Support for zero-carbon pollution target for 2050
Q. To what extent would you support or oppose setting a zero-carbon pollution target for 2050 if it were adopted by the Federal Government?
| Federal Voting Intention (Lower House) | Jan’20 | |||||
| Total | Labor | Coalition | Greens | NET: Other | ||
| Strongly support | 31% | 38% | 22% | 59% | 19% | 32% |
| Somewhat support | 44% | 42% | 46% | 33% | 44% | 39% |
| Somewhat oppose | 15% | 13% | 17% | 6% | 17% | 18% |
| Strongly oppose | 11% | 7% | 15% | 2% | 20% | 12% |
| NET: Support | 75% | 80% | 68% | 91% | 63% | 71% |
| NET: Oppose | 25% | 20% | 32% | 9% | 37% | 29% |
| Base (n) | 1,090 | 336 | 390 | 104 | 146 | 1,080 |
- 75% of participants support setting a zero-carbon pollution target for 2050 if it were adopted by the Federal Government, up from 71% in January.
- The majority of all party voter support the introduction of targets. 91% of Greens voters, 80% of Labor and 68% of Coalition party voters all support the introduction of targets.
- Women (79%), capital city residents (77%) and Greens voters (91%) are most likely to support this initiative.
- Men (70%), non-capital city residents (70%) and independent/other party voters (63%) are least likely to support this initiative.
Nuclear power
Q. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
|
Total agree |
Total disagree |
Strongly agree |
Agree |
Disagree |
Strongly disagree |
Don’t know |
|
| Nuclear power is a good way to reduce greenhouse emissions |
40% |
35% |
10% |
30% |
19% |
16% |
25% |
| We should develop renewable energy options before nuclear |
77% |
11% |
41% |
36% |
8% |
3% |
12% |
| Nuclear power is too risky because of the risk of serious accidents |
62% |
27% |
28% |
34% |
20% |
7% |
12% |
| Nuclear power isn’t worth it because of the need to manage radioactive waste |
63% |
22% |
32% |
31% |
17% |
5% |
15% |
| Establishing a nuclear industry would be too expensive |
42% |
29% |
17% |
25% |
23% |
6% |
29% |
| We have our own uranium supplies so it’s logical we should develop nuclear power. |
37% |
40% |
9% |
28% |
22% |
18% |
23% |
There was strong majority agreement with the statements “We should develop renewable energy options before nuclear” (77%), “Nuclear power isn’t worth it because of the need to manage radioactive waste “ (63%) and “Nuclear power is too risky because of the risk of serious accidents “ (62%).
However, respondents were approximately evenly split over “Nuclear power is a good way to reduce greenhouse emissions” (40% agree/35% disagree) and “We have our own uranium supplies so it’s logical we should develop nuclear power” (37%/40%).
Most important environmental problem
Q. Which of these do you think is the most important environmental problem facing Australia today?
Q. And which would you say is the second most important?
| Most important | Second most important | Total | |
| Water supply | 33% | 20% | 53% |
| The health of rivers and waterways | 17% | 21% | 38% |
| Pollution | 14% | 17% | 31% |
| Climate change | 16% | 14% | 30% |
| Loss of native habitat | 8% | 11% | 19% |
| Logging of native forests | 4% | 8% | 12% |
| Greenhouse gases | 2% | 6% | 8% |
| Don’t know | 6% | 2% | 6% |
Water supply (53%) and the health of rivers and waterways (38%) were considered the most important environmental problems facing Australia today.
Younger respondents were more likely to nominate climate change (36% of aged under 45) while 47% of those aged 45+ nominated the health of rivers and waterways. Water supply was the top issue for all segments except Green voters who nominated climate change as their most important issue (51%).
COVID-19 RESEARCH
Read Essential's ongoing research on the public response to Covid-19.
Essential Report
Sign up for updates
Receive the Essential Report in your inbox.Essential Tags
Recent Comments
