Canada News
How to cut through the divisions hampering climate action
Lasting support can only come from plans that don’t favour one group over another. There are ways to build consensus for stable national policies. (Photo: Chrystia Freeland/Facebook)
How to respond to climate change is a highly polarized issue in Canada, a country divided along regional lines with competing economic interests, identities and values. Policy solutions that favour one group over another are not going to work. They won’t be sustainable over the long term.
Invariably, they will be met with strong resistance, which will only deepen polarization and further erode trust in science and government institutions.
The contentiousness of the climate issue is making it hard to build consensus and enact long-term, unified and stable national climate policies. It is delaying action and leading to inconsistent steps that hamper change at the national and international levels.
But there are ways to achieve more unified action on climate.
Competing narratives
In Canada, divisions manifest along many lines: conservatism versus progressivism, views on the value of natural resources versus the need for innovation, the support for fossil fuels versus renewable energies and green technologies.
Political parties often exploit regional concerns for electoral gains. Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland rely heavily on the oil and gas industry and are more skeptical of climate policies. British Columbia and Quebec focus more on renewable energy and environmental preservation.
The Liberal party under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has made climate change a centrepiece of its political platform, using carbon pricing, renewable-energy investment and international climate agreements to appeal to urban, progressive and environmentally conscious Canadians.
Climate policy is missing in action in Saskatchewan election
Inclusive approach to climate-change adaptation is needed in Canada
Failure to communicate clearly to the public is hurting climate-change action
What should be in a plain-speaking Conservative climate plan
The Conservatives often campaign against climate policies, especially the federal carbon tax, framing these policies as harmful to jobs and the resource sector. The party offers alternatives that cater to the interest of voters in rural areas and energy-producing regions.
The New Democratic Party (NDP) and Green Party push for even more aggressive climate action than the Liberals by appealing to voters who want stronger commitments to sustainability, renewable energy and environmental justice.
These divisions are reflected in the country’s news coverage, commentary and analysis, which carry a variety of competing narratives. Some national coverage is supportive of climate action. In resource-rich provinces, the focus is often on economic costs of climate policy, reinforcing the stance that federal climate actions are detrimental to jobs and the economy and that they unfairly punish provinces reliant on fossil fuels.
How to get through the divides
A more united way forward is possible. Here are three solutions to overcome social divisions and bring about stable climate action:
Take a non-partisan and integrative approach
A global experiment with more than 51,000 participants from 60 countries found that the resistance of self-identified conservatives to believing in climate change or supporting climate policy did not deter them from “green” activities such as tree-planting.
It’s a promising finding that points to the power of characterizing climate-action proposals as being in the national interest to transcend other divisions.
Climate action should be built into industrial development, disaster-risk management, public health and education. Some examples are public-private partnerships to advance clean energy and green technologies, flood-resiliency efforts, water management and renewable-energy development.
Other possibilities include public-health strategies to respond to climate-induced extreme weather, expanding climate education in schools and universities and engaging local leaders, scientists and respected community figures in climate research.
Build more relationships among citizens
Move away from activities that tend to use one-way communication strategically crafted to shift attitudes. Assemblies, climate councils and forums are used to engage citizens directly in decision-making, but they rarely reduce polarization. Rather, they lead the public to see climate action as top-down and partisan.
Establish the social conditions necessary for people to support climate policies. Citizen involvement should be designed around relationship-building activities between diverse groups that can lead to more productive discussions about climate action and carbon pricing.
Town-hall meetings, participatory budgeting for green projects or public consultations bring together people with different values, ideologies, identities and economic interests. When people see climate policies through a less polarized lens, they tend to find more common ground on climate action.
Focus on the demand side
Mitigating climate change involves adjusting demand for goods and services, for example, moving away from unnecessary food and energy consumption, switching to low-carbon options (walking, cycling or car-pooling) and improving existing technologies (electric cars, building envelopes or energy-efficient home appliances. These efforts can improve living conditions while decreasing energy input and emissions of greenhouse gases.
Demand-side mitigation strategies could reduce emissions by 40 to 80 per cent in the building, transport, food and industry sectors, a research paper in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change says.
Walking or cycling, efficient building standards (LEED) and renewable technologies — for instance, moving from natural gas to green grid electricity — improve well-being. The greatest observable benefits are in health, economic stability and mobility.
Cities can speed up climate action by slowing down traffic
Regulators should remain independent as Canada moves away from fossil fuels
Reducing emissions while bettering lives would make it easier for the government to gain support for demand-side solutions from a diverse population.
Some examples of such initiatives are funding for public transport, taxing land to encourage more efficient use of space and social marketing of healthy plant-based meals, which are less resource-intensive to produce than red meat. Others include banning heating systems and lightbulbs that are inefficient and cars with internal combustion engines or diesel motors.
Bridging Canada’s divides through more collaborative, inclusive and innovative approaches can help Canadians work together toward long-term solutions that balance economic growth and environmental sustainability.
This article first appeared on Policy Options and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
