Canadians have witnessed catastrophic climate change-induced disasters over and over in recent years, but polling suggests it’s having little effect on the public’s understanding of the climate crisis.
In the past four years, a sampling of climate disasters includes the heat dome over British Columbia that killed over 600 people in 2021; Hurricane Fiona battering Atlantic Canada in 2022; the record-breaking wildfires of 2023 that cloaked the country in smoke and forced Yellowknife residents to evacuate; and Jasper burning down last summer. Hundreds of lives have been lost, billions of dollars’ worth of damage caused, and climate science is clear that as the planet warms these types of disasters will only become more intense and frequent.
Against that backdrop, only 63 per cent of Canadians understand that climate change is real and caused by humans — a drop from 71 per cent in 2021, according to a poll published by the Angus Reid Institute Friday.
About one in 10 Canadians believe climate change is a “theory” that has not been proven, while nearly a quarter of Canadians believe climate change is happening, but is caused by “natural changes and cycles.”
“I find it especially troubling to see the decline in Canadians’ acceptance of the very strong scientific consensus that climate change is virtually all caused by human activity,” Kathryn Harrison, a professor of political science at the University of British Columbia, told Canada’s National Observer.
“Not paying attention to climate change doesn’t make it go away,” she said. “The reality is that unless we take stronger climate action, heat and extreme weather will keep getting worse.”
Two years ago, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said to prevent catastrophic warming, greenhouse gas emissions must be cut approximately in half this decade. If they’re not, the planet will continue to bake and is more likely to hit dangerous tipping points that when crossed lock in major, irreversible damage.
Canadian climate policy is considered “insufficient” by the independent Climate Action Tracker. For Canada to play its part slashing emissions at the pace required to avoid those tipping points, the economy will need to shift away from fossil fuels.
The number of Canadians who understand climate change is primarily driven by human activities, like burning fossil fuels to heat homes, power vehicles, and industrial applications, versus those that don’t, mirrors the divide Environment and Climate Change Canada found when setting its 2035 emissions reduction target.
About two-thirds of Canadians who gave the federal government feedback when designing its target said they support stronger measures to address climate change, while one-third said they were strongly opposed, according to the department’s analysis. Experts say the public divide could make setting ambitious emission reduction policies more difficult.
Supporters of all parties are less likely to consider climate change a “very serious threat” today than they were in 2021, according to Angus Reid. But, the only major party where a majority of supporters (57 per cent) see climate change as not a threat, or only a minor threat, is the Conservative Party.
The findings come as the federal Liberals’ signature policy, carbon pricing, has all but unravelled. Liberal leadership hopefuls Mark Carney and Chrystia Freeland have both pledged to scrap the consumer-facing portion of the carbon price.
As a leading figure in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government, Freeland has previously defended the carbon price, but in her bid to become leader has said it’s incumbent on leaders to listen to people and it is clear the tax has little public support. She has not indicated what she would replace the consumer carbon price with, but has said she will work with provinces, territories, Indigenous Peoples, experts and others to “find a solution that works for our federation.”
Carney has been a longtime advocate of carbon pricing, but like Freeland, his campaign has said the consumer-facing carbon tax “isn’t working and has become too divisive.” The alternative he has put forward involves strengthening carbon pricing for industry and to “have big polluters pay consumers to lower their carbon footprint.”
Angus Reid’s polling indicates a significant divide over carbon pricing, with 45 per cent of Canadians wanting it abolished, while 57 per cent want it to stay in some form (specifically, 27 per cent want it maintained at the current price; 15 per cent want a lower carbon price; and 15 per cent want the carbon price to continue escalating as planned.)
A partisan divide is behind the split in public opinion. Liberal, NDP and Bloc supporters range from 66 per cent to 70 per cent in support of carbon pricing, compared to just eight per cent of Conservatives.
“On the consumer carbon tax, I’d say that misinformation has won for a lot of Canadians, who are opposing a policy that both works to reduce carbon pollution and in most cases puts money in their pockets,” Harrison said.
John Woodside / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada’s National Observer
Comments
Great article, thanks! I wanted to know more about how age and gender comes into play, and went to check the detailed results. The younger generation is where the belief in man-made climate change is the strongest: 73% of respondents aged 18-34 hold this belief. When disaggregating by gender+age, 75% of young women (18-34) think climate change is man-made, versus only 51% of not-so-young men (55+)... Interesting!
https://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/2025.02.28_Climate_Cha…
I am a 59 year old man and I know that global warming is real, man made, and already causing disasters all around the world every day.
Climate science is extremely complex and of planetary scope. You cannot expect ordinary, even highly educated people to understand it. People understand how much things cost on a daily basis, and that is where the action against CO2 emissions must focus: reduce energy cost. Educate homeowners on electricity vs gasoline or heating oil, heat pumps, home insulation, buying local. Promote and incentivize efficient industrial processes for manufacturers, long term investments in energy efficient infrastructure by banks.
In short, demonstrate the monetary benefit of energy efficiency and reduce emissions as a secondary benefit.
Article: "Against that backdrop, only 63 per cent of Canadians understand that climate change is real and caused by humans — a drop from 71 per cent in 2021, according to a poll published by the Angus Reid Institute Friday."
Dubious premise. It is hard to believe that 8% of Canadians would change their minds on this question. If one truly understood and acknowledged four years ago that climate change is real and caused by humans, this is not something one would change their mind about four years later.
Does not compute.
Angus Reid Institute "polls" are actually surveys of a non-random self-selected group of people:
"Survey Methodology
"The Angus Reid Institute conducted an online survey from Jan. 24-27, 2025 among a representative randomized sample of 2,012 Canadian adults who are members of Angus Reid Forum. For comparison purposes only, a probability sample of this size would carry a margin of error of +/- 1.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20."
https://angusreid.org/carbon-tax-climate-change-poilievre-freeland-carn…
Surveys aren't polls. Scientific polls are based on random sampling. And even polls aren't always accurate.
As a reflection of public opinion, online surveys have no scientific worth.
"The polling industry's professional body, the Canadian Research Insights Council, says online surveys cannot be assigned a margin of error because they do not randomly sample the population." (CBC)
"Did everyone the survey was intended to represent have an equal chance of participating (a probability sample) or was the sample drawn without everyone in the population having a chance to participate (a non-probability sample). A non-probability sample would include a panel where individuals were recruited to a list to participate in surveys.
"A margin of error does not apply to surveys using a non-probability sample."
"10 questions journalists should ask before publishing the results of a survey"
Canadian Research Insights Council (CRIC)
"Online surveys are now commonly used for opinion and election polling and have provided estimates with similar levels of accuracy to traditional polling methods; but they continue to be controversial. At issue is the question of representativeness – whether a methodology that is frequently based on respondents who have chosen to be part of an access panel is representative – especially when traditional opinion polling has relied on probability sampling. Unlike face-to-face and telephone interviewing, there is no agreed-upon sampling frame for online sampling.
"… The major points of controversy involving online surveys concern population coverage (who is able to participate in the survey) and the use of non-probability methods for panel selection. … Most surveys today involve large amounts of self-selection, even if random selection is used initially to select respondents (due to non-response), though the problem is usually more severe for approaches that do not begin with a sampling frame."
"ESOMAR/WAPOR Guideline On Opinion Polls And Published Surveys"
"Professional pollsters use scientific statistical methods to make sure that their small random samples are demographically appropriate to indicate how larger groups of people think.
"Online polls do nothing of the sort, and are not random, allowing anyone who finds the poll to vote. They are thus open to manipulation from those who would want to stuff the ballot box. Users on Reddit and 4chan directed masses of people to vote for Mr. Trump in the instant-analysis surveys, according to The Daily Dot. Similar efforts were observed on Twitter and other sites.
"Even when there is no intentional manipulation, the results are largely a reflection of who is likely to come to a particular site and who would be motivated enough to participate." (NY Times)
Surveys can collate a range of opinion and signal an approximate level of public interest, but that's it.
I emitted a too-long vent about this on another article today, won't repeat. But we do need a new term to rally about, which is POSITIVE about the transition. Not that it is necessary or saving-the-world, just that it is going to the future, and making us all money.
Not "GreenTech", but "FutureTech". Take a lesson from the people who invented "pro-life" and got the media to use it.
Not "green energy", "free energy".
When they say solar isn't really free, say "I mean it gives you freedom from Saudi Arabia and Putin".
A testament to the power of fossil-fuel propaganda. It's hard to imagine that an industry that spends ~$700 million annually on climate-related PR and lobbying doesn't know exactly what they're doing.