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: I dea 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 pricin g.”
Experiment #4: Economist Consensus: experiments #1 and #2 and inserts between them: “This may sound convincing at first. But almost all economists (75% in one 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 opposed before stayed opposed • Moderates who opposed carbon pricing were more so after Economist consensus • Moderates and Conservatives who moderately oppose-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 of living is the focus
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. The Story Challenge Canadians agree: climate change is human- Solution Counter-argument frames describing caused, it is happening now and we need to carbon pricing as a tax grab, unfair, Collaborate with trusted spokespeople do something about it. Government must ineffective and will raise cost of living to coordinate the use of carbon pricing regulate polluters. Carbon pricing is one part reduce support for carbon pricing. frames that emphasize consensus, of a comprehensive climate plan. Opposition is building. Carbon pricing fairness, effectiveness. Economists agree carbon pricing is a fair and risks being a stand-in for climate action. effective way to make polluters accountable. 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 Baseline Results, n = 2,846 29% FAIR 14% 51% 28% EFFECTIVE 15% 50% 36% SUPPORT CARBON PRICING 12% 49% Total Oppose Neutral Total Support
Summary ry results: Baseline Open-ended: Why support carbon pricing n = 1,413 WOULD MOTIVATE CONSUMERS/BUSINESSES TO 5% USE OTHER RENEWABLE / TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTION/BETTER AIR QUALITY 6% TO MOTIVATE CONSUMERS/BUSINESSES TO 6% BECOME MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT INCENTIVE TO FINDING RENEWABLE / 10% ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY TO REDUCE EMISSIONS (CARBON DIOXIDE & 15% GREENHOUSE GASES) TO HELP / IMPROVE / PROTECT / SAVE THE 23% ENVIRONMENT
Summary ry results: Baseline Open-ended Why Oppose Carbon Pricing n = 904 CARBON TAX IS NOT NEEDED / NOT NECESSARY AS THESE 4% FUELS ARE SHOULD FOCUS ON DEVELOPING AFFORDABLE 3% RENEWABLE / ALTERNATIVES CARBON TAXATION HAS A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE 5% ECONOMY GOVERNMENT TAX GRAB / INCREASES REVENUE 15% IT INCREASES THE COST OF LIVING / COST IS ALWAYS 22% PASSED ON PAY ENOUGH TAXES ALREADY 23%
Summary ry Results: : Poll lluter pay counters Tax Grab; Consensus fr framing neutralizes Tax Grab ( p = < .05) 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. 35% 12% ECONOMIST CONSENSUS 53%** 32% 16% CANADIAN CONSENSUS 52% 26% 15% POLLUTER-PAY-FAIR 60%*** 39% 16% TAX GRAB-UNFAIR-COST 46% 36% 12% BASELINE 49% Total Oppose Neutral Total Support
Recommend
More recommend
