The latest report from a Charles Sturt University survey shows divided
\nviews about how and who to pay for climate change and disaster-prone home
\ndamage
\n Three quarters of Australians believe
\ninsurance companies are gouging their customers
\n Survey suggests a new moral axis in how
\nto deal with growing climate extremes; either alone or collectively<\/p>\n
Half the population supports a levy on carbon polluting industries to fund rising home insurance premiums in disaster-prone areas, according to the results of a Charles Sturt University nationwide survey about attitudes to climate change.<\/p>\n
Voters are divided over the desirability of such a levy, with progressive voters much more likely to support it.<\/p>\n
However, there is agreement across that insurance companies are using extreme weather events as an excuse to raise home insurance premiums excessively.<\/p>\n
Overall, three quarters of Australians believe
\ninsurance companies are gouging their customers.<\/p>\n
These results emerge from a national public opinion survey exploring how Australians are thinking about and responding to life on a warming planet.<\/p>\n
The survey of almost 2,000 Australians was developed and commissioned by Clive Hamilton, Professor of Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University in Canberra, and carried out by respected public opinion company Roy Morgan Research.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe results signal a deep\u2010seated
\ndistrust of a major financial institution,\u201d Professor Hamilton said.<\/p>\n
\u201cHome insurance has become framed in public
\nconversation as a matter of fairness rather than actuarial calculation. The
\nwidespread sense of grievance may be fertile ground for political campaigning.\u201d<\/p>\n
Public opinion is divided evenly over whether people living in disaster prone areas who can\u2019t get home insurance should move somewhere else rather than ask for subsidies from government or other policy holders.<\/p>\n
Thirty-two per cent agree they should just move while 39 per cent disagree and accept that subsidies are reasonable. The rest are undecided.<\/p>\n
Women have more empathy for those denied insurance cover, as do those more concerned about climate change. Greens voters have most empathy, while One Nation voters take the harshest view.<\/p>\n
Those unconcerned about climate change or who deny its existence are more likely to believe individuals should take responsibility for the risks of climate change.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe traditional division in Australia between
\nthose who are more individualistic and those who emphasize social solidarity is
\nplaying out in the climate risk arena,\u201d Professor Hamilton said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis suggests a new moral axis in how to deal
\nwith growing climate extremes. Either we are on our own or we should respond
\ncollectively.\u201d<\/p>\n