) yes, but i still take transit the same c) no, because i have no choice d) no, i find the prices to be fair e) i take part in a u-pass or some sort of cheaper transit pass system already (these answers will be excluded as this question aims to measure effects of price increases on regular transit users)

- Dorothy Xue Ting yang (3pm Feb 14)

Just starting this discussion page....the question is valid, but it is too long for people to hear easily on the phone. Also, it is more framed in terms of the cost of transit, without referring to any idea that people might consider the environment in terms of choosing between cars and transit.

Question 8

Do you think the government needs to enforce more strict guidelines for corporations in terms of pollution and sustainability of products?

A) yes B) no c) not sure

- Dorothy Xue Ting Yang

I have just started the discussion thread for this topic, which could be useful and among our questions....

Which of the following do you think is the greater priority for Canada?

A. Sustained Economic Growth B. Action on Environmental Issues

Let me know what you think

Well, it frames it as either/or, when it is really more like the environment is the economy, as in the Stern report, arguing that it is cheaper to do something climate change than wait to suffer its ill effects; also countries and businesses that are reducing their energy consumption are actually getting a competitive edge by becoming more efficient. interestingly, the tension between claims to economic growth vs. the environment are playing out in the questions about Enbridge and the oil sands.

Question 3

(Hume James Young)Oil sands producers plan to use increasing numbers of tanker ships to export oil through the Port of Vancouver destined for markets in the US and Asia. The oil companies argue that this helps the economy, while environmentalists argue that oil spills are likely.

Which of the following best describes your attitude to the plans to increase oil tanker traffic through the waters near Vancouver? 1. Strongly support 2. Support 3. Neutral: neither support nor oppose 4. Opposed 5. Strongly opposed

You can check out the background on this issue, the little known "Southern Gateway" for tar sands oil coming through Vancouver at websites like these:

http://www.tankerfreebc.org/

http://wildernesscommittee.org/tankers

Question 2

(Tim Huebsch) With the increased development of the Alberta Tar Sands as of late, many environmentalists argue that Canada is becoming a petro-state, a nation whose wealth is reliant on the sale of oil. Do you agree or disagree with this prediction?

1. Agree 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree nor disagree

Please discuss this specific question in this thread.

So on this question, it seems like a good speculative political science present/future scenario paper, but it may not achieve the goal of looking for a question which can measure average citizens' attitudes to something.

For example, some people could agree that Canada is becoming a petro-state, and think that is a good thing; others might agree that Canada is a petro-state and think that is a disaster...

Also, the tenses are a bit confusing. Are we talking about something which has already happened (probably yes)or are we asking people their opinion of something which might happen in the future, which is a bit dicier.

Finally, you're right, "petro-state" sounds like political science language, while something more common, like oil producer, etc. might work better.

Yeah the term petro-state is relatively subjective so people might have different takes on how much an economy is reliant on oil to be considered a petro state. Agree with the attitudes as well as this seems to measure whether something may or may not occur in the future rather than determining people's opinion in terms of supporting the oil sands or not.

Another question to perhaps add to the list (to replace my first one):

--By 2020, the projected production of Alberta Oil Sands is expected to double to approximately 3.4 million barrels per day. Which of the following best represents your opinion towards the increased expansion of the Alberta Oil Sands?

1. Opposed 2. Neutral 3. In Favour 4. Don't Know

Hi, this new question seems better, and easier for people to answer. How about putting it on to the main Question page, and replacing the earlier question if you feel happy with the new one?

Another line of questions might try to compare attitudes to the oil sands or TAR SANDS with attitudes to to other sources of energy, like renewables with wind and solar, and whether government should be subsidizing the renewables to the same or greater degree as existing oil and gas industries.

Ha, ha, the industry like to say "oil sands" (sounds like healthy olive oil, but environmentalists like to say TAR sands, all black, gooey, icky, and will trap you in a pit with dinosaurs or early mammals. Do we prefer "oil" or "tar"?

haha true never really thought of it like that. a quick google search and i found this pretty interesting: http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/04/25/TarVsOil/

oil sands--> positive connotation tar sands-->negative? I'll switch the question on the front page and keep it as "oil" and see what the others say

I guess that makes me an anti-oil extremist?! I often say tar. "no data whatsoever to show that using 'oil sands' makes Canadians more accepting of the industry or creates a positive impression." Perhaps we should use the word oil. JuliaMalmo-Laycock 22:00, 13 February 2012 (PST)

Question 6

How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statement. "One of the important roles of government is to protect the natural environment."

A. strongly agree B. agree C. Neutral D. Disagree E. Strongly disagree

HumeJamesYoung 20:50, 11 February 2012 (PST)

Again, we probably need some question to measure whether people think that the government should take an active role in protecting the environment.

This question, as worded, is broad, but it actually involves spending tax dollars, inspecting and regulating industry, creating policy and standards, etc. which many people argue are not enforced well or at all under the federal Conservatives or BC Liberals.

I like this one. It ties in similarly with the previous question posted by Yolanda of "How important do you think it is that the Government of Canada acts urgently to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." So perhaps we could tie the two together somehow

Here's the latest wording:

State how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statement:

All levels of government should protect the natural environment, for the benefit of society as a whole, the economy and future generations.

1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree 5. Don't know

Question 5

How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statement. "In one way or another, I consider myself to be an environmentalist."

A. strongly agree B. agree C. Neutral D. Disagree E. Strongly disagree

HumeJamesYoung 20:50, 11 February 2012 (PST)

It seems like we should have at least one question which tries to identify how strongly the person being interviewed considers him/herself to be an environmentalist, or more loosely a person who supports protecting the environment. The use of the word "environmentalist" might narrow the response, so I have tried to broaden it by saying "in one way or another." On the other hand, we could ask a broader, weaker question along the lines of "The natural environment is important for human life," "I care about the environment," or "The natural environment is important for our country and its economy," all with slightly different nuances.

The answers to this kind of question will be interesting to see when we look at correlations with party id, income, education, and even issues like Afghanisan and poverty

Hey James, I like the question and definitely think it's an important one to ask to make connections between the questions. I agree with you that the word environmentalist might deter some responses from people who care about the environment but wouldn't consider themselves activists, even though we have "in one way or another". Perhaps we could go with care about or is concerned about or agrees with the protection of the environment. JuliaMalmo-Laycock 22:06, 13 February 2012 (PST)

Hi Julia,

Yes, I have been thinking about this and agree with you. I am going to try to soften the question, as many people may have a degree of sympathy with environmentalism or feminism, but find it too threatening or something to identify themselves as ideologically hardcore "chain themselves to a giant redwood" or "get out and mythically burn their bras" type activists.

So, here's a new wording for others to comment on:

Question 5: How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statement. "The environment is important to me, and I do my best to take care of it."

A. strongly agree B. agree C. neutral D. disagree E. strongly disagree

I am going to delete the original and put this version on the questions page and the title for this discussion thread.

sounds good to me JuliaMalmo-Laycock 22:09, 16 February 2012 (PST)

My latest thought is to combine Question 5 (attitudes to personal responsibility for the environment) and Question 6 (attitudes to government responsibility for the environment) to get an overall measurement of desire to protect the environment. Since we only get 5 questions, it may be helpful to combine the ones which overlap, unless that gets confusing with 2 messages. Or, we can simply axe the weaker ones of similar groups, if that seems better.

I will propose it here, and put it on the main course page. Of course, others can comment or edit, or separate back into different questions, as desired:

Question 5 (now a combination of former Questions 5 and 6)

State how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statement:

As an individual, I do my best to take care of the environment. All levels of government should also protect the environment, for the benefit of society as a whole, the economy and future generations.

1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree 5. Don't know

"Question 7"

Alberta oil company Enbridge has been the source of 610 oil spills on land and water between 1999 and 2008. The recently proposed Enbridge Gateway pipeline would run from Alberta through B.C.'s Queen Charlotte Islands, an ecologically diverse coastal region that would involve hairpin turns for tankers en route to China, causing concern of a spill for environmental advocates. Enbridge is also ranked number 18 in Canada in terms of revenue, and employs thousands of Canadians. How would you rate your feelings about Enbridge and the proposed Gateway pipeline on a scale of 1-100?

took stats from http://thetyee.ca/News/2010/07/31/EnbridgeDirtyDozen/

JuliaMalmo-Laycock 22:46, 13 February 2012 (PST)

So the topic is great, and we really need to run a question on this issue, (remembering we only have 5) as it ties together a lot of issues: the petro-state, tar sands, climate change, globalization, aboriginal title, peak oil, the threat of oil spills and more environmental degradation as the low hanging fruit (the easily accessible oil) has already been picked and eaten long ago, if that's not too unappetizing a metaphor. As well it is getting a lot of coverage in the mainstream press, like the Sun, admittedly several years after it started to appear in the alternative press....

However, in terms of our ultimate goal of a survey where we actually ask people questions, this question is (a) way too long (b)too biased against poor old Enbridge...

So can we improve on the wording for this issue?

Also, is it possible to sneak in/combine the question about shipments of oil through Vancouver into the same question, as in asking a broader question about the safety of oil shipments off the BC coast in general? This idea appeals to me, but it may run the risk of losing the topical issue of the Northern Gateway, which is actually in the news now. Comments?

(Written on a hot and steamy Valentine's night. Outside temperature currently 4 Celsius)

This isn't too biased against Enbridge. Sure 610 oil spills starts off the question but she also mentions that Enbridge employs thousands of canadians and how well they are ranked in terms of businesses in Canada. This presents both negative and positive aspects of the company and the situation. I agree on the length of the question so perhaps merging the first and 2nd to last sentence together and paraphrasing the middle portion concerning the proposed route etc. Like the scale of 1-100

So I see the point about Enbridge, you're right, that there is balance here.

On the other hand, we really need to get relatively short questions which "average, ordinary" people can understand easily over the telephone, unless we are going end up doing the written thing. I think we have to plan as if we might be asking these on the phone or in person. I am now going to propose a question which combines question 3 and 6 (both on pipelines and oil exports) and you can see what you think, and, in the spirit of wiki, edit it further, as needed.

That question will be:

The Northern Gateway project plans to use pipelines and ocean-going oil tankers to export oil through the city of Kitimat on BC's north coast. The southern Gateway project plans to increase oil exports through the port of Vancouver.

Some people argue that these oil exports help drive economic growth and prosperity; other argue that they pose major threats to the environment, including the risk of major oil spills on land and water.

Given this debate, how strongly do you support or oppose these oil exports?

1. strongly support 2. support 3. oppose 4. strongly oppose 5. don't know

I was rewriting this question a lot, and originally tried to include the ideas about the balance/trade-off between between the economy and the environment in the answers, but they got much too long to read out over the phone.

This is even shorter! It might also catch the more extreme views, which may be easier to measure.

Exporting oil should be a priority for Canada even if it means risking oil spills in coastal regions such as the Queen Charlotte Islands and Vancouver as per the Northern and Southern Gateway Projects. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

1. Stongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree 5. Don't know

3. Xueting_Feng (Yolanda): How important do you think it is that the Government of Canada acts urgently to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

1.Extremely 2.Very 3.Somewhat 4.Not very 5.unimportant

So, please feel free to give comments, etc. on this specific question only here...

Hey Yolanda,

I think for the purpose of continuity and simplicity we should use the word "important" in each of the options. Perhaps you were thinking of doing this later on.

Ie.1.Extremely (Important) 2.Very (Important) 3.Somewhat (Important) 4.Not very (Important) 5.unimportant JuliaMalmo-Laycock 21:40, 13 February 2012 (PST)

A few comments:

Great start, everyone: We have enough members to get discussion going already. And we’ve got some initial questions to look at; I think Xueting’s was the very first question up in the whole class!!!. Thanks.

Goals: Can everyone read over the assignment goals, which are actually in two different places: (1) the POLI 380 Class Survey guidelines and tutorial instruction for the week of Jan 29 and the (2) Assignment 2.

We really only have to come up with 5 good questions, so we could work on getting 5 or more questions out there, as well as critiquing the ones we have already put up...already 3.

Have a look at Professor Cutler's advice on using the help for syntax, formatting and on how to sign your contributions...

HumeJamesYoung 11:49, 9 February 2012 (PST)

HumeJamesYoung

Questions are looking good so far, i'd be down to finish most of the work ahead of reading break, not a big issue though. Maybe for the other 2 questions (or the ones we already made) we can include one where the options include how one feels on a scale of 1-10 or 1-100 rather than whether one disagrees or agrees with a statement. Also for the current questions we could add an extra option of "don't know" since neither agreeing nor disagreeing is a neutral stance rather than a "don't know" option. Might change mine around a bit since the questions should be geared towards a general crowd rather than political science students (most might not know exactly what a 'petro-state is?) Thoughts?

I agree with your proposal of the "don't know" for our agree/disagree questions, Tim. JuliaMalmo-Laycock 22:14, 13 February 2012 (PST)

How willing would you be to pay higher energy costs in the interest of reducing Canada's carbon emissions? a. Very Willing b. fairly willing c. Neutral d. not willing e. Strongly Opposed