Countering negative carbon pricing messaging in in Canada Louise - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Countering negative carbon pricing messaging in in Canada

Louise Comeau University of New Brunswick 2018

Sample:

• Leger Research Inc.
• Online Poll: 3,023 Canadians
• February 8 to 20, 2018
• Weighted Canadian census
• Oversampled:
• New Brunswick: 320
• Nova Scotia: 333
• Rest of Canada: 2,370

Framing:

Refers to “the selection of language to communicate information about an issue, as well as the effect of such choices on how audiences form opinions. Frames are unavoidable aspects of communication that people rely on to make sense of the political world;. Often employed strategically by communicators to persuade an audience to support a particular agenda,” (Bolsen & Shapiro, 2018, p. 149).

Inoculation theory:

Idea that like a vaccine, message framing can pre-empt negative effects of misinformation (or counter arguments) by refuting or debunking it. Process creates “attitudinal resistance” by “pre-emptively highlighting false claims and refuting potential counterarguments,” (Linden et al., 2017, p. 3).

• The experiment:
• Sample divided into 4 groups
• Groups exposed to different

carbon pricing narratives

• After each exposure measured

carbon pricing support, belief in effectiveness, fairness, effects on cost of living

• Compared results to questions

asked before experiments and after experiments

Experiment #1, Tax-Grab-Unfair- Increase Costs-Lost Jobs: “…a carbon tax …is a tax grab that will be unfair to Canadian families, businesses and rural communities…will increase the price of food and clothing…will mean lost jobs and struggling or bankrupt businesses, and it won’t reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions.”

Experiment #2, Polluter-Pay- Fair-Effective: “Pricing the pollution unbalancing the climate system makes sense. The more we pollute, the more we ought to

• pay. It’s a fair way to hold

polluters accountable. It’s effective because it makes solutions like renewable energy more affordable.”

Experiment #3, Canadian Consensus: experiments #1 and #2

and inserts between them:

“This might sound convincing at

• first. But most Canadians

believe climate change is already harming us today through extreme storms, forest fires and flooding and that’s why the majority of Canadians also support carbon pricing.”

Experiment #4: Economist Consensus: experiments #1 and #2 and

inserts between them:

“This may sound convincing at first. But almost all economists (75% in

• ne survey) believe that putting a

price on carbon pollution is the most effective way to shrink the greenhouse gas emissions changing the climate without harming the economy.“

http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/ExpertConsensusReport.pdf “The vast majority (75%) of respondents believe that the most economically efficient way for states to comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “Clean Power Plan” carbon regulations is through “market-based mechanisms coordinated at a regional or national level (such as a regional/ national trading program or carbon tax),” (p.2). https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate- consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jan/04/consensus-of-economists-cut-carbon-pollution

Results:

• Tax grab framing reduces support

for carbon pricing and beliefs in its effectiveness and fairness

• Polluter pay framing increases

support for carbon pricing and beliefs in its effectiveness and fairness MORE than Tax Grab decreases support

• But we are in a competitive

environment

Results

• When we combine Tax Grab,

Economist Consensus and Polluter Pay (the inoculation) the effect of negative messaging is neutralized

• Economist Consensus inoculation

increases or cancels out negative framing: support for carbon pricing and belief in effectiveness and fairness is maintained

Results

• Experimental effects on cost of

living:

• Resisted changing these beliefs
• Only British Columbians

lowered belief in cost of living effects after exposure to Economist Consensus

• Canadian consensus shows mixed

results

• Varies by province

Provincial Results

• Economist consensus:
• Increases support for carbon pricing in

Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia

• Manitoba and Nova Scotia also increase

belief carbon pricing is fair

• Maintains support in Ontario and

Quebec (i.e., neutralizes)

• Canadian consensus:
• Increases support in New Brunswick
• Maintains support and belief carbon

pricing is effective in British Columbia

In Influence of f Political Id Ideology

• Liberals who supported carbon pricing

before exposure increased support after Economist consensus

• Liberals moderately supportive lowered

support after Economist consensus; Liberals

• pposed before stayed opposed
• Moderates who opposed carbon pricing

were more so after Economist consensus

• Moderates and Conservatives who moderately
• ppose-support were more so after Canadian

consensus; less so after Economist

• Conservatives who oppose carbon pricing

were more opposed after inoculations

• Conservatives were somewhat more

supportive after Economist consensus

Variables influencing results

• Strength of pro-environmental

norms, political ideology and environmental identity most influenced results

• Education modest influence
• Education bigger influence in

responses to the Tax-Grab-Unfair- Lost Jobs narrative

• Tax Grab also generated a significant

reaction from women and younger respondents

What to do with these results:

• Avoid carbon pricing details
• Focus: climate change is human-

caused, it is happening now and Canadians are worried; cite local effects

• Governments are obligated to

regulate the pollution unbalancing the climate.

• A serious climate plan includes carbon

pricing

• It’s normal: More than 70 countries have

carbon pricing

What to do with these results?

When carbon pricing is the topic, emphasize:

• Carbon pricing is a common-sense

solution

• Pollute more, pay more
• It holds polluters accountable
• This makes carbon pricing

fair

• Almost all economists agree

carbon pricing is efficient and effective

• Carbon pricing is effective
• It makes renewable energy more

affordable

What to do with these results?

• Acknowledge counter arguments

can seem convincing at first

• Then pivot to consensus:
• Economist consensus except in:
• British Columbia or New Brunswick,

where Canadian consensus best

• Nationally: Lean on Economist

consensus

• Canadian consensus can help when cost
• f living is the focus

The Story

Canadians agree: climate change is human- caused, it is happening now and we need to do something about it. Government must regulate polluters. Carbon pricing is one part

• f a comprehensive climate plan.

Economists agree carbon pricing is a fair and effective way to make polluters accountable.

Solution

Collaborate with trusted spokespeople to coordinate the use of carbon pricing frames that emphasize consensus, fairness, effectiveness.

Issue

Carbon pricing support vulnerable to (1) frames calling it a tax grab, unfair, costly and will raise cost of living; and (2) that it comes to represent all climate action.

Challenge

Counter-argument frames describing carbon pricing as a tax grab, unfair, ineffective and will raise cost of living reduce support for carbon pricing. Opposition is building. Carbon pricing risks being a stand-in for climate action.

Opportunity

Consistent and persistent use of messaging can influence public support for carbon pricing policy and reduce the belief that carbon pricing will raise the cost of living.

Charts next xt few slides

• Louise Comeau: 506 238 0355;

louise27comeau@gmail.com

Summary ry results: Baseline: half support

49% 50% 51% 12% 15% 14% 36% 28% 29%

SUPPORT CARBON PRICING EFFECTIVE FAIR

Baseline Results, n = 2,846 Total Oppose Neutral Total Support

Summary ry results: Baseline

23% 15% 10% 6% 6% 5%

TO HELP / IMPROVE / PROTECT / SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT TO REDUCE EMISSIONS (CARBON DIOXIDE & GREENHOUSE GASES) INCENTIVE TO FINDING RENEWABLE / ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY TO MOTIVATE CONSUMERS/BUSINESSES TO BECOME MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTION/BETTER AIR QUALITY WOULD MOTIVATE CONSUMERS/BUSINESSES TO USE OTHER RENEWABLE /

Open-ended: Why support carbon pricing n = 1,413

Summary ry results: Baseline

23% 22% 15% 5% 3% 4%

PAY ENOUGH TAXES ALREADY IT INCREASES THE COST OF LIVING / COST IS ALWAYS PASSED ON GOVERNMENT TAX GRAB / INCREASES REVENUE CARBON TAXATION HAS A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY SHOULD FOCUS ON DEVELOPING AFFORDABLE RENEWABLE / ALTERNATIVES CARBON TAX IS NOT NEEDED / NOT NECESSARY AS THESE FUELS ARE

Open-ended Why Oppose Carbon Pricing n = 904

Summary ry Results: : Poll lluter pay counters Tax Grab; Consensus fr framing neutralizes Tax Grab (p = < .05)

49% 46% 60%*** 52% 53%** 12% 16% 15% 16% 12% 36% 39% 26% 32% 35%

BASELINE TAX GRAB-UNFAIR-COST POLLUTER-PAY-FAIR CANADIAN CONSENSUS ECONOMIST CONSENSUS

Putting a price on the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are produced from burning fuels such as coal, oil, gasoline and natural gas. Total Oppose Neutral Total Support

In Influence on carbon pricing effectiveness

50% 49% 59%*** 53% 56%* 15% 20% 16% 17% 14% 28% 30% 25% 31% 31%

BASELINE TAX GRAB-UNFAIR-COST POLLUTER-PAY-FAIR CANADIAN CONSENSUS ECONOMIC CONSENSUS

Carbon pricing is an effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Canada and addressing climate change. Total Oppose Neutral Total Support

In Influence on carbon pricing fairness

51% 53% 61%*** 52% 55%** 14% 16% 15% 18% 15% 29% 32% 24% 31% 30%

BASELINE TAX GRAB-UNFAIR-COST POLLUTER-PAY-FAIR CANADIAN CONSENSUS ECONOMIC CONSENSUS

Carbon pricing is a fair way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Canada and addressing climate change. Total Oppose Neutral Total Support

In Influence on cost of living effects

53% 52% 54% 50% 19% 24% 26%** 24% 28% 23% 21% 26%

TAX GRAB-UNFAIR-COST POLLUTER-PAY-FAIR CANADIAN CONSENSUS ECONOMIC CONSENSUS

Carbon pricing will result in a significant increase in the cost of living for Canadians. Total Oppose Neutral Total Support

Provincial: In Influence carbon pricing support

39% 56% 41% 41% 48% 49% 59% 24% 42% 42% 37% 39% 46% 49% 49% 38% 36% 68% 48% 63% 53% 59% 61% 42% 26%

59%

35%

50%

48% 48% 59% 19%

44%

53%

53%

42%

67% 51%

60%

17%

ALBERTA BRITISH COLUMBIA MANITOBA NEW BRUNSWICK NOVA SCOTIA ONTARIO QUEBEC SASKATCHEWAN

CARBON PRICING SUPPORT

Support Tax Grab-Unfair Polluter-Pay-Fair Canadian Consensus Economic Consensus

Provincial: In Influence carbon pricing effectiveness

39% 56% 47% 52% 53% 53% 62% 29%

44%

53% 38% 49% 43% 55% 51% 33% 38% 64% 55% 61% 56% 57% 68% 44% 40%

63%

31%

53%

52% 49% 56% 25% 41% 55%

58%

45%

66% 56% 65%

26%

ALBERTA BRITISH COLUMBIA MANITOBA NEW BRUNSWICK NOVA SCOTIA ONTARIO QUEBEC SASKATCHEWAN

CARBON PRICING EFFECTIVENESS Support Tax Grab-Unfair Polluter-Pay-Fair Canadian Consensus Economic Consensus

Provincial: In Influence carbon pricing fairness

41% 59% 46% 50% 54% 52% 64% 28% 50% 53% 38% 44% 47% 53% 56% 38% 41% 69% 59% 59% 56% 58% 69% 39% 36% 56% 28%

52%

58% 49% 63% 25%

41%

55%

53%

48%

62% 55% 66%

26% ALBERTA BRITISH COLUMBIA MANITOBA NEW BRUNSWICK NOVA SCOTIA ONTARIO QUEBEC SASKATCHEWAN

CARBON PRICING FAIRNESS Support Tax Grab-Unfair Polluter-Pay-Fair Canadian Consensus Economic Consensus

Provincial: In Influence cost of f living

33% 33% 44% 35% 29% 31% 21% 33% 24% 29% 28% 29% 26% 15% 29% 23% 17% 15% 21% 23% 15% 16%

42%

19% 34% 22% 27% 25%

ALBERTA BRITISH COLUMBIA MANITOBA NEW BRUNSWICK NOVA SCOTIA ONTARIO QUEBEC OPPOSE: CARBON PRICING WILL RAISE COST OF LIVING Tax Grab Polluter Pay Canadian consensus Economist consensus