This is the first in a series of articles on recent research by Environics, on behalf of EcoAnalytics, exploring what Canadians know about three potentially transformative environmental policies now being developed by the federal government, and the best frames and messages for promoting them. Those policies are: a cap on emissions in the oil and gas sector; national clean electricity regulations; and measures to meet Canada’s commitment to protect 30% of lands and oceans by 2030.
Draft regulations for a cap on carbon emissions in Canada’s oil and gas sector are just around the corner, and Canadians nation-wide are indicating support. However, there are differences in how and why people support an emissions cap, uncertainties about policy details, and lessons to be learned about how to build that support.
Environics conducted focus groups last summer and a large national survey in April to better understand how people feel about possible regulations establishing an emissions cap. The qualitative round (Efficacy in Conversations about Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss Policies) recruited 54 Canadians from across the country who were concerned about environmental issues, but not highly engaged on these issues—the so-called Moveable Middle—to discuss the need, feasibility, and cost-efficacy of an emissions cap. Folks in this cluster of different social groups are neither climate deniers nor climate activists and make up about 45 to 50% of Canadians over 18. The follow-up survey (Environmental Policy and Efficacy: Communications Strategies) examined the opinions of nearly 2,300 Canadians from a broader range of backgrounds.
- Concise headlines. Original content. Timely news and views from a select group of opinion leaders. Special extras.
- Everything you need, nothing you don’t.
- The Weekender: The climate news you need.
The qualitative discussions offered insights into the perceptions, understanding, and hesitancy of those in the Moveable Middle around a government emissions cap. Common themes included concern for affected communities, distrust of the oil and gas industry, and the need for strong government intervention. Yet, while the oil and gas industry was generally viewed as wealthy, powerful, and unable to regulate itself, many participants felt oil and gas was not solely to blame for climate change: they thought governments, as well as other industries, also bore responsibility. (Other EcoA research advises caution in pointing the finger, as not all audiences respond well to strong blame frames.)
Environics’ large national quantitative survey in April tested possible frames and messages emerging from the qualitative research. The results, shown in the infographic, reveal no clear standouts, but indicated with some consistency that simple, positive frames are the most popular, regardless of the audience.
A brighter future and it’s the right thing to do are both relatively simple, optimistic frames that were preferred over those with more complicated messages pointing to declining demand for oil and decarbonization triggering jobs. The preferences did not vary significantly among regions or demographics, however they differed significantly by social values.
Social values data complements demographic data, often revealing the “why” behind people’s preferences. Environics has developed an extensive typology of Canadians based on their values, and the research drew on that rich source to identify three main segments:
• Rational Changemakers made up 31% of respondents, including most supporters of environmental NGOs within the wider group. They tend to be environmentally conscious and willing to challenge the status quo, base their support on facts and evidence, respond to clear calls to action and an appeal to responsibility, and prefer simple messages.
• High-Energy Hedonists accounted for 29% of respondents. They’re driven by emotion and a quest for stimulation and personal benefits, react based on a fear of missing out, and respond to feelings, emotions, and the novelty and excitement of possible outcomes, rather than logic and information.
• Community-Driven Conformists comprised 40% of respondents. They’re inclined to accept the status quo, follow the rules, and crave security. They’ll respond to reassurances about the future and references to trusted authorities, and challenge negative discourses. They are intimidated by change, so it helps to challenge their belief that this policy change will hurt the economy.
The top frames (brighter future, right thing to do) resonated well with all three segments. Global consciousness frames struck a chord with Segment 1 but not Segment 3. Frames about oil and gas doing their fair share landed relatively well with Segments 2 and 3, while frames addressing technology anxiety, risk, and fear of change and job loss worked well with Segment 3.
The results add to the understanding that Canadians support an emissions cap, but for different reasons. To continue to build public buy-in, particularly with new audiences that are not traditional supporters of environmental NGOs, climate communicators must take care to use messages and frames that appeal to all three audience segments.
Knowing a new audience’s uncertainties, motivations, and points of hesitancy can help advocates communicate with them more effectively, with information that appeals to their unique perspectives, identities, and experiences.
