This article originally appeared on Climate Access.

Those who work on climate change were both chuffed and chagrined by its role in Canada’s federal election campaign, which peaked last week with the victory of Liberal leader Justin Trudeau and defeat of Conservative incumbent Stephen Harper.

“The environment” — a catch-all concept that often encompasses concern about climate change — consistently ranked close to economy and healthcare on voters' list of top priorities. Oilsands and climate change issues took up nearly a quarter of the first leaders debate, commanding more than twice the airtime they did in 2011. Several media outlets ran editorials calling on all parties to take a strong stance on reducing GHG emissions or put a price on carbon.

To quote professor and commentator George Hoberg, “energy and environmental issues have become central to Canadian electoral politics.”

Despite all of this, climate change didn’t have a significant impact on the election’s outcome. Fundamentally this was a campaign about values where action on global warming was bundled into a broader set of aspirations and ideas that Canadians said yes to on October 19th. 

The election of Canada’s new prime minister is an important case study in the powerful potential of values-based messaging. Where the Conservative campaign sought to preserve the status quo and motivate voters with threats of an unstable or unsafe future, the Liberal campaign (and to a different extent, the New Democrats) mobilized Canadians with a vision of change centred on honesty, inclusion and fairness.

Of course, the timing couldn’t have been better. Much has been said about why Canadians’ were ready to bid farewell to one of their longer-standing leaders — corruption, fiscal mismanagement, deepening degrees of intolerance and an overt contempt for basic democratic principles being among them. Under Harper’s rule, Canada became a global pariah on climate change (the dark twin to its role as international cheerleader for the oilsands); even members of the Conservative base were beginning to question his judgment. Voters traditionally divided by ideology found common ground in their disapproval of Harper’s approach to governing, particularly his divisive tenor.

In this context, the fact that Trudeau wasn’t very scientific about how his climate plan would set him above other parties didn’t matter. Why would it, given most Canadians support emission reduction targets but can’t say what a good one looks like or how to achieve it. Election-time focus groups have been clear that Canadians rarely track the policy fine print; they’re lured in by a resonant vision. Trudeau’s generally progressive position on climate change was just one example of what made his party a desirable alternative. And for many — including those who supported strategic voting and ABC (Anything But Conservative) campaigns — what he presented was good enough.

At Climate Access, we regularly advise climate practitioners on using common values to articulate a vision of a better future, as well as the steps towards getting there. It’s a delicate approach that has the potential to come off idealistic or woo-woo if not executed thoughtfully. Certainly not for the risk-averse (neither was Trudeau’s comment about growing the economy “not from the top-down … but from the heart outwards”). But done well, values-based messaging that taps shared aspirations around fairness, equality and innovation, for example, lays the ground for the specific prescriptions or actions needed to achieve the vision. (Tools like Spitfire Strategies’ message box puts values at the start of every frame, and vision at the close.)

Values-focused campaigns can be stressful for people who work on policy. Many smart advocates grumbled over the fact that both the Liberals and NDP avoided getting specific on key aspects of their climate change strategies, including how they might price carbon and the future of oilsands development. “Instead, climate disruption was coded in symbols linked to the national social contract (between regions) and Canadian self-esteem that were much more suitable for the challenging parties,” Canadian pollster and activist John Willis told Climate Access.

This is partly why Trudeau focused on restoring the role (and independence) of science in decision making, as well as working more closely with the provinces and territories.

“The Liberal message about consulting the provinces and bringing the country together was probably the most effective message on climate (and wasn't really a message about climate policy per se, but rather a new style of collaborative governance),” communications specialist and instructor Andrew Frank told Climate Access.

Intelligent skeptics may be tempted to criticize these promises for focusing on process over outcomes. But then, commitments to restore Canada’s environmental laws and give First Nations and other stakeholders a meaningful seat at the table were also sought and received, and neither involve a scientific target.

The reality is the Trudeau-led Liberal campaign raised expectations — exponentially — about the kind of leadership, transparency and accountability Canadians can expect from their federal government going forward. And they made climate change a central indicator of their success on all of these fronts.

The opportunity for climate advocates now is to drive the details. Canadians need information on what smart climate policy looks like (i.e. a strong national action that will cut 1/3 of Canada’s carbon in the next 15 years, on the way to 100 per cent renewable energy by 2050), as well as ideas on how to measure our progress. Most people are still unclear on the connection between the oilsands and climate change (perhaps including the new prime minister, who has a mixed position on pipelines). Stories about Canada’s burgeoning renewable energy sector and job market need to be shared and promoted.

There is still lots of work to do, but it should be easier with Canadians agreeing that it’s time to do something.

Sutton Eaves is a communications strategist specializing in environmental issues. She is senior editor and strategist at Climate Access.

Image: Justin Trudeau via Flickr

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.

Aaron Freeman has been working on environmental policy, in one fashion or another, in Canada for 25 years — long enough to witness what he calls the steady decline of environmental priorities in Ottawa.

And yet the majority of Canadians claim they care deeply about the environment and expect governments to act on major environmental problems like climate change. So how to resolve the disconnect?

Freeman launched GreenPAC, a non-partisan political action committee, in March as a way of mending the divide between environmental concerns and environmental action at the political level.

Recently GreenPAC released a list of environmental champions from across the political spectrum and urged Canadians to support their campaigns.

DeSmog Canada asked Freeman to break down how he sees strong support for environmental candidates making the difference when it comes to making environment a top priority in Ottawa once again.

Q: GreenPAC has endorsed strong environmental candidates but do they actually have power to be strong leaders within their parties? Why shouldn’t people vote for candidates that represent the parties with the strongest environmental platforms?

Aaron Freeman: Party discipline has been with us for a long time and it has become a more and more powerful force in Ottawa.

But this isn’t a recent phenomenon: it’s been around since the '70s. I mean, we’ve heard about the Harper government, but we also heard about the Chretien government, the Mulroney government, the Trudeau government. So it’s not a new phenomenon.

At the same time, when we have made progress with environmental issues in Ottawa it has been with ordinary Members of Parliament, working across party lines and pushing for change within their parties. And that has been a very effective political force in Ottawa.

That has resulted in legislation like the Species at Risk act being passed. It has resulted in toxic chemicals being regulated and banned.

I’d say most of the time that we’ve made progress in Ottawa, that dynamic has been at play.

Q: So how does this factor into your work with GreenPAC?

AF: As it relates to GreenPAC we need a force that is politically relevant in our electoral system that sends a strong message to parties that environment matters —that it matters politically. And right now we don’t have that: environment consistently punches below its weight in politics.

The way to achieve this is by embedding leadership in all political parties. The way to do that through our electoral system is to elect people that we send to Ottawa.

If we’ve sent leaders to Ottawa, they can make the difference because they have a mandate, a political mandate.

It [will be] environmentalists who helped get those folks elected and that’s going to carry political weight within their parties.

Q: I’ve been speaking with other politicos and experts about this election who say voters are increasingly voting for a party, rather than a candidate who represents them and their constituency. But GreenPAC is recommending voters find strong candidates with a good environmental record to throw their weight behind. Why?

AF: The key verb there is finding, finding the candidates — we often don’t do that, or support them when we do.

You can imagine the conversation between the environmental sector and the environmental leaders we’re trying to get to run for office.

We’d have a conversation that goes something like this:

You’re a fantastic leader on the environment; you’ve delivered in your field of expertise. We really want to see you run and there’s a nomination race coming open in your party and your community. We want to see you run.

We won’t endorse you, we won’t support you, and we won’t show up. But we love you and we want you to run.

It’s a ludicrous conversation.

That’s completely unappealing especially if you aren’t of politics and many of the best people — who should be running but aren’t — don’t come from politics. That’s a completely unappealing proposition.

So we need to change the conversation a bit.

We need to say to prospective leaders: before you give me your answer, know that there are 200 people in your riding who share your values. In fact they share those values to the point where they’re willing to dig deep and give to candidates in other ridings who share those values. Would you be willing to sit down with 50 of them?

That’s a completely different conversation.

Q: So is this what GreenPAC does? Makes those conversations happen?

AF: We’re in the business of recruiting, nominating, electing and supporting environmental leadership. We are building a conversation, we’re building a community of people in different parts of the country who want to do that, who want to build leadership at the local and national level.

There will be people, there are already people in our network who want to take this to the provincial level in their province, to their municipal level, perhaps even within the party level.

And that’s a really interesting conversation that starts on October 20th for us.

Q: You’re the president and the founder of GreenPAC. Can you tell me a little about what led to you starting this?

AF: I’ve been involved in environmental policy issues for 25 years.

What I’ve seen is a consistent decline of the political relevance of environmental issues. The public supports environmental issues very broadly across all demographics across all parts of the country, they want that leadership.

But the support for it is spread out — it’s diffused. It’s a top issue for five to 15 per cent of the population and it’s a second or third priority for a solid majority of the population across all regions. In our electoral system there is no way to translate that into political relevance. It’s a geographically based electoral system and the support for environmental issues is spread out.

So environment chronically punches below its weight in politics for that reason and other reasons as well.

…

We’re all making difficult choices in who to vote for in this next election.

What GreenPAC is about is moving beyond having to choose between the lesser of two evils at the ballot box and actually focusing on an agenda that will change the face of leadership and turn Canada around on its environmental performance.

Q: You have been around since March and you just launched your list of endorsed candidates that you crafted with a panel of experts. What has the response been so far?

AF: It’s been amazing. We’ve received a lot of media attention but also a lot of public attention.

The message is really resonating with people. People want to do something tangible to really make a difference. They’ve seen where we’ve gone on the environment and the lack of leadership with environmental politics.

They want to do something tangible to turn that around. GreenPAC offers them the opportunity to do that. 

Read more about GreenPAC and check out the Candidate Matching Tool to find environmental leaders who share your values.

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.

A report released today by Samara Canada — a charity dedicated to reconnecting citizens to politics — calls into question the idea that Canadian youth are apathetic and stresses the importance of contact from political leaders to increase voter turnout.

The report, Message Not Delivered, finds that across 18 forms of civic and political participation beyond voting — including signing petitions, talking about politics, volunteering or attending a protest — Canadians under 30 participate at a rate 11 percentage points higher than those 30 and above.

Yet in the 2011 federal election, only 41 per cent of people under 30 voted — compared to 63 per cent of people over the age of 30.

The report compares political participation and contact rates between citizens and Canadian political leaders across three age groups and finds that Canada’s political leaders are not reaching out to all Canadians equally. In a 12-month period leading into an election year, only 55 per cent of Canadians ages 18 to 29 reported being contacted, compared to 75 per cent of Canadians ages 56 and older.

“This news is troubling,” says Jane Hilderman, Samara’s executive director. “Contact from political leaders is powerful: it encourages people to vote — increasing turnout — and strengthens their awareness of politics.”

Indeed, Elections Canada’s 2011 National Youth Survey found that turnout for youth contacted by political leaders was 15 percentage points higher.

In Samara’s study, among young Canadians who reported contact via all five methods (e-mail, phone, mail, social network and in person), 61 per cent said they are affected by the decisions made by elected officials “every day.” Among young Canadians who reported no contact only 22 per cent agreed with the statement.

“The upshot is that younger Canadians aren’t more politically apathetic or tuned out than their older counterparts; they’re more ignored by parties, candidates and leaders than older Canadians, which may partially explain declining voter turnout amongst youth,” the report finds.

Part of the issue is that youth are generally harder to reach because they move more frequently than other age groups and rarely have a landline telephone or listed address, but the problem goes beyond that to the types of issues political candidates are talking about.

“When it comes to political engagement, people talk about the vicious cycle, where candidates don't prioritize younger Canadians, so younger Canadians vote less, so candidates make younger Canadians even less of a priority, and on it goes,” says Eric Swanson, executive director of Generation Squeeze — a group that lobbies for policy changes that would benefit younger Canadians.

To break that cycle, Swanson says candidates need to not just contact young people, but also demonstrate a real understanding of their lived experience “whether it be precarious work, high housing costs, student debt, the costs of starting a family, anxiety about climate change, etcetera.”  

The Samara report also points a finger at political messages that fail to resonate with young people. 

“This failure could be a result of the way the message is framed or the type of language that’s used," the report finds. "It could also be that the issue itself isn’t appealing to youth and doesn’t stand out amidst all the other media competing for their attention."

In the 2015 federal election campaign, Swanson gives credit to all parties for raising issues such as child care and affordable housing, but says many of those promises lack sufficient funding commitments to make the day-to-day difference younger Canadians are looking for.

With political parties often missing the boat on connecting with younger Canadians, other groups are stepping up to fill the void. Dogwood Initiative, for instance, is focused on connecting politics to issues British Columbians care about, such as oil pipeline and tanker proposals.

The non-partisan citizen’s group has about 260,000 supporters in B.C. and its teams of volunteers are having face-to-face conversations with potential voters in 20 federal ridings.

“The first questions we ask are about values,” says Celine Trojand, Dogwood’s field director.

After making contact, Dogwood follows up with updates and makes ‘get out the vote’ calls before election day to ensure citizens have a plan to get to the polls.

It's a strategy that works. After the last municipal elections in B.C., Dogwood analyzed the different levels of contact people received from the group. In Vancouver, for instance, the general voter turnout was 39 per cent. The turnout of Dogwood supporters who had received an e-mail communication about voting was 67 per cent. When people also received a phone call, voter turnout increased to 81 per cent.

“So we’re seeing a 14 per cent increase on voter turnout based on real, live contact with people,” Trojand says.

As for young people, Trojand says the Samara findings aren't surprising.

“Our feeling is that it’s not that the younger demographic isn’t engaged,” Trojand says. “It’s that the local parties aren’t engaging about issues that they care about. Third parties like Dogwood and others have an advantage because they’re actually connecting about values first, on things young people care about like climate change.”

Photo: Dogwood Initiative

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.

This is a guest post by David Suzuki.

No matter what anyone says during this long federal election campaign, climate change is the biggest threat to Canadians’ health, security and economy. The scientific evidence is incontrovertible, the research wide-ranging and overwhelming.

Wastefully burning fossil fuels at such a rapid rate is jeopardizing the planet’s life-support systems — harming human health, destroying landscapes and habitat, causing widespread extreme weather events and contributing less to the economy and job-creation than clean energy development. Not only that, our rate of using and exporting these fuels means reserves will be depleted before long. In the meantime, as easily accessible sources run out, fossil fuels have become more difficult, dangerous, expensive and environmentally damaging to exploit.

Canada has a long history of extracting and exporting raw resources to fuel its economy. But that’s no longer a sensible long-term plan, especially with non-renewable resources. It’s incomprehensible that a country with such a diverse, educated, innovative and caring population can’t get beyond this outdated way of doing things. The recent oil price plunge illustrates the folly of putting all our eggs in one fossil fuel basket.

As world leaders prepare for the December UN climate summit in Paris, we need our government to play a responsible, constructive role. Canada has been chastised at previous summits for obstructing progress and working to water down agreements. The summit’s goal is for all the world’s countries to reach a legally binding pact on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions to keep global average temperatures from rising more than 2 C, the threshold beyond which experts and world leaders agree could bring catastrophic consequences.

The consequences are already severe and will get worse if we don’t act. Increasing extreme weather, including heat waves, floods, droughts and storms put lives, agriculture and economies at risk. Subsequent conflicts over resources reduce global security and exacerbate refugee problems. Pollution from burning fossil fuels increases heart disease and respiratory illnesses, including asthma. Deep-sea drilling, oil sands mining and mountaintop removal destroy the ecosystems, habitat, wildlife and natural capital on which our health and survival depend.

Everyone seeking election must get serious about the climate, so no matter which party or parties form government after October 19, Canada will be part of the solution.

Continuing with business as usual will only ensure more extreme weather leading to floods and droughts; negative health impacts, including increases in premature deaths; harm to food production and security; more pipeline, rail and marine accidents; and missed opportunities to diversify the economy.

Although climate change, resource development and infrastructure have been raised in this election, the talking points don’t always match the severity of the problem. It’s up to all of us as voters to question candidates and inform ourselves about the various party platforms before casting ballots — and to make sure all the parties and their candidates listen and make climate change a priority.

Canada is a great country, an example to the world of how people with diverse views, backgrounds and cultures can live well together and take care of each other. We are blessed with spectacular nature, abundant clean water, fertile agricultural land, rich resources, an educated populace, vibrant democratic traditions and strong social programs. But we can’t take any of it for granted. We must protect what we have and strive to be better, to move beyond our outdated ways of thinking and acting.

There are numerous election issues that can’t be ignored, including health, child care, jobs and the economy, infrastructure, education, international trade and relations, and our global responsibility to confront terrorism. Addressing climate change by shifting from the short-term prospects of the polluting fossil fuel economy to a more stable, healthy, green economy would go a long way to reducing health-care costs, creating jobs, diversifying the economy and improving our international reputation.

We have an important choice, as voters and as a country. We can heed the scientists, health-care specialists, religious leaders, politicians, international organizations, business people and citizens around the world who say we no longer have time to lose when it comes to protecting the climate and ourselves. Or we can carry on as if nothing is wrong, and live with the mounting consequences.

Exercising your democratic right as a voter is a critical step.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.

Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

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.

This is a guest post by David Suzuki.

A little over a year ago, I wrote about a Heartland Institute conference in Las Vegas where climate change deniers engaged in a failed attempt to poke holes in the massive body of scientific evidence for human-caused climate change. I quoted Bloomberg News: “Heartland's strategy seemed to be to throw many theories at the wall and see what stuck.”

A recent study came to a similar conclusion about contrarian “scientific” efforts to do the same. “Learning from mistakes in climate research,” published in Theoretical and Applied Climatology, examined some of the tiny percentage of scientific papers that reject anthropogenic climate change, attempting to replicate their results.

In a Guardian article, co-author Dana Nuccitelli said their study found “no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming.” Instead, “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on.”

Nuccitelli and fellow researchers Rasmus Benestad, Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland and John Cook note that about 97 per cent of experts worldwide agree on a cohesive, science-based theory of global warming, but those who don’t “are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics.”

It’s astounding and tragic that, with all the evidence — from volumes of scientific research to the very real effects we are experiencing everywhere — some people stubbornly refuse to believe there’s a problem worth addressing. Sadder still: many of them are political leaders.

Part of the problem is that fossil fuel interests spend enormous amounts of money to sow doubt and confusion, often by funding or setting up organizations like the Heartland Institute in the U.S., the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the U.K., Ethical Oil and Friends of Science in Canada and the International Climate Science Coalition, based in this country but affiliated with similar organizations in Australia and New Zealand and with close ties to Heartland. A number of industry-funded websites also promote fossil fuels at the expense of human life, including Climate Depot and Watts Up With That?

These secretive organizations rarely reveal funding sources, prey on the uninformed and ignorant, and blanket the media with opinion articles, letters to editors and comments, often referring to misleading charts and graphs and bogus “studies” from organizations with names that imply they’re scientific when they’re anything but. They’re assisted by a compliant news media and politicians who also receive fossil fuel industry funding. It’s likely the people behind these organizations know they’re lying but care more about making money and preserving the lopsided benefits of a polluting sunset industry than finding ways to contribute to human health, well-being and survival.

Those who argue that seven billion people pumping massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere aren’t having a serious negative impact are out to lunch.

Fortunately, most thinking people don’t buy the lies. People from all sectors and walks of life — religious, academic, business, political, activist, social justice and citizenry — are calling for an urgent response to the greatest threat humanity faces. From Pope Francis and the Dalai Lama to Islamic scholars and Hindu, Sikh and Jewish leaders; from Volvo, Ikea and Apple to the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and World Health Organization; from every legitimate scientific academy and institution to enlightened political leaders — all have warned about the serious nature of global warming and the urgent need to do something about it.

Polls and marches, demonstrations and citizen initiatives show that people want action. Yet, despite this tremendous recognition of the reality of our situation, governments have failed to come up with a legally binding, ambitious and universal climate agreement, thanks in part to efforts by countries like Canada, Japan and Australia to stall or water down agreements at economic summits and UN climate conferences.

As world leaders prepare for the December UN climate meeting in Paris, Canadians must impress upon all those who hope to govern us after October 19 the importance of making a positive contribution. As voters, we have the power to make a difference in this critical conversation. Let’s exercise it.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.

Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

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.

The number of anti-science decisions the federal government has made in recent years is staggering: axing the long-form census, trying to shut down the Experimental Lakes Area, sending media relations personnel to accompany scientists at international conferences.

There are so many mindboggling instances, in fact, that the non-profit organization Evidence for Democracy has decided to create an interactive website to chronicle them all.

“Even for those of us who are following the issue closely, it’s still hard to keep track of it all,” says executive director Katie Gibbs.

“We were a little worried that if people hadn’t been following this from the get-go, they might think it’s just too complex or overwhelming of an issue to learn about this late in the game. We wanted this site to really be that entry point for people who haven’t been following it all along and see what has happened and why it matters.”

True North Smart and Free

The site, titled True North Smart and Free, divides the issues into three broad categories: funding cuts, communication restrictions and policy decisions that overtly disregard evidence. In addition, the site promotes Evidence for Democracy’s “Science Pledge,” which serves as a petition of sorts to reprioritize science and evidence-based decision making.

Gibbs notes more than 50 federal election candidates have signed it, including Elizabeth May, Marc Garneau and Kennedy Stewart. In addition to raising the public profile of the pledge, Gibbs says such commitments will help voters keep candidates accountable after the election.

Despite science not emerging as a priority in previous elections, Gibbs is hopeful that will change in the coming federal election. She says she’s heard from quite a few candidates who have noted the issue of muzzling scientists often comes up while door knocking.

Evidence for the Death of Evidence grows

In 2012, Gibbs helped lead the Death of Evidence rally, which famously drew hundreds of scientists to the streets.

That was followed in 2013 by the publication of Chris Turner’s The War on Science and in 2014 The Fifth Estate’s ominous documentary Silence of the Labs. The New Republic reported on the issue later in 2014, concluding: “Our northern neighbors are taking a page from George W. Bush's playbook.”

Just over two months ago, Fisheries and Oceans Canada scientist Steven Campana loudly quit due to alleged muzzling. Evidence for Democracy’s initiative may just push the matter into critical mass territory.

“I think the issue has got big enough,” Gibbs concludes. “It’s not just the science community that’s upset, it has reached that next level of awareness.”

Photo: Richard Webster

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.