The Environment in Ontario: The Public’s View

The surge of interest in environmental issues has had a significant effect on federal politics, including the rise of the Green Party in the polls.  We continue our efforts to educate the public about the full platform of the Green Party as more than just environmental policy.  It’ll be a real twist of irony in the next election to see the campaign centre around environmental issues with the other parties trying to out-green each other, while Green Party candidates try to steer the conversation to other topics!

The tide of public opinion has also influenced provincial policy makers and this is important given the upcoming Ontario provincial election.  Nevertheless, the translation of this “green thinking” into policy action in Ontario is undermined by some public ambivalence, as shown by recent public opinion research conducted by the Innovative Research Group.

The research, presented by Innovative’s president, Greg Lyle, at a recent Ontario Energy Association “Energy Leaders’ Roundtable” conference, shows this pervasiveness of green thinking among members of the public but also shows the inconsistencies in the public’s opinions.

What follows is a summary of the findings of this research.

The Environment as a Priority

• The environment ranks second in Ontarians’ priorities (17%), after health care (23%). Federally, the top issue is reversed, with the environment at 26% versus health care at 17%.  Personally I think that too many people are still not seeing these as interrelated issues.




• Among green issues, global warming dominates (at 38%, twice as high as garbage). It may be that warming scores high among the public because respondents are concerned about unusual weather, which they take as “clear proof of global warming.”

Behaviour

• Almost two-thirds of Ontario respondents are not driving less despite higher gasoline prices.




• Lower electricity use is claimed by 47% but only 6% have cut back steeply.




• Home energy efficiency is backed by 88%, if grants or tax credits are provided by the government.




• There is also 63% support for offsets to reduce GHG emissions, but there is 67% opposition for road tolls, in addition to large majorities against increases in gas taxes to discourage driving.




• Higher peak time electricity pricing to cut usage drew 58% support in principle, but raising prices by 50% cut this support to just over a third (37%).

Inconsistencies

• Ontarians give themselves credit for doing the right things on environmental issues and choices, but they don’t expect much from their fellow citizens. Almost three-quarters (74%) expect no real progress unless the government mandates “environmentally friendly products or behaviour.”




• But the 36% calling for “immediate and dramatic action” are outnumbered by the majority (60%) who oppose dramatic action by the government.




• A bundle of tough government measures was only slightly more likely (41%) than not (38%) to attract voter support.




• The pollster asked why — given the strong concern over environmental damage and a recognition that we won’t act unless compelled to do so — are voters unwilling to support an activist electoral platform? Interestingly, 86% of us try to square this policy contradiction by believing that “we can develop new technologies that can reduce our impact on the environment without creating dramatic changes in our lives or increased costs.”

If this polling is correct, then we have a lot of work to do in enlightening people.

Let me state, unequivocally, my stance on this.

There is no magic bullet, no green pill, no knight is shining green armor, coming to save us.  There is no technology, either commercially available now, under development, or even within the imagination, which will make our current lifestyles sustainable.  We can either admit that we do not care about future generations, or we can begin to change how we live.  There is no third option.

So the question is, will you vote, as in the past, for the politician that tells you, patronizingly, that it will all be OK if we just give them one more mandate?

Or will you vote for a politician that tells you the truth?  Regardless of how bitter the pill is to swallow?

For my part, what I am to do?  Follow the tried and true formula of lying to people to get into elected office and then doing only what I have to do to get reelected, regardless of the cost to future generations?  Or should I stick to principle and tell the truth, only to look like the less desirable choice in the face of the shell game being played by my competitors?

I choose the latter.