4.6 Article

The Distribution of Climate Change Public Opinion in Canada

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 11, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159774

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [410-2011-2765]
  2. Fonds de Recherche du Quebec - Societe et Culture [2012-NP-162717]
  3. Skoll Global Threats Fund
  4. Energy Foundation
  5. Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment
  6. Ministere des Relations internationales et de la francophonie
  7. Chaire d'etudes politiques et economiques americaines
  8. l'Institut de l'energie Trottier
  9. Sustainable Prosperity
  10. Public Policy Forum
  11. University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

While climate scientists have developed high resolution data sets on the distribution of climate risks, we still lack comparable data on the local distribution of public climate change opinions. This paper provides the first effort to estimate local climate and energy opinion variability outside the United States. Using a multi-level regression and post-stratification (MRP) approach, we estimate opinion in federal electoral districts and provinces. We demonstrate that a majority of the Canadian public consistently believes that climate change is happening. Belief in climate change's causes varies geographically, with more people attributing it to human activity in urban as opposed to rural areas. Most prominently, we find majority support for carbon cap and trade policy in every province and district. By contrast, support for carbon taxation is more heterogeneous. Compared to the distribution of US climate opinions, Canadians believe climate change is happening at higher levels. This new opinion data set will support climate policy analysis and climate policy decision making at national, provincial and local levels.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available