Polarization as a general phenomenon has increased in Canada, as it has in other jurisdictions, notably the United States. However, contrary to the US, studies on Canada have not yet firmly established that partisan polarization (hardening of partisan identities) is on the rise. … Affective polarization refers to how much people like or dislike various political parties – those that they support versus those that they don’t. … [T]here is an increasing gap between the centre and the right, along with a rise of negative partisanship (the tendency for citizens to say they would ‘never vote’ for a particular party. … [A]s is also the case in the US, measures of ideological convergence and divergence have been confirming a trend of ideological polarization in Canada since the 1980s. … The trend of the last three decades shows that the NDP and the Liberal Party have gotten closer, both between themselves but also together in relation to the centre. Meanwhile, at the right end of the spectrum, the merger of the Progressive Conservative and Canadian Alliance parties in 2003 resulted in a shift further from the centre than ever before.
[From a study by Positive Energy: What is “transition”? The two realities of energy and environmental leaders in Canada.]
… [S]enior leaders have vastly different understandings about the changes Canada should make to address climate change. Interviewees strongly disagreed about the scope and pace of change to Canada’s energy economy and society more broadly in response to climate change. Analysis of the interviews revealed two ‘ideal types’ of narratives about transition.
|
Dividing Lines |
Reality I |
Reality II |
|
Scope of Change |
Focused on reducing GHG emissions. Canada’s energy portfolio should be diverse and should include fossil fuels. |
Focused on reducing GHG emissions, but ultimately major reforms of the energy system. Fossil fuels should be eliminated now, if not in the near future. |
|
Pace of Change |
Slow and measured. The transformation of the energy system will not occur overnight. Careful consideration must be given to how the energy system will change to address new challenges. |
Need for urgent action driven by science. The world is facing a climate crisis and Canada must act now to address its worst impacts. |
Reality I is more common among participants from industry, government, and regulatory agencies. Participants occupying Reality I perceive transition as a measured process of change, focused on reducing GHG emissions. According to this view, natural gas, nuclear power, renewables, carbon capture technologies, and energy efficiency should all be part of Canada’s energy portfolio. Greater reliance on these energy sources, together with other innovations in the oil and gas sector, will slowly but surely decouple economic activity and energy production from GHG emissions. Oil and gas will therefore continue to play an important role in Canada’s energy future, and needed changes will occur largely as a result of market forces.
Reality II is more common among participants from research, non-government and Indigenous organizations. From this viewpoint, reducing GHG emissions is a key component of transition, but is situated within much larger changes to political and economic systems. Canada’s oil industry faces certain phase-out in this view due to decreased demand for the product as well as the need to drastically reduce fossil fuel use to meaningfully address the ‘climate crisis’. Transition must occur in the next 10 to 20 years, based on scientifically derived emissions targets. Key drivers for transition in this narrative are policy interventions, market forces, and increasing social demands in the face of climate change.
Crucially, both groups identify themselves as ‘realists’ about transition and believe that their views constitute the practical, sensible approach to transition. Multiple participants mentioned that the country lacks ‘honest conversations’ and transparency about the reality of transition – but they had different realities in mind, about which they felt Canadians needed to be more honest.
These findings are crucial for those interested in addressing polarization in Canadian energy and climate debates. Moving beyond polarization will be nearly impossible if conversations about Canada’s energy future fail to acknowledge critical differences between these two visions. They suggest that those convening dialogues or developing policy about Canada’s energy future should begin by focusing on areas of convergence between Reality I and Reality II and attempting to build bridges between them.
… The research suggests the term transition may be doing more harm than good. As ubiquitous as it is in energy and climate debates, it may actually be hampering constructive discussion – even driving polarization. All told, the language of transition may not be the most productive way to frame things. It might be better to use terms like ‘emissions’ and ‘emissions reductions’.
None of the study participants denied the existence of human-caused climate change. That’s a solid starting point. There’s also agreement that further action is required to address climate change through a combination of market and policy drivers. And while the speed and scope of change is a major point of contention, we now have a stronger understanding of the key areas of disagreement. Addressing these differences carefully but meaningfully could offer a starting point for more productive conversations – and policies – that help bridge the two realities. This could contribute to positive ongoing progress on both energy and environmental objectives.