theglobeandmail.com
Environics Poll Shows Strong Canadian Support for New Oil Pipelines
An Environics Research poll (June 11-23) shows 73% of Canadians support new oil pipelines, with Quebec showing surprisingly high support (59% for West Coast, 55% East Coast). Support for oil sands is at 62%, the highest since 2012, potentially aiding Prime Minister Carney's energy superpower ambitions and addressing Alberta Premier Smith's concerns.
- What are the potential long-term implications of this shift in public opinion on Canada's climate goals and its approach to energy development?
- The high level of support for both conventional and clean energy development (50% of respondents) aligns with Prime Minister Carney's stated goal of becoming an energy superpower in both sectors. However, continued monitoring is needed to assess whether this support translates into concrete policy changes and sustainable energy transitions. Quebec's preference for clean energy highlights regional differences requiring nuanced policy approaches.
- How do the poll results regarding support for both conventional and clean energy development reflect changing Canadian energy priorities and policies?
- The poll results demonstrate a shift in public opinion, potentially driven by factors like the ongoing US-China trade war. Increased support for pipelines and reduced barriers to natural resource development suggests a willingness to prioritize economic growth, even among those previously opposed. This contrasts with past resistance and reflects a changing political landscape.
- What is the significance of the 73% Canadian support for new oil pipelines, and how might this impact Prime Minister Carney's energy agenda and Alberta's economic prospects?
- A new Environics Research poll reveals that 73% of Canadians support new oil pipelines, including significant support in Quebec (59% for West Coast, 55% for East Coast pipelines). This widespread support could help Prime Minister Carney achieve his goal of making Canada an energy superpower and appease Alberta Premier Smith, who advocates for increased oil infrastructure.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the poll results positively, emphasizing the high level of support for pipelines and aligning it with the goals of Prime Minister Carney and Premier Smith. The headline and introduction highlight the surprising support in Quebec, reinforcing a narrative of widespread national consensus. This framing might downplay potential opposition or complexities surrounding the issue.
Language Bias
The article uses language that leans towards a positive portrayal of pipeline development. Terms like "momentum," "gung-ho," and "good news" create a favorable tone. While not explicitly biased, these choices subtly shape reader perception. For example, instead of "gung-ho," a more neutral term like "supportive" could be used.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on support for pipelines and energy development, potentially omitting counterarguments or concerns from environmental groups or Indigenous communities who may have objections to pipeline construction. The impact of pipelines on the environment and potential risks are not extensively discussed. The article also omits discussion of potential economic downsides to prioritizing fossil fuels.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the debate as a choice between prioritizing conventional or clean energy, when in reality, a balanced approach combining both is possible and arguably necessary. While the poll results show many favor both, the framing still implies a conflict between the two.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights increasing Canadian support for new oil pipelines and reduced barriers to natural resource development. While the poll shows some support for clean energy, the dominant focus on expanding fossil fuel infrastructure directly contradicts efforts to mitigate climate change and achieve the Paris Agreement goals. The potential increase in oil sands production and transportation would lead to higher greenhouse gas emissions, undermining climate action.