The Five Canadas of Climate Change: Using audience segmentation to inform communication on climate policy

With these limitations in mind, the aim of this study is not to directly assess how Canadian segments compare to those found in the United-States or other countries, but rather to provide context-relevant audience insights to inform communication for specific audiences. Specifi- cally, we extend findings from the audience segmentation literature to the case of Canada, and explore the reactivity of different segments to messages around carbon pricing. Communicating about carbon pricing Carbon pricing is one of the most commonly discussed policy instruments in both political and academic circles. According to the World Bank Carbon Pricing Dashboard, no fewer than 45 national and 34 subnational jurisdictions representing one fifth of global GHG emissions are covered by some form of a carbon price as of November 2021 [43]. Despite being sup- ported by a broad coalition of actors including international organizations, high profile econo- mists, as well as some of the largest environmental NGOs, however, this policy approach has proven to be politically controversial across a variety of contexts [44–47]. One of the key rea- sons people dislike carbon taxes is because the costs they impose are highly visible and per- ceived to be high [48, 49]. In fact, experimental evidence suggests that support for carbon taxes decreases with rising tax levels [50–52]. To the extent that carbon prices will need to substan- tially increase in order to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement [53], this public opposition to

higher carbon taxes remains an important political barrier, thus pointing to the potentially heightened role of policy design and communication in a context of rising carbon prices. In order to overcome public opposition, a burgeoning literature has pointed to the potential of revenue recycling as a means of building public support for carbon taxes and carbon pricing more generally [47, 48, 50, 54–56]. In particular, a number of scholars and policy actors have identified lump-sum transfers, or equal per capita dividends, as a promising strategy for build- ing public support [52, 57]. However, other research suggests that earmarking revenues to invest in programs and policies that strengthen and further reduce emissions may be seen as preferable from the perspective of the public. Focus groups conducted in Denmark [58], Ire- land [59], and the United Kingdom [60] all showed that respondents preferred earmarking revenues over other forms of revenue recycling to support additional emissions reductions. Consistent with this, a survey conducted on a large probabilistic sample of the Canadian popu- lation revealed a clear preference for earmarking carbon price revenues to fund investments in renewable energy (51%) over tax rebates (15%), and cuts to other taxes (7%) [18]. Thus, while the literature provides suggestive evidence regarding a potential role for policy design in build- ing public support, we know considerably less about the most effective way of communicating information about carbon taxes, as well as how different climate change audiences might react

to specific features of their design. To be sure, there is substantial evidence to suggest that information provision on the bene- fits of certain carbon tax designs can enhance support [48, 54, 61]. However, other research has questioned the extent to which information deficits are part of the problem, suggesting that a better strategy may be to avoid the complex task of communicating policy details alto- gether [62]. In fact, rather than communicating around policy design, some researchers point to informing the public of the relative costs of alternative policy measures as a means of build- ing support for otherwise unpopular carbon taxes that are perceived as overly costly [49]. In a similar vein, if regular citizens can’t be relied on to fully understand the intricate details of pol- icy design, they may instead be motivated to support a carbon tax based on its specific conse- quences for the relative prices of essential goods (like energy). This is in line with existing research on framing effects, which suggests that the way issues are communicated–that is, the words used, the issue dimensions that are emphasized or made PLOS ONE The Five Canadas of Climate Change PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273977 November 23, 2022 4 / 21