The (poor) knowledge of Green party voters

Besides the question about the nuclear exit and the questions on the willingness to take action on climate change, there were also two questions that were gauging the level of knowledge of the participants regarding climate change and energy. In the survey, it is called the “perception of the evolution of climate indicators”.

The first question was how the participants perceive the evolution of CO2 emissions in Belgium. The correct answer to this question is that Belgian emissions decreased over time and this was also shown in the reportage in the form of a graph:

De stemming 2022 part 3: CO2 decrease Belgium

That should have been a pretty easy question, but the result is pretty surprising.

The choices that the participants were given were:

  1. Strongly decreased (white bar)
  2. Decreased (light grey bar)
  3. Neither decreased nor increased (dark grey bar)
  4. Increased (green bar)
  5. Strongly increased (green bar)

De stemming 2022 part 3: perception evolution emissions Belgium

Surprisingly, most participants (42%) answered neither decreased nor increased. Even more surprisingly, 36% got it completely wrong (perceived Belgian emissions as increased) and only 22% got it right (perceived Belgian emissions as decreased).

But just have a look at how the voters of the Flemish Green party did. Only 16% gave the correct answer to that question, so 84% got it wrong… More, the group of the Flemish Green party voters did the worst of all other groups.

It does fare a bit better with the second question about how the participants perceive the evolution of alternative energy use in Belgium. Did it decrease, stayed the same or did it increase? The correct answer is that Belgium added quite some solar and wind capacity in the last couple years, so it surely increased. This is the result (the higher the green bars, the more correct):

De stemming 2022 part 3: perception evolution emissions Belgium

That question should also be a piece of cake. Nevertheless, 44% of the participants had this completely backwards. The Green party voters did marginally better, “only” 42% had it wrong…

Basically, the average Flemish Green party voters are more pessimistic than warranted by reality and have a rather poor knowledge about the topics they care so much about.


4 thoughts on “The (poor) knowledge of Green party voters

  1. vuurklip

    These results are to be expected given the overwhelming propaganda for the “climate crisis” and the trumpeting of “cheap” green energy in the main stream media.


    1. trustyetverify Post author

      I for one was really surprised by these results.

      For example, our (mostly left-leaning) media is celebrating and cheering at every solar and wind capacity increase, yet this didn’t prevent 42% of the Green party voters to think that alternative energy use is staying the same or even decreasing…
      I didn’t see that one coming.

      Emissions are less prominent in the media, but 84% of the Green party voters getting the evolution of emissions wrong is a downright abysmal result.

      That the other voters wouldn’t do well when asked these question would at least be understandable, but the Green party voters are supposed to be the people who are the most interested in those issues. Yet, only 16% of them knew that Belgian emissions are decreasing (the very worst result of all voter groups) and they didn’t do much better than the average voter answering the question about the evolution of the alternative energy use.

      Meaning that they are the least informed on climate issues, yet the most alarmed. That is not a good combination. I wonder whether they would be less alarmed when they were better informed about those issues (my personal experience tells me that they probably would).


      1. vuurklip

        My reaction is in hindsight! However, when I consider the popularity of the Saint Greta movement and others like her and their conviction that not enough is done to “fight” global warming, I would expect many people to think that not much is done to “stop” the warming.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. trustyetverify Post author

          That is indeed a possible explanation. Green communication is rather pessimistic and efforts are deemed never enough. Green party voters may be more receptive to this narrative and such negative messaging could give them the impression that the use of alternative energy and emission reduction are insufficient. Therefor giving the (wrong) perception that emissions are still increasing and alternative energy use just staying the same.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s