In February, I was part of a panel discussion talking about political marketing and the future of a certain Canadian political party. A fellow panelist at that session questioned the value of using generation as a tool for understanding political behaviour. To him, age was the least interesting variable that could be used to explain why people think and behaviour the ways they do. Those who have kids and own a home have far more in common, even if 20 years apart in age, than two people who are close in age but have different lifestyles or have reached different milestones in their lives. In some ways, I agree with him. A 50-year-old with children is likely to have different priorities than a 50-year old without kids. This leaves one central question – a question my team at Abacus Data has spent a lot of time exploring – do the circumstances shared by those born around the same time influence the way they think and act? If they do, then generational analysis can be a powerful tool in understanding personal and political behaviours.

If a generational lens is going to be a useful tool in explaining differences, then there must be clear differentiation between generations. So, let’s use the millennial generation as a case study and ask if those born between 1980 and 2000 are generally more similar to each other than those born in the periods before and after them.

In hearth and home

For starters, millennials were raised differently than previous generations. Think about the households they were raised in, their relationship with their parents, and the expectations bred into them. Millennials were the most planned generation in Earth’s history. For the most part the parents of millennials planned their children and prepared the environment they would grow up in. Millennials were raised

by parents who acted as their agents, curated almost every minute of their days, and encouraged them to follow their dreams and make every minute on Earth count.

They got regular feedback from those in positions of authority while the lines of authority themselves were blurred. They had access to decision makers, were far more influential in household decisions, and were regularly consulted to share their thoughts. The world was their oyster and their families and society generally were there to help make their dreams come true. It’s no wonder then that 85% of Canadian millennials agree that when growing up many people told them they could achieve anything. Optimism and hopefulness became part of their DNA. The experience during these formative years were far different from those experienced by Boomers or Gen Xers.

The environment

Now think about what was going on in the world and Canada from the early 1980s to the mid to late 2000s. While 9/11 was a seminal world event, millennials never really experienced an existential crisis experienced by earlier generations. There was no world wars, Vietnam or Cold War. The Great Recession in 2008 has certainly had an impact on their career progressions, but it didn’t influence behaviour and attitudes like the Great Depression did on my grandparents’ generation.

Instead, the big shift in our lives centred around the pace of technological change.  On top of a very different upbringing, which alone would account for the generational gaps in expectations and outlook, millennials were the first generation to fully experience and grow up with the rise of the internet and digital technology. While a decline in deference was well underway since the 1980s, it accelerated because consumers, employees, and citizens had unlimited access to information that was once controlled by a handful of experts and gatekeepers. Millennials are the first digital native generation but won’t be the last. How we communicate, access information, and become informed about what’s happening in our world is fundamentally different than older generations. When we ask Canadians in the surveys we conduct, to identify their top breaking news source, the generational gap is profound. Upwards of 40 to 50% of millennials say they rely on social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram for breaking news. That’s about 25 points higher than all other Canadians combined and almost 40 points higher than Boomers. Now that’s a generational divide!

Canadian millennials are more likely to have traveled to another part of the world by the time their 30 than older generations. Half say they don’t believe in a god or higher power and almost half of millennial men are the primary cooks in their household. More millennial women will get a post-secondary degree than millennial men, a sharp change from earlier generations. So, in response to my fellow panelist mentioned at the beginning of this article, do I think a generational lens is an appropriate tool to understand behaviours? My answer is obviously yes. These differences have an impact on our thinking and choices, controlling for milestones or individual circumstance there are differences that can only be explained by a generational lens. Generations are not all the same, from our family upbringing, to the societal, technological, and economic environments that we grew up in a generational lens is an essential tool in your kit of analysis that you can’t leave home without.

Identifying these differences and then making sense of them, is what our work is all about. A generational lens to your analysis provides deeper insight into what motivates cohorts at work, in the marketplace and at the ballot box.

Much of this data came from the Canadian Millennials Report which is Canada’s largest reoccurring syndicated publication dedicated to understanding the views of Canadian Millennials. We survey 2,000 Millennials twice a year tracking their attitudes over time and their perceptions of current issues.

At Abacus Data we take understanding the next generation seriously. We are the only research and strategy firm that can help your business or organization respond to the unprecedented threat of generational change and technological disruption. If you want to know how your business or organization can succeed in the Millennial Marketplace.

Contact us to learn about our array of bespoke products and services that can make you an industry leader.

The political debate about climate change has become highly charged by the advocacy of those least concerned about climate change and those most convinced of the urgency of the problem.

But while the charges and counter-charges among these small subsets of the population rage, Canadians, for the most part, won’t align either with the “there’s no problem here” or “radical action now” propositions.

This memorandum is intended to offer a perspective on the results obtained in our survey for Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission and influenced as well by from more than 20 years of research into how Canadians consider these issues.

• The consensus that the climate is changing is broad (60%) and stable, but not universal. Almost a third think natural causes may be to blame for any climate change, and for many of these people, a debate about what to do about it seems futile, since they presume nothing can really be done to reverse these patterns. Only a small number of people deny that the climate is changing.

• What’s left is a situation where roughly six in ten Canadians observe warming, believe it to be caused by humans, and feel that humans should do more to try to reverse. They foresee severe consequences if nothing is done, including risks to human health, rising costs, and forced migration.

However, they do not all agree on what timetable for action is necessary to avert these disasters, what actions will help the most at the least cost, or the degree to which technology might provide solutions that don’t exist today and allow us to avoid expensive and disruptive dislocation.

The nature of most people is to look for the path of least cost and inconvenience, including when it comes to what to do about climate change.

• The nature of most Canadians is to embrace the centre, to favour pragmatic solutions over ideological-sounding proposals, and to look for ways to accomplish what needs to be done through consensus and compromise rather than polarization, or zero-sum politics.

At various times in the course of the debate about climate change, expert audiences have found themselves having intense debates about choices that the average citizen may be paying much less attention to.

This was the case with the Kyoto Accord, pretty much every target that has been debated and agreed to ever since, and it has been true for the last few years about the subject of carbon pricing.

This can create a widening gap between those who believe in a specific policy solution and those who believe in the goal but aren’t sure about the specific solution. Which, more or less, is what we see today in our data about carbon pricing. Upcoming elections risk turning into, for some voters anyway, a referendum style choice between on the one hand:

• Those who favour ambitious and rapid climate action; and

• Those who deny the need for climate action, plus those who favour climate action but are hesitant about whether carbon pricing is a good solution, plus those who fear cost-of-living consequences of any tax, plus those who fear direct economic downsides of this policy.

The public opinion math for carbon pricing is challenging, but the problems have less to do with opposition among those who deny the climate is changing. A bigger problem may lie in the gap between the most fervent climate mitigation advocates and the bulk of voters who support action, but with some qualifications.

Consider the following as part of the context:

• 74% say taking action to solve climate change should be a high priority, but all 13 other items tested were considered higher priorities, or priorities by more people. The left and the right, (small but vocal subsets of the population) disagree markedly on the priority which should be attached to climate action. And so elected policy makers experience criticisms borne of disappointment and fear from those on the left and attacks borne of economic anxiety from those on the right, all the while knowing that most people prefer a middle course.

• By a wide margin, people would prefer governments to put more rather than less emphasis on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But “doing more” doesn’t necessarily equate to “taxing carbon”. More are drawn towards ideas that seem less painful, such as “rules and regulations” or, “subsidies to encourage the adoption of low carbon technologies”. The existence of alternatives allows some to imagine that there might be a better way to reduce emissions than to increase their cost of living or cause serious disruptions in the economy.

• Moral arguments about the obligation to fight climate change carry some weight with most people, but on their own are insufficient to create so much momentum on this issue that people will support any and all proposed solutions. The moral argument has been evident for decades, and a good number of people remain hesitant about the pace of a shift to renewable energy or the need for a tax on carbon.

Within this context, carbon pricing as a policy instrument cannot count solely on “helping winds” such as fear of climate change and the moral imperative to achieve political acceptance. Advocates would be prudent to consider how to broaden and strengthen public support. The data in this study provide some clear signals about how this can be done.

• A huge majority feel it is a good idea for the economy to transition to a reliance on lower carbon energy sources, including 68% of Albertans who say this would be good for their provincial economy.

Thus, describing an idea intended to create “financial rewards to shift to an economy powered by renewable energy” is bound to be less controversial than “taxing your carbon polluting behaviour”.

• The fiercest advocates of carbon pricing sometimes criticize even the proposal on the table today as too little, too late. But with 75% of Canadians saying that a transition must take care to limit the impact on jobs and the cost of living, this way of advocating for carbon pricing is unpersuasive, and likely counter-productive.

People are far more likely to embrace a carbon price if they think it is designed to balance the competing priorities they are concerned about, rather than to prioritize one objective above all the rest. They are far more likely to wander away from the idea if advocates of climate action cannot agree among themselves on what will work.

• Development of Canada’s oil and gas resources is obviously the hot part of this debate. While most people (60%) say we should continue to develop these resources while using carbon pricing and other measures to transition to a lower carbon future, 40% feel we must greatly slow or stop development. Even NDP voters are evenly divided (55%-45%). Younger and older voters see this somewhat differently, and Quebec and Alberta voters are 33 points apart.

What this tells us is that when carbon pricing is employed as a rhetorical argument against Canadian oil it produces polarization. When characterized as an incentive to accelerate transition the opposite occurs.

• For those who feel this debate has fully matured with the public, the data in this study provide a sobering reminder of the degree to which many policy debates happen with only passing interest by the public. A majority of people say they don’t understand what carbon pricing is. The plurality doesn’t know whether their province has a carbon price. In Ontario, only 30% know that carbon is priced; in Quebec, only 20%.

• In addition to being uncertain about whether carbon taxes are currently in place, many people are suspicious about the motivation: 42% think the point is to raise tax revenue – and those who see it that way are twice as likely to be against the idea.

• A considerable number of people (47%) have doubts about whether the theory of carbon pricing will work in practice – fearing it will only increase the cost of living and energy use won’t change. Those living in provinces with carbon pricing are as likely to feel that it has increased the cost of living as to believe it has resulted in reduced emissions, in some cases moreso.

Carbon pricing, despite these challenges, is far from a dead idea, politically. Just under half (46%) say it’s a good idea, compared to 22% who say it’s a poor idea. The 33% who hang in the balance currently say they consider carbon pricing to be an “acceptable idea”.

Taken together, the challenges facing carbon pricing come down to four questions.

1. Is it part of an agenda of radical/stressful change or part a careful transition strategy?
2. How can we be sure it will work the way it is intended to?
3. Will it be implemented in a way that strengthens or weakens our economy?
4. Could it turn out to be just another way for me to pay more tax to governments?

Making a successful case for this policy idea is not about debating whether the climate is changing, whether something should be done about it, or whether a shift to cleaner energy economy is a good idea. Instead, the research shows that this idea will rise or fall based on whether the 33% in the balance believe carbon pricing is:

– Part of a broader plan of action to deal with climate change
– Is the least costly and most efficient way to shift energy use
– Will not turn out to be a tax grab, and
– Is connected to the goal of a measured transition, rather than a radical disruption that could cause serious job losses and increases in the cost of living.

There’s more!

Review the full poll and additional content from Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission here: https://ecofiscal.ca/carbonpricingworks

Canadians believe youth are unprepared to be active civic leaders in their community, but most think they should have more influence on government decisions.

As American youth mobilize and engage to change policy around gun control in the United States, Canadians have doubts about how prepared Canadian youth are to do the same. Seven in ten Canadian adults believe that Canadian youth are unprepared to be civic leaders in their community according to a survey conducted for a coalition of national youth serving agencies.

Overall, 70% feel that young Canadians are not that prepared or not at all prepared to be active civic leaders in their community which we defined as being prepared to vote, become active in the community, and engage with political and community leaders.

And this feeling is shared across demographic and regional groups. Although younger respondents were more likely to think youth are prepared than older respondents, clear majorities in all age groups, regions of the country and both men and women felt this way.

Despite feeling youth may not be prepared to become active civic leaders, there’s a clear sense they don’t have the influence they should on government decision making.

A majority believe that youth have too little influence over the decisions governments make. We asked respondents to rate the amount of influence different groups in Canada have over government decisions. Most feel that wealthy and business people have too much influence while majorities felt that the middle class, young people, seniors, and those in the working class have too little influence.

While we might expect there to be a relationship between one’s age and one’s perception of the influence of different age groups, we do not see one when it comes perceptions about young people’s influence on government decisions.

Older Canadians are as likely as younger ones to feel that youth don’t have enough influence on policy. In contrast, older respondents are more likely than younger respondents to think seniors don’t have enough influence on policy decisions.

WHAT ARE THE BEST WAYS TO PREPARE YOUTH TO BECOME CIVIC LEADERS?

For the most part, Canadians think many solutions will have a big impact on helping to prepare youth to be civic leaders. But the two perceived to have the greatest impact by the most people are: providing youth with more job-ready skills and making education more affordable so students have more free time to get involved in their communities.

Majorities also believed that providing more experiences that allow youth to interact with people from different age groups and backgrounds and providing more opportunities generally would help prepare youth to be civic leaders.

WHAT YOUTH ISSUES SHOULD GOVERNMENTS PRIORITIZE?

When asked, Canadians were most likely to rank the rising cost of living and housing, education and skills development, mental health, and the affordability of post-secondary education as top priorities related to youth for government to address.

Other highly ranked issues included drug and alcohol abuse, bullying, and income inequality and youth poverty.

Among younger respondents (those aged 18 to 29), the ranking of issues looks similar to the overall results with a few exceptions.

Younger Canadians were more likely to rank cost of living and housing and mental health higher than older respondents. They were also more likely to prioritize climate change than older respondents (18% vs. 12%). In contrast, they were less likely to rank education and skills development and drug and alcohol abuse as top priorities for government to address.

UPSHOT

“We may be seeing an awakening of youth engagement around the world and here in Canada. Whether it’s the student marches against gun violence in the United States or increasing youth voter turnout in the UK and Canada, there’s growing evidence that young people are becoming more politically engaged.

Despite this, our polling finds Canadian adults don’t believe youth are as prepared as they should be to become active civic leaders and most feel youth don’t have the influence they should on government decision makers. Most importantly, this view is held by Canadians of all ages, not just youth.

Barriers to youth engagement are clear to the public. The rising cost of post-secondary education means youth need to work more to help pay for it, leaving less time to become politically engaged. The digitally saturated lives of the typical youth also leave them less prepared to engage in traditional advocacy, as many lack confidence and skills in face-to-face communications. Canadians think programs and organizations that give youth these types of skills and free up more of their time will have a big impact on preparing them to engage in the political life of our country.

Youth issues don’t just concern youth. Canadians from all age groups share concerns about the rising cost of living, housing, and education, the growing mental health challenge faced by young people, and skills and education youth require to compete in the global economy. Canadians think these should be the priorities for governments.

Our political leaders are starting to recognize the political power of young Canadians and the issues that matter to them and their families. As more youth are engaged and asked to participate, their influence will continue to grow.”

METHODOLOGY

The survey was conducted online with 2,000 Canadians aged 18 and over from February 16th to 25th, 2018. A random sample of panelists was invited to complete the survey from a set of partner panels based on the Lucid exchange platform. These partners are typically double opt-in survey panels, blended to manage out potential skews in the data from a single source.

The Marketing Research and Intelligence Association policy limits statements about margins of sampling error for most online surveys. The margin of error for a comparable probability-based random sample of the same size is +/- 2.2%, 19 times out of 20.

The data were weighted according to census data to ensure that the sample matched Canada’s population according to age, gender, educational attainment, and region. Totals may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

ABOUT THE SPONSORS OF THIS RESEARCH

A coalition of Canada’s leading youth-serving organizations commissioned this research. Participating organizations are:

ABACUS DATA INC.

Abacus Data is the only firm in Canada that helps organizations deal with the unprecedented threat of generational change and technological disruption.

We offer global research capacity with a strong focus on customer service, attention to detail and value-added insight. Our team combines the experience of our Chairman Bruce Anderson, one of Canada’s leading research executives for two decades, with the energy, creativity and research expertise of CEO David Coletto, Ph.D.

The Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion project is one of the most hotly debated issues in Canadian politics in years. It would be easy to surmise that public opinion is deeply divided, and firmly entrenched. But our most recent poll of BC adults on this topic tells a somewhat different tale.

We tested 8 different arguments that are made by proponents and opponents of the project, and in each case, asked our respondents whether the argument was persuasive or not. This allowed us to see how polarized the debate had become – or not.

The results paint a picture where many people feel personally conflicted – concerned about spills but also aware of the economic benefits for Canada, worried about the prospect of increasing the use of fossil fuels but also hesitant to see a precedent where one province could stymie the economic opportunity of a neighboring province.

Here are the highlights of our polling:

• 45% have firm opinions, evenly split between support (23%) oppose (22%)
• 35% have a leaning: more likely to lean support (22%) than oppose (13%).
• 20% are completely neutral or undecided

When asked how persuasive 8 different arguments were (4 supportive/4 opposing), similiar proportions of respondents felt all arguments were persuasive, a range which went from 46% to 63%.

• The argument that persuades the most people (63%) is that the pipeline expansion would greatly increase the risk of an oil spill. But essentially the same number (61%) found persuasive the argument that “all provinces benefit from Canada’s oil and would benefit from this project going ahead.

• While 59% found persuasive the argument that “allowing this pipeline to go ahead means encouraging the use of fossil fuels which contribute to climate change”, almost as many (51%) felt that “stopping this pipeline could end up polarizing the country and leading to a reduction in the commitment to fight climate change”

• While 46% found persuasive the argument that “the risks for BC are great, but there is no economic benefit for BC”, even more found themselves persuaded by the argument “it’s a bad precedent for one province to be able to stop something so important to the economy of a neighboring province. (56%)

• Essentially the same number found persuasive the argument that “the project was carefully reviewed and approved” (52%) process as felt the same way about the argument that “the process was inadequate, flawed and can’t be trusted”(50%).

When we isolate only those who lean to one side of the debate or are undecided, we see the same trends. Many feel the arguments for and against the pipeline are persuasive.

Looking deeper under the surface of these reactions reveals that many people feel torn and exhibit mixed feelings, feeling that arguments both in favour and opposed to the project are persuasive. This is far from entrenched polarization, and instead reveals a population which understands that there is no easy choice to be made when it comes to this project.

Here’s how underlying patterns reveal that having “mixed opinions” is quite common:

Among the 62% who find persuasive the argument that the “project will greatly increase the risk of an oil spill”:

• More than half (59%) also find the argument that “stopping this pipeline could end up polarizing the country and lead to a reduction in the commitment to fight climate change” is persuasive.
• 55% find it persuasive that it’s “a bad precedent for one province to oppose something so important to the economy of a neighboring province”.
• 52% are persuaded by the argument that “all provinces benefit from Canada’s oil and gas and would benefit from this project going ahead”
• 47% find persuasive that “the project was carefully reviewed and approved”.

Among the 60% who find the argument “all provinces benefit from Canada’s oil and gas and would benefit from this project going ahead” persuasive:

• 50% say it’s persuasive that “the project will greatly increase the risk of an oil spill”
• 50% say they see the argument that “the process was inadequate, flawed and can’t be trusted” to be persuasive
• 52% say “allowing the pipeline to go ahead means encouraging the use of fossil fuels which contributes to climate change” is a persuasive argument.

Among the 59% who say it’s persuasive that allowing this pipeline to go ahead means “encouraging the use of fossil fuels which contribute to climate change”. Among this group:

• 54% find it persuasive that “it’s a bad precedent for one province to support something so important to the economy of a neighboring province
• 57% find it persuasive that stopping this pipeline could end up polarizing the country and lead to a reduction in the commitment to fight climate change.

While partisan leaders often feel compelled to take hard positions and campaign aggressively against the counter-argument to theirs, our polling shows that this carries risk. Between 40%-50% of BC NDP supporters find arguments in favour of the pipeline persuasive – and 32%-50% of BC Liberal voters find arguments against the pipeline persuasive.

At the federal level, about a third of federal Conservative voters feel arguments against the pipeline are persuasive while similar proportions of federal NDP voters find arguments in favour of Trans Mountain to be persuasive.

Federal Liberal voters in BC hold the most truly mixed views, underscoring the fact that Liberal voters typically do straddle the pragmatic centre of the spectrum.

UPSHOT

According to Bruce Anderson: “Advocates for and against this project may feel that the public is rigid, dug in, and now largely unresponsive to any argument. But the truth is, there is a lot of soft opinion, a lot of people have heard both sides of the argument and many believe that both opponents and supporters have good points to make.

In this sort of situation people will tend to tune out rhetoric which sounds overly simplistic and one-sided. They instead will respond better to stakeholders who acknowledge that a decision like this isn’t easy, and involves a willingness to compromise or to have something that you care about put at risk.

As much as some pro-pipeline advocates want to hear politicians going to battle with opponents, voters would probably prefer that their politicians reduce rather than increase the drama.

Soft opponents of this project are probably more likely to accept it’s approval when they hear that those making the decision have listened to and paid respect to the counter-arguments, especially those having to do with spills and climate change.”

METHODOLOGY

Our survey was conducted online with 900 BC residents aged 18 and over from February 26 to March 6, 2018. A random sample of panelists was invited to complete the survey from a set of partner panels based on the Lucid exchange platform. These partners are typically double opt-in survey panels, blended to manage out potential skews in the data from a single source.

The Marketing Research and Intelligence Association policy limits statements about margins of sampling error for most online surveys. The margin of error for a comparable probability-based random sample of the same size is +/- 3.3%, 19 times out of 20.

The data were weighted according to census data to ensure that the sample matched BC’s population according to age, gender, educational attainment, and region. Totals may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

ABACUS DATA INC.

Abacus Data is the only firm in Canada that helps organizations deal with the unprecedented threat of generational change and technological disruption.

We offer global research capacity with a strong focus on customer service, attention to detail and value-added insight. Our team combines the experience of our Chairman Bruce Anderson, one of Canada’s leading research executives for two decades, with the energy, creativity and research expertise of CEO David Coletto, Ph.D.