This summary has been prepared by Sidonie Wittman and edited by the CSRC team based on discussion at our Climate Conversation.
The Climate Conversation: The ‘Climate’ of Political Polarization and Misinformation in Canadian Politics saw Professor Emily Huddart (Sociology) and Assistant Director Chris Tenove (Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions) lead a discussion around the complexities of polarization and misinformation in Canadian climate discourse.
Chris Tenove began the talk by describing a research project that focuses on how municipalities’ climate policies may face misinformation and hostility. He discussed a case study in the project, which looked at the backlash to a district planning approach guided by the concept of the 15-minute city in Edmonton, Alberta. The 15-minute city concept posits that urban residents should be able to access essential services within a 15-minute walk or bike ride, in an effort to build community, enhance livability and lower carbon emissions associated with transportation. In some cities, the response to this planning approach has included accusations that the policy will lead to surveillance, authoritarianism, and loss of personal control or agency. The response in Edmonton was similar, including from online influencers with both national and international prominence sharing conspiratorial narratives and misinformation. While the 15-minute city plan is broadly supported, those opposed launched protests, disrupted city council meetings, and promoted hostility towards city council members.
Ultimately, Edmonton’s district planning policy did pass and Dr. Tenove says this situation offers much to learn from. He highlighted the importance of paying attention and not underestimating prominent online voices, who exert great influence over local communities even if they are global in reach. The attention and spread of misinformation around issues like these can be challenging for municipal politicians and staff to handle, and can risk drowning out legitimate critiques of policies. To that end, some of Dr. Tenove and his colleagues are developing guidelines for municipalities to promote better public conversations about climate policy.
Emily Huddart brought a perspective focused on polarization in Canada, and started with an explanation of ideological versus affective polarization. Ideological polarization refers to differences in attitudes being sorted by political beliefs, whereas affective polarization refers to the measure of difference between how much you like and trust your in-group versus your out-group. She explained that what is often considered ideological polarization in Canada is more aptly described as affective polarization. Some of her recent research has found that Canada is less ideologically polarized over climate policy than is often portrayed, but that affective polarization poses an acute risk for climate policy support. In analyzing responses to a nationwide survey, she noted that those who describe themselves as conservatives in Canada have greater heterogeneity when it comes to either strongly supporting or opposing climate policy and decarbonization than those who describe themselves as politically liberal. This heterogeneity was explained, in large part, by affective polarization. In other words, the largest factor explaining support or lack of support for climate policy was not the degree of conservatism of a respondent, but rather how much a conservative disliked and distrusted liberals. Her takeaway was that if we want to build widespread support for climate policy, climate change-related information should come from nonpartisan sources.
Later questions focused on how to shape messaging around concerns around polarization and misinformation. For example, is it more effective to focus on fact checking, or spreading a solid narrative? The speakers noted that fact checking is challenging as the sole approach to addressing misinformation because it is difficult to get the right information to the right person at the right time. While fact checks are not a silver bullet, they can be combined with community engagement and strong, persuasive narratives to advance climate-related action.
A related question asked if progressive voices should learn from the success of right wing voices in the use of sensational headlines. Dr. Tenove shared that it is important to create narratives that are attention grabbing, but not corrosive or misleading; he argued that instead of focusing on short-lived issues, we should mobilize around compelling issues that can endure in people’s attention. Dr. Huddart agreed, suggesting that there is an opportunity to share more stories of hope and examples of actions that have been successful.
Throughout the talk there was an emphasis on building trust. Polarizing and misleading narratives are more impactful when people distrust institutions and other individuals, and such narratives can contribute to that distrust. Connecting people to truthful messaging may be effective when it is delivered through individuals who are already trusted within a community. Sharing stories of institutions working effectively to accomplish tasks can also build faith and community support. Long term, public engagement needs to focus on investing in connections; public figures need to build lasting community relationships with a strong foundation.
To learn more about Chris Tenove and team’s recent research, join them for the online or in-person launch of their new report in late March. Check the CSDI’s events page in the coming days for registration details.