concern for the environment is now at the

In Canada, youth recently launched a class action lawsuit in Quebec arguing that the government is violating the rights of young people by failing to take urgent climate action. "People under 35 Sustainable development is an organizing principle for meeting human development goals while also sustaining the ability of natural systems to provide the natural resources and ecosystem services on which the economy and society depend. The desired result is a state of society where living conditions and resources are used to continue to meet human needs without undermining the integrity and Overall, 25% of California adults named water shortages and drought as the most important environmental issue currently facing the state. Not far behind, 17% named wildfires, followed by 13% who In the book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen R. Covey talked about the concept of Circle of Concern and Circle of Influence. The "Circle of Concern" includes the wide range of concerns you have in your work and life - including health, family, finances, national debt etc. Everything you include inside the circle is a More than four decades after the first Earth Day, there are still many environmental concerns for communities around the world to address; perhaps none so pressing as man-made climate change. Lollar Single Coil For Humbucker Pickup. Air quality advisories were in effect for 110 million people in the United States on Wednesday morning, ranging from New Hampshire to South Carolina and covering the Northeast, including Boston, New York City and the Northeast, the poor air quality is the result of wildfires raging in eastern Canada, sending smoke wafting into the In some areas, the smoke is so dense that people can smell it and the skies appear hazy. About 90 million people in the are impacted by the the Northeast, high concentrations of ground-level ozone — also known as smog — are driving unhealthy air quality levels in a number of urban areas across the live coverage on air quality conditions and Canada's wildfiresWhat causes poor air quality?Poor air quality can be caused by any airborne “irritant” — a particle or substance in the air that is harmful to a person to breathe in, according to Dr. Purvi Parikh, an allergist and immunologist at the Allergy & Asthma Network, an advocacy group for people with asthma, allergies and related examples are air pollution, including from vehicles and carbon emissions, as well as rising ozone levels, she disasters, like wildfires, often cause short-term spikes in poor air quality as the smoke, which contains carbon monoxide and other dangerous chemicals, enters the atmosphere. Especially concerning is small particulate matter — tiny particles in the air that measure less than micrometers in diameter, or roughly 4% of the width of a strand of hair. These particles are small enough to be inhaled deep into the lungs and can enter the are a few options for face masks if you need to be outside Disposable, KN95 and Environmental Protection Agency uses the air quality index to report air quality. It ranges from 0 to more than 300, with levels 50 and below considered the healthiest. When levels exceed 150, the general population may start to experience symptoms. Over 200 is considered "very unhealthy."Smoke from wildfires in Canada drifts into New York state can poor air quality hurt health?Many of the health issues people see from poor air quality, in general, can overlap with health issues people see from wildfire smoke, said Dr. Wynne Armand, a physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate director of the MGH Center for the Environment and pollution from wildfire smoke can make breathing difficult for anyone, but especially for young children, older adults, pregnant women and people with asthma or other pre-existing respiratory conditions, she said. Dr. Aida Capo, a pulmonologist at Hackensack Meridian Health in New Jersey, said on Wednesday that she's already seen an influx of patients because of the poor air quality, including patients with worsening symptoms of asthma or emphysema. "It's an almost immediate effect," Capo said. "If you're outside for any length of time, your symptoms can start and can worsen quickly."In the short term, wildfire smoke can cause irritation to the eyes, nose, throat and lungs, as well as an increased risk of respiratory infection. Studies have also found that short-term exposure to small particulate matter increases the risk of a range of cardiovascular and respiratory term, exposure to air pollution is associated with several chronic health conditions, including Severe asthmaPreterm birthHeart diseaseStrokeLung cancer DementiaLower IQ in children Smoke can be especially dangerous for pregnant women because they usually have diminished lung capacities due to their growing bellies, Parikh said. Exposure to air pollution during the first and second trimesters may also be associated with gestational diabetes, according to a study published in air pollution can harm a developing fetus and increase the risk of low birth weight, miscarriage and stillbirth. A global analysis found that air pollution likely contributed to nearly 6 million premature births in 2019. Does wildfire smoke make allergies worse? While smoke itself is not an allergen, it can irritate the nasal passages and airways.“If you have allergies on top of that, you’ve got two different things causing symptoms at the same time,” said Dr. Stokes Peebles, an allergy and pulmonary specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in may also worsen depending on what’s burning. If a person is sensitive to an environmental allergen, such as trees or grass, breathing in the smoke that results from burning that allergen may cause a more, heat can cause pollen to rise and be airborne for longer periods of time, spreading those particles even hundreds of miles away, Peebles said. “They can travel farther than they would ordinarily because they go higher into the atmosphere.”An N95 mask can help block those particles for people especially prone to environmental allergens, Peebles can I protect myself when the air quality is bad?Experts advise checking air quality alerts regularly. the EPA's website, allows people to track air quality by entering their ZIP codes. Many smartphones have apps that also track air Scott, a fellow at the American Association for Respiratory Care, a professional organization for respiratory therapists, recommended that people stay indoors as much as they can, with doors and windows closed. That includes for activities like exercise, which can cause stress on the with respiratory-related health conditions, including asthma, should monitor their symptoms closely, he added. They should also make sure their medications, like inhalers, are available or not expired.“People know their bodies really well. If they see some changes they believe are related to bad air, perhaps they need to contact a physician or advanced practice provider,” Scott of Hackensack Meridian Health, recommended that people with asthma use their rescue inhaler 15 minutes before they go outside. People look out at Montreal covered in smoke from the chalet on top of Mont-Royal on Ivanov / AFP - Getty ImagesParikh advised people to keep their homes well ventilated. People who need to go outside can wear a mask, such as an N95, she said.“Believe it or not, masking just like we did with Covid can be helpful in acting as a barrier between you and reduce the amount of particulate matter that you breathe in,” she said. Armand advised against dusting or mowing your lawn on days when the air quality is poor. Burning candles or using a gas stove can also contribute to poorer air quality on these days. People should seek medical attention if they experience a cough, trouble breathing, chest pain or wheezing or hear a whistling sound in the chest, Parikh air filters help with wildfire smoke?Indoor air filters can help reduce or remove pollutants, including small particulate matter from wildfire smoke. Indoor air filtration, including HVAC systems heating, ventilation and air conditioning and portable air purifiers can also help scrub pollutants that may have traveled inside homes and other can purchase portable air cleaners with replaceable HEPA filters that strain out small particulate matter, or HEPA filters are also available for homes outfitted with central heating and cooling systems. California’s Environmental Protection Agency recommends using an indoor air cleaner anytime the air quality index hits “unhealthy” levels, or if people see or smell smoke in the air. But people can also make their own indoor air cleaners by attaching an air filter to a box fan with tape, brackets or a bungee cord. If window air conditioning units, HVAC systems or portable air cleaners are not available, the Environmental Protection Agency said “DIY air cleaners” can serve as “a temporary alternative to commercial air cleaners.” The agency cautioned that DIY air cleaners should not be used routinely, and that concerns have been raised about the potential fire or burn risk involved if box fans EPA added that there is limited research on the effectiveness of DIY air cleaners, but a study published in July 2021 in the journal Aerosol and Air Quality Research found that low-cost filtration methods, including attaching a filter to a box fan, “can have significant benefit for filtering submicron smoke particles and may reduce exposure to during wildfire smoke events.”Is poor air quality bad for pets?Absolutely, according to Parikh. “Other mammals, they suffer from many of the same lung conditions that humans do,” she said. Scott said people should keep their pets — such as cats and dogs — indoors as much as possible. “If pets are outside, they’re running around outside or if they’re spending most of their time outside, it seems like it would probably create some irritation in their breathing and their airways and lungs as well,” he said. Follow NBC HEALTH on Twitter & Facebook. 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. A person jogs through a Brooklyn park on a hazy morning resulting from Canadian wildfires on June 6 in New York City. Spencer Platt/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Spencer Platt/Getty Images Dozens of wildfires are burning in the Canadian province of Québec, and the smoke is so bad that it's causing air quality problems across large swaths of the The National Weather Service said air quality has "plummeted" across the Northeast. Officials from the Midwest to the East Coast and as far south as North Carolina are warning residents to take precautions as the hazy smoke floats south and poses a risk to public health. Canada has been experiencing a particularly brutal wildfire season this year, as extreme weather is worsening in part due to climate change. Blazes have recently flared up across Alberta, British Columbia and Nova Scotia. Where did all of this thick, heavy smoke across the Northeast come from? Raging wildfires in Quebec are generating large smoke plumes to the north and ALL of the smoke is being funneled right into the Northeast. Unfortunately, more smoke is on the way for tonight and Wednesday. NWS Mount Holly NWS_MountHolly June 6, 2023 Earlier fires have also sent smoke into the neighboring and Canadian officials are warning that the country's wildfire situation may get worse as the summer wears on. "This is a scary time for a lot of people, not just in Alberta, but right across the country, including in the Atlantic, the North and Québec, too," Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said at a news conference on Monday. Canada is in the midst of an especially bad wildfire season So far this year, there have been 2,214 wildfires across Canada, according to Minister of Emergency Preparedness Bill Blair. The blazes have burned million hectares — or more than 8 million acres. The country is currently battling 413 wildfires, 249 of which are categorized as out of control, and an estimated 26,000 people remain evacuated from their homes. Across Québec, more than 150 fires are raging, many of which are burning out of control, according to the province's forest protection service. Authorities have restricted access to parts of the forest and closed some roads. Though officials said they hope precipitation forecasted for later in the week will help suppress the fires, the blazes were still sending smoke into the on Tuesday. The Statue of Liberty stands shrouded in a reddish haze as a result of Canadian wildfires on Tuesday. Spencer Platt/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Spencer Platt/Getty Images The Statue of Liberty stands shrouded in a reddish haze as a result of Canadian wildfires on Tuesday. Spencer Platt/Getty Images Some states are being blanketed by Canadian wildfire smoke The Environmental Protection Agency and state officials in New England were predicting that wildfire smoke would linger over the region for a few days. Poor air quality alerts were in effect for all or parts of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont. New York issued an air quality health advisory Tuesday for fine particulate matter in many parts of the state, including the New York City metro area. Some Midwestern states were under threat from wildfire smoke, with air quality warnings in states including Minnesota, Wisconsin and Indiana. Southern states were also impacted. Charlotte, and nearby areas were under a code orange air quality action day on Tuesday. According to AirNow, an air quality database maintained by several federal agencies, moderate air quality and air quality unhealthy for certain groups was also recorded in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and several other states. Here's what one disaster preparedness expert says you should do "How concerned you should be has a lot to do with your own situation," Jeff Schlegelmilch, director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University, told NPR. Not everybody is equally vulnerable to poor air quality, he said. It can be especially harmful for certain groups, including those with lung and heart disease, the elderly and pregnant people. Poorer communities already at a higher risk for diseases that can be worsened by unsafe air are also less able to pay for protective measures needed to guard against exposure. The severity of poor air quality can also vary, which is why the uses a color-coded systems to communicate how bad the air is in a certain place at a given time. Under the Air Quality Index, green indicates the best conditions while maroon is the worst. Still, Schlegelmilch says everyone should heed officials' warnings about poor air quality. Common recommendations include staying indoors and using an air filter, wearing a mask like an N95 when outside and avoiding strenuous activities. Air quality has plummeted across much of the northeast as smoke from wildfires in Canada moves south. Poor air quality can be hazardous. Before spending time outdoors, check the air quality forecast. Make sure you aren’t doing yourself more harm than good. National Weather Service NWS June 6, 2023 "If you've got a red alert for air quality, it's probably not the time to go out and go for that jog or go for that run," he said, "because you're breathing in more air and you're breathing in more air more deeply." Schlegelmilch says people should treat poor air quality as an ongoing health concern rather than a one-off event, since extreme weather is only going to worsen in the future and even repeated exposure to low levels of poor air quality can have a cumulative negative impact on your health. "I think it's really important that we sort of think of these things as we do any other type of health or hygiene process. It's a process. It's not one moment in time that we take a specific action and we're protected," he said. "When the air quality is bad, we have to take some of these protective measures for ourselves, both for the short-term and the long-term." Prior to 2018, the environment was an important issue to few With the COP-26 climate change summit now entering its tenth day, YouGov's issues tracker finds that 40% of Britons now say that the environment is one of the top three issues facing the country, a record high. This puts it within touching distance of second-placed 'the economy' 43% and within eight points of the top spot, currently occupied by health 48%. Although a record high, the environment has yet to break into the top two issues in the tracker's 11-year history. That said, the environment has clearly become a key issue for the public in recent years. Prior to 2018, the number of people listing it as one of the top issues facing the nation rarely topped 10%. However, levels of concern started to rise in 2018, and saw a significant increase in early 2019 following Extinction Rebellion protests in London. At this point the number of people listing the environment shot up to the mid-20s - itself then a record, comparable only to a spike caused by winter flooding in 2014 - and kept slowly rising until the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, when it plummeted to the low 20s. Concern has been rising consistently since that point, reaching the pre-COP-26 record of 37% in mid-August this year before falling back somewhat until the conference. See the results here 2010-2015 / 2016-2020 / 2020 onwards The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC recently released the first report of the sixth assessment cycle. Three others will follow in 2022. This volume of nearly 4,000 pages has observations on climate change from the past 150 years and projections for climate change up to the end of this century. It is being published 31 years after the first assessment cycle and eight years after the fifth assessment cycle. Overall, this latest report does not provide major new insights into climate change or the impact of human activity on it. It does, however, improve our understanding of the human role in climate change and reduce uncertainty about anticipated future impacts. By refining observation methods and improving the accuracy of climate models, the report makes it possible to better define the future impacts on the densely populated areas of southern Ontario and Québec. We are professors of construction engineering and members of the HC3 — Hydrology Climate Climate Change Laboratory at the École de technologie supérieure de Montréal. The laboratory specializes in the study of hydrology, climate and the impact of climate change on water resources. Warming twice as fast The average global temperature on Earth has increased C since the pre-industrial era. Climate projections predict a temperature increase between 2 C and C by the end of this century. This does not take into account the most pessimistic greenhouse gas emissions scenario, which is now considered improbable by most experts. Read more 5 things to watch for in the latest IPCC report on climate science This warming, however, is not geographically uniform. On the whole, southern Ontario and Québec are warming twice as rapidly as the rest of the world. Northern regions are warming three times as fast. The faster warming is mainly because of the ice–albedo feedback loop that is linked to the progressive loss of snow cover. This process means, among other things, that solar radiation, which is normally reflected by the snow, will be absorbed instead. We should therefore anticipate an average annual warming of 3 C to 6 C over southern Québec by the end of the century. Swimmers bob in the wave pool for the Super Aqua Club in Pointe-Calumet. The Montréal region had its warmest August on record. The Canadian Press/Ryan Remiorz However, the warming will not be evenly distributed across the seasons. Winters will warm significantly more than summer. This means future winters will be C warmer, with less snow cover and a decrease in spring flooding from melting. Changes in extreme events Rising temperatures have several other adverse effects, including changes in extreme events. The evidence that these are due to human activity has strengthened since the IPCC’s Fifth Report. It is now well established that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions have led to an overall increase in the frequency and/or intensity of some extreme weather and climate events since the pre-industrial era. Future projections on a global scale are consistent with this trend. At the regional scale, the magnitude of change varies according to local factors related to changes in land use, such as urbanization or an increase in the area used for agriculture, aerosol emissions into the atmosphere via industrial activity and feedback mechanisms, such as ice-albedo feedback. Read more Scientists moor ship in Arctic ice for a year to better understand climate change The report provides little detail about heat waves on a regional scale. That said, for North America, an increase in frequency and intensity is expected by the end of the century. All North American regions will also experience an increase in the intensity and frequency of warm extremes and a decrease in the frequency and intensity of cold extremes. Rainfall and flooding The projected increases in rainfall extremes will depend on a number of factors, including the duration of rainfall events and their rarity. Short-duration rainfall extremes that occur infrequently once every 10 years or more will become more intense. But a good portion of the existing water management infrastructure, which has a long life span, will adapt poorly to these increases. Floods from spring snow melt will likely decrease, due to the decrease in snow cover. But there may be a large increase in “flash floods,” caused by extreme summer and autumn rainfall. These are particularly likely to affect small rural catchments and urbanized areas. Firefighters make their way down a flooded street in Ste-Marthe-sur-la-Lac, in May 2019. With climate change, there will be a potentially large increase in flooding from extreme summer and fall rains. The Canadian Press/Ryan Remiorz The IPCC analyzed other indicators, including extreme heat, drought and winter conditions. Using these indicators, a number of conclusions can be drawn for southern Ontario and Québec. By the end of the century, the maximum daily temperature could regularly exceed 35 C during the summer months. Read more Extreme heat waves are putting lakes and rivers in hot water this summer Only the most pessimistic emissions scenario points to an increase in the severity of droughts. For the other scenarios, no clear signals emerge, which means further studies are clearly needed. The snow season is expected to shorten by the end of the century compared to 1995-2014. A shorter frost season is also expected. Adapting to climate change Ontario and Québec are warming and are not immune to the effects of anthropogenic climate change. While efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions must be pursued, it is essential to implement adequate adaptation measures to face an uncertain future climate. This first volume of the IPCC’s sixth report mentions the need to strengthen climate services, which is encouraging. These services are provided by a variety of organizations around the world. They are aimed at providing climate information to support decision-making, by linking science and data production with communication and application by citizens and decision makers. More details will be provided in the second volume of the report.

concern for the environment is now at the