People fight over things that are in short supply. These days energy is at the top of the list.
With Canada’s rise as an energy superpower, it’s only natural that energy and politics would collide.
We have seen major debates at the provincial level; the fight over green energy in Ontario, over new hydro power in Newfoundland and Labrador, and over royalty rates in Alberta. Add Canada’s federal structure, regionalized politics, and an intensely polarized electorate and it’s no surprise that energy has become one of the central issues for debate at the national level.
Today, Abacus Data released the results of a survey we conducted earlier this month that demonstrate how Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline is not only driving a wedge between BC Premier Christy Clark and Alberta Premier Alison Redford but also between their respective provincial populations.
Support for the pipeline in British Columbia is in decline, with the majority of BC respondents telling us they either strongly or somewhat oppose the Northern Gateway Pipeline proposal. In Alberta we find an entirely different situation, with 63% of respondents indicating they support construction of the pipeline.
In other parts of the country, the public is more divided. Support for the pipeline barely rises above 30% in most other provinces. But what’s more noteworthy is that many Canadians outside the west are either unsure about their position, or neutral towards the pipeline.
While the debate has intensified in Alberta and British Columbia, the battle to shape public opinion about Enbridge’s pipeline outside those provinces is not over. If the project does continue, how Canadians east of Alberta react to the project may further increase the political stakes involved.
Aside from views on Enbridge’s proposal, we also asked more general questions about the oil sands and the rest of Canada. We asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: All Canadians benefit from the wealth generated from the Alberta oil sands.
Those who agreed with the statement would support a project like trans-provincial pipelines that will ship the resource to tankers destined to Asian markets. Those who disagreed wonder whether the environmental risks are worth it.
Our survey found that 36% of Canadians we surveyed agreed with the statement. In contrast 45% disagreed; another 20% neither agreed nor disagreed.
Regionally, Alberta was the only province in which a majority agreed with the statement, whereas large pluralities in Québec, Ontario and British Columbia disagreed that all Canadians share in the wealth generated by the Alberta oil sands.
Although the federal government has argued that this project is in the national interest, only one out of three Canadians agree that it is.
For all the criticism that NDP Leader Tom Mulcair received for his “Dutch disease” comments, his broader message that the oil sands benefit one region over others aligns more closely with public opinion than the arguments made by the Conservative government. Rightly, or not, much of the public is not convinced of the national economic benefit of anything having to do with the oil sands. Is it genuine concern, anti-Alberta sentiment, or just plain jealousy? That’s a question for future research.
Opinions about energy projects like these can be thought of as a fairly simple cost-benefit analysis with a streak of emotion running through. On the one hand, people consider the benefit – jobs, tax revenues, and trade. On the other hand they consider the costs – environmental harm, safety concerns, and concerns about exporting raw materials abroad without first adding value in Canada. Add the emotional and ideological factors (which are sometimes difficult to unwrap) and opinion about an issue is formed.
The moment that the costs outweigh the benefits, opinion can turn against these projects rather quickly, even if the emotional response is positive. For Albertans, the benefits clearly outweigh the costs. They benefit most directly through the royalties their provincial government collects.
In British Columbia, the conditions put forward by BC premier Christy Clark, especially the requirement that BC must receive its fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits, have resonated because a majority of her residents do not believe the benefits to their communities outweigh the risks and they don’t see an overriding national imperative to build the pipeline.
If it wishes to avoid a public backlash at the voting booth, the federal government must do a better job at explaining how resource developments like the oil sands in Alberta, hydro projects in Newfoundland and Labrador, or mining in Northern Quebec impact and support everyone’s quality of life and prosperity. Part of that sales job is explaining the need to ship those resources to new markets whether by rail, power line, ship, and, yes, pipeline.
The debate over Canada’s energy policy will certainly not end with the Northern Gateway Pipeline. Whether or not the pipeline is ever built, the exercise has offered many lessons for all sides on how to engage a sophisticated public and mobilize support for national projects that may have provincial or local impacts.
Ultimately, as the saying goes, all politics is local. While it is unclear whether the Conservative caucus in BC advocated for a softening of the Harper government’s position on Northern Gateway, our data clearly demonstrates their motivation to do so.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: David Coletto
With Canada’s rise as an energy superpower, it’s only natural that energy and politics would collide.
We have seen major debates at the provincial level; the fight over green energy in Ontario, over new hydro power in Newfoundland and Labrador, and over royalty rates in Alberta. Add Canada’s federal structure, regionalized politics, and an intensely polarized electorate and it’s no surprise that energy has become one of the central issues for debate at the national level.
Today, Abacus Data released the results of a survey we conducted earlier this month that demonstrate how Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline is not only driving a wedge between BC Premier Christy Clark and Alberta Premier Alison Redford but also between their respective provincial populations.
Support for the pipeline in British Columbia is in decline, with the majority of BC respondents telling us they either strongly or somewhat oppose the Northern Gateway Pipeline proposal. In Alberta we find an entirely different situation, with 63% of respondents indicating they support construction of the pipeline.
In other parts of the country, the public is more divided. Support for the pipeline barely rises above 30% in most other provinces. But what’s more noteworthy is that many Canadians outside the west are either unsure about their position, or neutral towards the pipeline.
While the debate has intensified in Alberta and British Columbia, the battle to shape public opinion about Enbridge’s pipeline outside those provinces is not over. If the project does continue, how Canadians east of Alberta react to the project may further increase the political stakes involved.
Aside from views on Enbridge’s proposal, we also asked more general questions about the oil sands and the rest of Canada. We asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: All Canadians benefit from the wealth generated from the Alberta oil sands.
Those who agreed with the statement would support a project like trans-provincial pipelines that will ship the resource to tankers destined to Asian markets. Those who disagreed wonder whether the environmental risks are worth it.
Our survey found that 36% of Canadians we surveyed agreed with the statement. In contrast 45% disagreed; another 20% neither agreed nor disagreed.
Regionally, Alberta was the only province in which a majority agreed with the statement, whereas large pluralities in Québec, Ontario and British Columbia disagreed that all Canadians share in the wealth generated by the Alberta oil sands.
Although the federal government has argued that this project is in the national interest, only one out of three Canadians agree that it is.
For all the criticism that NDP Leader Tom Mulcair received for his “Dutch disease” comments, his broader message that the oil sands benefit one region over others aligns more closely with public opinion than the arguments made by the Conservative government. Rightly, or not, much of the public is not convinced of the national economic benefit of anything having to do with the oil sands. Is it genuine concern, anti-Alberta sentiment, or just plain jealousy? That’s a question for future research.
Opinions about energy projects like these can be thought of as a fairly simple cost-benefit analysis with a streak of emotion running through. On the one hand, people consider the benefit – jobs, tax revenues, and trade. On the other hand they consider the costs – environmental harm, safety concerns, and concerns about exporting raw materials abroad without first adding value in Canada. Add the emotional and ideological factors (which are sometimes difficult to unwrap) and opinion about an issue is formed.
The moment that the costs outweigh the benefits, opinion can turn against these projects rather quickly, even if the emotional response is positive. For Albertans, the benefits clearly outweigh the costs. They benefit most directly through the royalties their provincial government collects.
In British Columbia, the conditions put forward by BC premier Christy Clark, especially the requirement that BC must receive its fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits, have resonated because a majority of her residents do not believe the benefits to their communities outweigh the risks and they don’t see an overriding national imperative to build the pipeline.
If it wishes to avoid a public backlash at the voting booth, the federal government must do a better job at explaining how resource developments like the oil sands in Alberta, hydro projects in Newfoundland and Labrador, or mining in Northern Quebec impact and support everyone’s quality of life and prosperity. Part of that sales job is explaining the need to ship those resources to new markets whether by rail, power line, ship, and, yes, pipeline.
The debate over Canada’s energy policy will certainly not end with the Northern Gateway Pipeline. Whether or not the pipeline is ever built, the exercise has offered many lessons for all sides on how to engage a sophisticated public and mobilize support for national projects that may have provincial or local impacts.
Ultimately, as the saying goes, all politics is local. While it is unclear whether the Conservative caucus in BC advocated for a softening of the Harper government’s position on Northern Gateway, our data clearly demonstrates their motivation to do so.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: David Coletto
No comments:
Post a Comment