September 5, 2008

The Environment as Vote Determinant

The "environment" can mean different things to different people, from climate change to habitat protection, from the impact of fish farming on wild salmon to whether grizzly bears should be hunted for "sport". Whatever is meant by the environment, it may not be the top issue for voters. In the August Angus Reid poll on provincial voting intentions, only 8% of respondents said that the environment was their top issue, compared to 20% for health care and 14% for the economy.

A CBC sponsored Environics poll conducted between August 31st and September 2nd on federal voting intentions found the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP and Greens in a virtual dead heat at 20% each when asked which party could best deal with "environmental issues such as global warming and environmental pollution". The Environics poll didn't ask which issues are most important, but the ranking of the parties on the environment suggests that voters don't appear to differentiate the parties on the issue. However, an Ipsos-Reid poll conducted between August 26 and August 28th on federal voting intentions, asked which issues should receive greatest attention from the leaders and found the environment (28%), health care (28%) and the economy (26%) virtually tied.

It is interesting to note that in the US election, a poll of 914 registered voters conducted in late July by CNN/Opinion Research Corp. found that 48% put the economy as the top issue, followed by the war in Iraq (18%), and health care (13%). If the environment was the most important issue for any of those 914 respondents, it was buried in the 2% scored as "other".

On the basis of this brief survey we need to keep our eye on the Canadian federal election to see if the 28% who say that the environment should receive the greatest attention increases or not throughout the campaign. With Dion staking his future and that of his party on the issue, and the Greens seen as a one issue party, the emergence of leadership, the economy or virtually anything else as the ballot box question could mean curtains for Dion and May.

In this milieu we have Premier Gordon Campbell and his carbon tax fighting to overcome falling popularity before the May 12, 2009 provincial election. According to Justine Hunter, writing in the Globe and Mail on September 5th: "A fresh provincial government advertising blitz starting this month will aim to persuade taxpayers that Mr. Campbell's carbon tax is putting more money into their pockets through matching income-tax cuts." Federal Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn recently took direct aim at Campbell's carbon tax, saying the Harper government doesn't believe in a carbon tax. Since Stéphane Dion has hitched his wagon to a carbon tax, and the conservatives have spent the summer running advertisements attacking it, the federal election will probably treat voters to an expanded debate on the issue. It is difficult to understand how the Campbell government can advertise on the issue between now and October 14th without being seen to be using provincial tax dollars to interfere in a federal election campaign, and without causing confusion on the issue. In any event, advertising on whether the tax is revenue neutral, misses the criticism that the price system is not the best policy tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions when compared to incentives and regulations.

While the carbon tax debates rage, the Campbell government will ignore its principle weakness, its arrogance as evidenced by a 54% pay increase for the Premier, a pay increase of up to $105,000 for his deputy and other obscene pay increases for the top 100 bureaucrats, an IQ test for developmentally disabled adults, a giveaway that allows forest lands to be turned into real estate developments and an attitude that any problems are due to a lack of communication rather than to substance.

Polling on provincial voting intentions will be unreliable in the midst of a federal election campaign, including internal government polling on how it should structure its taxpayer financed advertising. Between the background noise of the federal election, the US election, municipal elections and the holidays, it will probably be January before a clear snapshot can be taken of the provincial political scene. By early February Campbell's gag law will be in effect, if the courts haven't ruled it unconstitutional. That's the law that makes it illegal for anyone to spend more than $100,000 on "election advertising", defined as including "an advertising message that takes a position on an issue with which a registered political party or candidate is associated." Campbell's gag law will stand in the way of those who might want to make the environment a more important issue in the next provincial election. That might work to Campbell's advantage if the Angus Reid poll is correct, because it found that NDP Leader Carole James is more regarded as a politician who cares about the environment, 57% to Campbell's 35% despite his ads.