By Laura Bouchard for CANADALAND.

A few weeks ago, Bruce Anderson, a popular pundit and pollster, wrote an opinion piece criticizing the NDP’s Leap Manifesto as a clumsy political misstep. Canadians, Anderson argues, would never go for bold action addressing climate change. We’re a mild people. A simple people. He wrote:

“Canadians want 'pro-growth environmentalism.' They want to tap entrepreneurship, innovation, technology, science, capital and yes, capitalism, to help create ideas that marry our desire to put food on the table, money away for our kids’ education, and some sense of security about how we’re going to live in retirement.”

This last sentence caught my eye. If you read it closely, you’ll notice two lists. First are the feel-goodisms the oil industry likes to drape itself in: innovation, science, entrepreneurship; second are the actual anxieties of average Canadians. Rather artfully Anderson has fused the interests of everyday Canadians with the rhetoric of the oil patch; perfectly aligned and indistinguishable.

I know the oil industry wants to be thought of as innovative growth entrepreneurs, not out of guesswork, although that wouldn’t be terribly difficult, but because they told me so. Or at least CEPA, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, did, in a focus group, moderated by Bruce Anderson — a connection he didn't disclose in his Globe and Mail piece.

CEPA isn’t an actual company but a PR organization. They bill themselves as “the voice” of pipeline companies like Enbridge, TransCanada, and Kinder Morgan Canada. And if you thought, “Wait, isn’t CEPA the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Canada’s main environmental legislation?” you’re right, it definitely is. Acronym insidiousness is apparently the industry standard for this sort of thing.  

In 2012, I signed up to be a focus group participant to earn some extra money. I had no idea what it would be about, or that Canada-famous Bruce Anderson would be leading it.   

CEPA was testing a few potential narratives. The first was about drawing parallels to the historic infrastructure that built Canada, like the CPR. The second was about Canada being at the forefront of innovation, science and economic growth. There were poster mock-ups for this message track. The most distasteful, in my opinion, was the one with a pristine futuristic pipeline streamlined across an equally pristine wilderness landscape.

After seeing the ad spots and mock-ups, we were asked for our reactions. The comments were mostly technical and specific: fonts were hard to read, narration had too many words. I sat and waited for the rest of the group (mostly boomers and certainly no one under 35) to contribute their thoughts. I was trying to decide how much of a dick I should be. Eventually I settled on 100 per cent:

“I’m surprised you’d want to portray pristine untouched wilderness next to pipelines in your ads, given the fact that pipelines spill and leak a lot.”

This was followed by a pretty lengthy silence. I had expected a few people to be annoyed or hostile. What I didn’t expect was the exact opposite. If I had to describe the main feeling in the room, it would be “I didn’t know we were allowed to do that.”

From then on, there was a full-on focus group revolt. Suddenly participants were bringing up climate change and green energy options and safety,  each comment a little bolder than the last. It was as if everyone had been given permission to care about the environment without being dismissed as reckless.

Bruce Anderson has spent his life figuring out how to make the best arguments for promoting oil and gas development (to his credit he has not hidden this fact, unlike some other CBC personalities). Because of this, he knows it’s helpful to dress up an unimaginative backwards industry of strip-mining and explosive drilling as innovative, productive and forward-leaning. He also knows exactly where to twist the knife — that exploiting Canadians fears’ about economic insecurity is a great way to cow them away from any genuine environmental action they might actually favour.

I suppose my question to Mr. Anderson is this: Has he ever really tried to sell a green sustainable economy? Or any plan that would prevent global temperatures from reaching the point of no return? Clearly there is an appetite on the part of the public to do something. If one not-terribly-well-spoken twenty-something with a single comment can completely derail a pipeline focus group into a full-fledged climate change discussion, imagine what the Bruce Andersons of this world could accomplish if they actually tried.

Image: Bruce Anderson/Abacus Data

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

In polling released by BC Hydro last week, the public power utility touts “broad” support for its controversial Site C dam — a mega hydro dam on the Peace River that would flood 107 kilometres of river valley, forcing farmers and First Nations off their land.

Hydro must have been counting on nobody taking a close look at the questions they asked respondents, because not only are they misleading, but they also tell another story entirely.

Let’s first address a glaring problem with the questions themselves: polling company Abacus Data began by asking British Columbians a multiple choice question about how to meet “increasing electricity demand.” 

There’s just one problem: B.C. does not have increasing electricity demand. In fact, electricity demand in B.C. has remained basically flat since 2005. But no, the pollster told all 1,000 telephone respondents that electricity demand is rising and we must meet it somehow.

Then comes the key question: “Is the idea of building Site C, a new hydroelectric dam, to help meet the rising demand for electricity in B.C., an idea you strongly support, support, can accept under certain circumstances, oppose, or strongly oppose?”

Well whaddya know, that old porky about “rising demand for electricity” has appeared right in the benchmark polling question, presented plainly as fact.

(Anyone with any experience with polling knows the demand language is so prominent because BC Hydro has likely message tested the bejeebus out of it and knows exactly how to prime the pump to elicit the answer it wants.)

Continuing the obsession with power demand, later on in the poll, respondents are asked to gauge their agreement with the statement: “I have no doubt that the demand for electricity in B.C. will continue to grow significantly in the years ahead.”

After being misinformed about electricity demand in B.C. repeatedly in the poll, 89 per cent of respondents then say they expect demand to increase. In other words: 89 per cent of respondents listened diligently to the misleading information and responded accordingly.

Enter this quote from Bruce Anderson, chairman of Abacus Data, who designed and analyzed the poll: “What stands out for me is the fact that people broadly believe that more power will be needed and that a new dam is probably one of the best ways to meet growing demand.”

Well, doesn’t that just take the biscuit. Really, Mr. Anderson, were you surprised that after you told respondents multiple times that electricity demand is increasing that they then parroted your line back to you? Seems like a pretty simple case of cause and effect to me.

Opposition to Site C Dam Has Doubled Since 2013

Now, for the results themselves. While BC Hydro would like you to focus on awareness reaching a new high (77 per cent) and 73 per cent of British Columbians saying that they either support or can support Site C under certain circumstances, the trends tell a different story.

Between 2013 and 2016, awareness of the project grew from 41 per cent to 77 per cent. During that same period of time, opposition to the dam nearly doubled, growing from 13 per cent to 24 per cent. In other words, the more people who learn about the dam, the more opposition increases — that’s not a super positive trend-line for a project that is only six months into eight years of construction.

.@BCHydro (really) doesn’t want you to know #SiteC opposition has doubled https://t.co/O76cyRjVZp #bcpoli pic.twitter.com/SeshQDDHSX

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) June 14, 2016

Support also grew from 42 per cent in 2013 to 49 per cent in 2016, during which time the B.C. government churned out relentless spin about the so-called “need” for the project. Despite the spin, growth in opposition significantly outpaced support. 

“It's not that people don't have any anxieties about the impacts of this project, but that a better alternative is not obvious, and a certain degree of comfort has developed that this project is being handled with appropriate diligence,” Anderson said in BC Hydro’s release.

Actually, a better alternative is obvious — but BC Hydro never chose to poll about that. First and foremost, demand for power has been flat in B.C. for the past 10 years. Were it to begin to increase, we could easily meet our needs with the Columbia River entitlement or various smaller scale renewable options — chiefly geothermal. Both of those options would be far cheaper than the Site C dam.

And when it comes to the project being handled with “appropriate diligence,” there are numerous high-profile individuals and groups who have come forward to argue the contrary. Perhaps most surprising is Harry Swain, chair of the provincial-federal panel tasked with reviewing Site C, who said BC Hydro’s failure to adequately investigate alternatives to the dam represents a “dereliction of duty" and that the province shouldn't be moving ahead while the demand case remains unclear.

The joint review panel’s report on Site C predicted the dam would lose at least $800 million in the first four years of production because there’s no need for the power in B.C. and exports would lose money.

That’s why B.C. Premier Christy Clark is now flapping her gums about selling the power to Alberta to power the oilsands  — an entirely new (and totally unrealistic) justification for the project that confirms there’s no need for the power in B.C.

Clark knows there’s no demand for new power in B.C.  No doubt BC Hydro knows it, too. Now if only British Columbians knew it — then how would they answer a polling question about spending nearly $9 billion to build a new dam?

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.