Climate change has become entangled in partisan politics. In Canada, as in other countries, climate concern and support for climate policy are often coded as left-leaning positions. Meanwhile, climate change skepticism or denial is more likely to be espoused by those on the political right.
This pattern helps explain why those on the political left are consistently more likely than those on the right to accept climate science and support action to address climate change. But how big a gap is there between the left and the right in Canada? And what explains differences in levels of support for climate policy?
Our recent representative survey of Canadians, conducted in the summer of 2024, set out to answer these questions. Using a telephone survey, we gathered responses from 2,503 Canadians across the country.
We asked about their support for climate policies, their feelings about ordinary people on the left and the right, as well as their political ideology, where they live, and whether they had economic ties to the oil and gas industry.
We also examined how people feel about political groups. Political scientists refer to this feeling as affective polarization — the extent to which people feel warmth toward their own political side and hostility toward the other.
We focused our analysis on the political right. Respondents identifying as politically left-leaning showed consistently high support for climate policy, leaving little variation to explain. Those on the right expressed a wider range of views. Contrary to common assumptions, we found that more people on the right supported climate policy than opposed it. The next question is what explains the differences within the right.
Affective polarization
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Larry MacDougal
A commonly cited explanation for different levels of support for climate policy is economic self-interest. This factor is particularly relevant for provinces like Alberta, where the oil and gas sector plays a major role in employment and government revenue. Qualitative researchers have argued that people with ties to this industry are less likely to support climate policy.
However, we found that having ties to the oil and gas sector did not significantly predict their support for climate policy. Likewise, the degree of conservatism — whether someone identified as centre-right or far-right — didn’t make conservatives less likely to support climate policy either.
There were modest regional differences. Respondents in the Prairie provinces expressed somewhat lower levels of support compared with those in Atlantic Canada and Québec. However, region explained only a small portion of the variation within the political right.
What mattered most was affective polarization.
Negative feelings toward the left and positive feelings toward the right were by far the strongest predictors of climate policy attitudes, and explained the most variation in support.
In simple terms, people on the right who felt the most hostility toward the left, and the most warmth toward the right, were more likely to oppose climate policy.
Implications for climate change politics
These findings have important implications for how climate conversations unfold in Canada.
Avoiding political discussion with people on the opposing side of the issue may be counterproductive. Many people steer clear of contentious topics in everyday conversation, especially with those they disagree with.
At the same time, social media environments often reinforce existing views by connecting people with like-minded others. The result is fewer opportunities for meaningful exchange across political divides.
Such exchanges can help reduce polarization, but only under certain conditions.
When discussions are framed as attempts to persuade or “win,” they often entrench existing positions. When they are approached as opportunities to understand another person’s perspective, they can reduce hostility and open space for dialogue.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh
People rarely change their views in response to arguments alone. Instead, attitudes are shaped over time through relationships, experiences and social context. Conversations that build trust and mutual understanding are more likely to shift perspectives than those focused on delivering facts.
If opposition to climate policy is rooted in social and political identity, then strategies for building support need to reflect that reality. This doesn’t mean abandoning efforts to implement climate policies. It suggests that building broader support for climate action will require engaging people across political lines in ways that reduce, rather than heighten, partisan divisions.
In real terms, this will mean finding core needs that Canadians have in common and seeking policies that can have climate benefits while meeting those core needs.
Climate change is a complex and urgent challenge. Addressing it will require not only technological and policy solutions, but also social ones. Creating space for constructive, respectful conversations across political differences may be one of the most important and overlooked parts of that effort.
