Get Zero Carbon delivered to your inbox.
Mind the gaps
If you believe the race to cut climate pollution requires a strong mandate from the public, the latest polling makes for grim reading.
You probably know that climate action has dropped down the list of public priorities, mostly displaced by affordability and, to a lesser extent, housing and health care. But there’s also a disturbing gap between the public’s desire for action in principle and support for climate actions when they come into practice. And the gaps appear to be widening.
One of the most worrying is the gap between scientists and the public. Last week, we looked at the chasm between Conservative voters and other Canadians on the question of what’s causing climate change. Half of those who voted Conservative in the last federal election acknowledge that climate change is a fact but say it is mostly caused by natural changes and cycles. Less than one-third accept the scientific consensus that it’s caused by human activities.
And the trendline shows that figure has dropped 13 percentage points among past Conservative voters since 2021, according to tracking by the Angus Reid Institute. Those who voted for other parties are far more likely to understand that climate change is caused by human activity. But even in those groups, the trendlines are disturbing: a drop of five points among past Liberal voters and nine for the NDP.
Overall, the percentage of Canadians who describe climate change as human-caused has declined from 71 per cent in 2021 to 62 per cent today. A trend that other pollsters are finding as well.
There’s a similar trend in support for specific climate policies. The recent report, What do Canadians Really Think About Climate Change, describes it as an “action gap.” Disclosure: I was one of the authors of the report by Re.Climate, based at Carleton University.
We reviewed 91 public opinion surveys and found that, “In principle, Canadians say climate change is a crisis that requires immediate action. But the public is conflicted over whether the country is doing enough. Over half say the government is not working hard enough and a similar proportion say Canada is doing its fair share.”
When it comes to specific policies, it won’t surprise anyone to hear there’s been a drop in support for the carbon tax. The carbon tax has been getting clobbered for many months, but the punishment extends well beyond pollution pricing.
Here’s one other example: When it comes to regulating pollution from Canada’s electricity grid, positive attitudes about clean electricity regulations have dropped 18 percentage points since summer 2023 (a finding from Innovative Research Group).
And there’s widespread confusion about fossil fuels as a prime cause of climate breakdown. Canadians overwhelmingly understand we will need more electricity and say they want it to come without carbon pollution. But two-thirds simultaneously support building gas plants.
If you’ve been following dispatches about the state of the climate itself over the past 10 months, you’ll know the most disturbing gap of all is the one between the current temperature trajectory and every prior year on record. I know a good many of you read my newsletter on a Sunday morning and the gulf between physical reality and softening public opinion can be more than enough to shrink back under the covers.
But if you can bear to peek through a gap in your blankets, Louise Comeau has some recommendations to help turn things around. We’ve tapped Comeau’s advice before, particularly on the importance of fairness in implementing renewable energy projects. More recently, she’s become a member of Canada’s Net-Zero Advisory Body.
There are a few major drivers behind the softening in public opinion. The impacts of inflation and the cost of living have knocked climate change down the list of priorities. While these legitimate anxieties occupy our attention, they also make unstable beliefs vulnerable to disruption.
Comeau says that climate advocates, journalists and communicators of all types have been too quick to move on from instilling the basics — the scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels creates a thickening blanket of heat-trapping pollution. “It’s real, it’s human-caused and it’s affecting us today — we’ve forgotten that those three points need to be in every communication.”
Unstable beliefs are susceptible to counter-campaigning. And the axe-the-facts campaign has been relentless. Canadians are also exposed to well-funded greenwashing about “solutions” along with claims designed to sow doubt and undermine confidence in fossil fuel alternatives.
Unstable beliefs are also vulnerable because of two gaps in our thinking about climate change. Comeau emphasizes that both can be addressed by concerted communication.
One is the distance gap, the sense most people still have that climate change is a distant threat that will impact other people, in other places, in the foggy future.
Second is the perception gap — people generally (and falsely) believe they are more supportive of climate action than others. “This psychological barrier is like a self-fulfilling prophecy,” Comeau says. “This is why talking to friends and family about our concerns about climate change is so important… We have to build the social norms that we expect each other to be people who do something about climate change.”
There’s no denying it’s a tough environment for climate action at the moment. But, as the old saying goes, progress comes when preparation meets opportunity. The context is ever-changing, climate change will likely spike to new heights of urgency. And the work to stabilize beliefs will have been crucial.
True to form as a social scientist, Comeau has given us a framework to make sense of the polling trends and a pathway to stabilize public attitudes. She lands on the crucial importance of building social efficacy — the public’s confidence that we have begun taking actions that are working and the desire to build momentum. “Remember to talk about actions that are succeeding.”
Carbon tax flak
After a bizarre exchange in the House of Commons, Pierre Poilievre is ducking questions about whether he would axe the carbon pricing system for industrial emitters. Responding to NDP MP Laurel Collins, Poilievre declared, “There is no industrial carbon tax on the oil and gas sector.”
He's so committed to it that he doesn't even know it exists! https://t.co/IgmcxGG2ge
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) April 10, 2024
B.C. has its own carbon tax. It was introduced over 15 years ago but it’s “turning to political poison” even in that province, reports Rochelle Baker. The Conservative Party of BC is led by John Rustad — he was kicked out of the Opposition caucus for promoting climate denial — and has been climbing in the polls since adopting the rhetoric of the federal Conservatives.
On the federal front, “NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh told his progressive grassroots base the party is charting a path away from carbon pricing,” report Matteo Cimellaro and Natasha Bulowski.
“Singh’s comments came one day after the NDP and the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of a Conservative motion calling on the prime minister to convene a televised ‘emergency carbon tax’ meeting with premiers.”
A televised national climate conference is a very good idea, argues Max Fawcett. “That’s right: climate, not carbon tax… A televised national conference would force the premiers to show their weak hands… and help reframe the conversation around climate change.”
Logging emissions
“Slick earthy green and pastel orange ads touting the climate benefits of Canada's logging have flooded millions of Facebook and Instagram feeds.” The ad campaign by "Forestry for the Future" is actually run by the Forest Products Association of Canada, reports Marc Fawcett-Atkinson.
There’s a lot of funky carbon accounting in the forestry sector. One study that tried to clarify the ledger “found that between 2005 and 2021, the forestry sector accounted for about as many emissions as agriculture and electricity generation.”
Oilsands disinformation is worse than you think
The oilsands giants behind the Pathways Alliance are buying up Google results by purchasing hundreds of search keywords. They’re paying Google “so you hear from them first,” reveal three Canadian researchers studying greenwashing.
And, I swear this isn’t from The Beaverton: “Unfortunately, Pathways Alliance has responded to these concerns with still more ads — now buying Google Searches of ‘pathways alliance greenwashing.’”
RBC grilled over fossil fuel loans and Indigenous rights at AGM
“RBC faced tougher opposition than ever as dozens of Indigenous leaders, climate activists and their allies from across North America descended on Toronto to confront CEO David McKay” at the bank’s annual general meeting this week.
“They included Wet’suwet’en leadership fighting the Coastal GasLink pipeline in northern British Columbia, organizers in the Gulf Coast fighting a petrochemical boom, a citizen of the Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation fighting the Mountain Valley Pipeline in Appalachia.”
Insurance losses
“When a nearby wildfire made it temporarily impossible to insure her new home,” Stephanie Davis was stuck — she couldn’t get a mortgage and complete the purchase of her home in Kelowna, B.C.
Insurers increasingly can’t bear the costs of climate change. Several American insurance companies have pulled out of California.
Homeowners could lose somewhere between US$9.87 billion and US$32.1 billion in property value. Meanwhile, the insurers “have $113[billion] of investments in and $3.6 [billion] of underwriting income from fossil fuels,” according to Insure our Future.
Hypocrisy alert: 12 insurers restricted cover for climate risk in California, destroying $10-32 bn in property value. The same insurers invested $113 bn in and earned $3.6 bn in premiums from the fossil fuel industry, @Insure_Future and @CIEL_tweets show. https://t.co/DGWs9KPEH6
— PeterBosshard (@PeterBosshard) April 10, 2024
Germany and the U.K. have cut their climate pollution in half
Thirty years ago, Germany and the U.K. had much higher CO2 emissions than Canada. Since then, the European countries have cut climate pollution in half. Barry Saxifrage charts and contrasts the three G7 countries.
Game over for gas heating
Augsburg became the first major city in Germany to announce plans to end fossil gas in its heating system, informing customers it would be cutting off the gas grid over the next few years.
Clean Energy Wire has the story: “Gerald Linke, head of gas industry association DVGW, warned against a ‘dismantling-orgy’ of the gas grid.”
Momentum in Montreal
Montreal is moving ahead with its five-year plan to add over 200 kilometres of new bike lanes, including phase two of its express bike network, the REV.
Meanwhile, Paris has doubled the number of people biking in a single year! It shows what’s possible “with leadership and an appropriate sense of urgency,” says Brent Toderian.
Safe climate is a human right
India’s Supreme Court expanded the constitutional “right to life” to include “protection against the adverse effects of climate change.”
And there was big news from judges in Europe, where the Court of Human Rights ruled that weak climate policies violate human rights, the first such ruling from an international court.
The case centred on the rights of older Swiss women — a group of 2,400 Swiss women called the KlimaSeniorinnen argued several of their rights were being violated, in part because older women are more likely to die in heat waves.
The KlimaSeniorinnen aren’t likely to have become more favourable towards their government following the trial — the Swiss government argued they aren’t truly victims because they’ll be dead soon anyway.
You might especially appreciate Ajit Niranjan’s reporting on the KlimaSeniorinnen, not least for his account of gasping to keep pace with the older Swiss women hiking through the Alps. You can hear him unpack the case, its implications (and his humbling hike) in an interview with The Guardian’s science editor, here.