It is no easy feat for government to convince people to change, and particularly, adopt new sustainable technology that might cost them money up front. Altruistic appeals are definitely not enough.
The federal government knows this and to that end is researching attitudes of Canadians about climate change with a view to better promote climate action.
Surveys and studies are being done to understand where Canadians are on a slew of climate issues, including electric vehicles and heat pumps. The research covers a lot of ground: respondents were asked about how much they trust different sources of information, and their general attitudes toward climate change and recent experiences of extreme weather. They were tested on their climate literacy and questioned about their intent to take climate action, among other things.
“We make a lot of assumptions that oh, well, the Canadian population is concerned about climate change, that means they must support whatever action we take. And that's just not true,” said Louise Comeau, senior advisor at climate communications group Re.Climate, explaining why behavioural science is important to create practical climate policy.
“This kind of work is pretty important to help us be grounded in the reality and the changing perspectives of Canadians,” said Comeau, who is also a member of the federal Net Zero Advisory Body.
The research shows people take easy actions like reducing plastic use, turning off the lights, recycling and eating plant-based food, but even the most climate-concerned Canadians are far less likely to take the more impactful but costly actions of switching to a heat pump or EV.
While the share of EVs and hybrids is increasing slowly, only three per cent of respondents who reported in December 2021 that they intended to purchase or lease an EV or hybrid had done so six months later. Many had purchased a gas or diesel vehicle instead, according to the fourth survey.
“So the question becomes, how do we move people along that trajectory of higher impact?" Comeau said. “Right now, they're stuck at low cost, low impact.”
One way to do this is to change the framing, said Jiaying Zhao, an associate professor at the University of British Columbia and Canada Research Chair in Behavioural Sustainability, told Canada’s National Observer in a phone interview. Zhao and Comeau are both on the advisory committee.
“The cost-savings argument tends to be, in my opinion, the most effective,” Zhao said, noting this approach convinces individuals to take action, and advances large policy packages.
U.S. President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act is a great example of successfully framing and communicating climate policy by focusing on a different issue, she said.
Rather than focus on climate, which Zhao described as a “polarizing … sensitive topic,” the Biden administration presented the act as a way to tackle inflation and bring costs down.
Reducing the cost of living is something everyone can support. “But if you frame this under reducing climate change, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, you're only going to get half the public, or half the politicians’ support,” Zhao said.
The consumer carbon price is a classic case of poorly communicated Canadian climate policy, Zhao noted. The federal government is trying to course-correct by asking banks to clearly label the carbon rebates, so Canadians are aware the money is being returned to them each quarter, and planning an information campaign, Canada’s National Observer reported earlier this year.
Zhao and Comeau are both on the advisory committee for the Program of Applied Research on Climate Action in Canada (PARCA), which is conducting this series of studies. Environment and Climate Change Canada and Natural Resources Canada partnered with Impact Canada on the multi-year research project. The first round of surveys started in December 2021 and work is ongoing.
Behavioural science studies help program designers know exactly what somebody is thinking and what barriers stand in their way, so you can help them over each hurdle and move them to action, Comeau added.
The government can then design or tweak policies to help eliminate barriers for people — for example, increasing subsidies to help address up-front costs of switching to EVs or heat pumps.
“The best time to get somebody to think about a heat pump is when their furnace is broken down, because that's when they're making a decision,” Comeau said.
“The problem is that heat pump demand is very high, and so if the heat pumps aren't available, if you can't get a technician to come, you've already got an emergency, then that moment has passed.”
After collecting data through eight similar online surveys from December 2021 to March 2023, PARCA is now doing research experiments in the real world.
“This approach provides valuable insights into how people actually make decisions in their everyday lives and provides confirmation of the real-world effects of proposed behaviorally-informed solutions prior to their scaling in policies, programs, or communications,” said a spokesperson from Natural Resources Canada in an emailed statement to Canada’s National Observer.
Information on this “in-field testing” has not been released yet, but Comeau said common research methods include focus groups, interviews and observation. For example, to learn more about EV adoption a researcher could go to a car dealership and observe conversations about EVs and interview salespeople about where those talks break down, Comeau said.
You could have focus groups with people who considered switching to an EV and people who purchased one and ask both groups what they were thinking and what made it easy or hard.
“They can develop an analysis of what it is that could be improved to support the purchase of EVs,” Comeau mused.
The field studies are focusing on EV adoption, home heating, climate literacy and plastics labelling, according to a Natural Resources Canada briefing note from spring 2023.
Natasha Bulowski / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada’s National Observer
Comments
In June 2019 the federal govt declared a climate emergency. But the very next day they approved the TMX pipeline. That approval communicated to the public with actions that are louder than words, that "we are, NOT REALLY in a climate emergency." People probably said to themselves, "Why should I buy-in to climate initiatives if the federal govt approves a pipeline and thus communicates with actions that are louder than words, that climate change is NOT an emergency?"
I wrote the above paragraph to the federal govt itself in 2021... I am not the only one. MP Peter Julian tabled a Private Member's Motion to cancel the TMX pipeline in June 2021 ....but the motion died because an election was called for Sep 2021. See link: https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/peter-julian(16399)/motions/114473…
The city of Vancouver declared a climate emergency but refused to ban gas hookups in new builds. Guess they don't really think its an emergency after all.
Thanks for a useful article that highlights the need to reduce the barriers to change and even clearly states where some of those barriers are. A good foundation to think about future policy development.