John Woodside
Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
Canada’s National Observer
Polarization is gripping the country and the centre isn’t holding, Environment and Climate Change Canada found when setting the country’s latest emissions reduction target.
The department solicited feedback from provincial and territorial governments, Indigenous groups, think tanks and the public to determine what Canada’s internationally binding 2035 pollution reduction obligations should be. It was a monumental effort with over 11,000 participants, more than 23,000 comments, and just over 100 official submissions. The results found that overcoming polarization is a major hurdle to implementing aggressive emissions reductions that climate scientists say is required to avoid catastrophic warming.
About two-thirds of Canadians who participated support stronger measures to address climate change, with one-third strongly opposed, according to the analysis conducted by Ethelo Decisions Inc. on behalf of the federal government.
“There was little middle ground, and very few people were satisfied with the status quo,” according to the findings, attached to the final pages of the annex of Canada’s submission to the United Nations.
Specifically, when asked if the federal government is doing enough to fight climate change, 47 per cent believe Canada needs to do more, compared to 36 per cent that feel existing measures go too far. A smaller portion of Canadians think the country is close, with 11 per cent believing current efforts are almost enough, three per cent that believe the government is doing slightly too much, and three per cent who believe the country is getting it “just right.”
There are similar divides when asked which level of government should lead the transition, with 52 per cent believing it’s a federal responsibility, while 46 per cent believe it’s up to provincial and territorial governments.
That divergence may be the result of deliberate campaigns, experts say.
“When it comes to Canadians supporting going faster or slower, I think it’s important to remind ourselves that polarization doesn’t just happen on its own,” said Caroline Brouillette, executive director of Climate Action Network Canada, which submitted recommendations to the government for Canada’s 2035 target.
Polarization “often benefits a certain group of interests and can be created, and I think we have seen in the past months and years some very deliberate attempts to politicize the issue of climate change itself,” she said, calling the political divide a “sad state of affairs.”
“I read these results as the clear outcome of the very intentional campaign by the fossil fuel industry and some of its political allies to divide us,” she said.
Elite divide
The divide is not necessarily as extreme as it might seem on the surface, says Louise Comeau, a senior advisor with Re.Climate, a think tank based out of Carleton University and member of Canada’s Net-Zero Advisory Body.
In an interview with Canada’s National Observer, Comeau said because the feedback collected to inform Canada’s submission came from people who chose to participate, rather than random sample, the division over climate action reflected in the findings represents “elites” or “policy influencers” battling over visions for the energy transition that don’t necessarily carry over to the public. Self-selecting surveys tend to also attract people with stronger views.
“We still have support for climate action, but it ends up being pushed and prodded by attention grabbing concerns,” like cost of living, and threats of tariffs from the United States, she said.
For Comeau, the debate among policy elites doesn’t translate to the broad public because polling suggests a significant majority wants more ambitious climate action, but don’t necessarily know which policies are best suited. At a high level, the public wants climate action they perceive as fair to them, she said.
Liberal voters and those living in Quebec and B.C. are the most concerned about climate, while Conservative voters and those in Alberta are the least concerned.
Strange and inappropriate
Most provincial and territorial governments reported their efforts to address climate change, and what they want to see from the federal government, Canada’s submission to the UN shows.
Alberta, Ontario and Nunavut did not appear to submit anything to Ottawa. Those three governments did not return requests for comment by deadline.
Perspectives from provincial and territorial governments that did offer feedback ranged significantly. Some provinces like British Columbia, Manitoba, and Prince Edward Island broadly support increased climate action, while others like Nova Scotia and New Brunswick called for more flexibility to the provinces to meet climate goals.
Saskatchewan, meanwhile, urged the federal government to abandon capping oil and gas pollution, and water down policies like clean electricity and clean fuel standards. It also asked for federal carbon capture tax credits to be used to extract even more oil using a process called enhanced oil recovery.
“It’s strange and inappropriate that Saskatchewan would consider lobbying for weaker regulations on climate in a document that is meant to be submitted to the international climate convention,” said Brouillette. “It’s just totally out of place, and a gross misalignment and misuse of this process … it’s actually quite embarrassing for Saskatchewan.”
Comeau said provinces have a significant role to play given their responsibilities over sectors like transportation, land-use planning, the electricity sector and natural resources, and so far are not meeting the moment. As a result, the federal government has had to drive climate policy, she noted. Even though Ottawa has offered flexibilities to provinces, sometimes they’ve been rejected. The clearest example in recent years is carbon pricing, where the federal government allows provinces and territories to design their own systems provided they meet a minimum federal benchmark. Every province and territory, except Quebec, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories, use the federal system and most complain about it.
“It’s fine on the one hand to say ‘You federal government stay out of our jurisdiction,’ and yet on the other hand say ‘And I’m not going to do anything,” she said. “You can’t have both those things and have Canada meet the targets the federal government has the legitimate right to set.”
John Woodside / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada’s National Observer
