Essay by Eric Worrall
“… reducing hostility toward the other side (particularly among conservatives) may facilitate cross-ideological climate coalitions. …”
Climate policy isn’t partisan — research suggests more on the right support it than oppose it
Published: April 29, 2026 2.09am AEST
Emily Huddart Professor of Sociology, University of British Columbia
Tony Silva Associate Professor of Sociology, University of British ColumbiaClimate change has become entangled in partisan politics. In Canada, as in other countries, climate concern and support for climate policy are often coded as left-leaning positions. Meanwhile, climate change skepticism or denial is more likely to be espoused by those on the political right.
…
However, we found that having ties to the oil and gas sector did not significantly predict their support for climate policy. Likewise, the degree of conservatism — whether someone identified as centre-right or far-right — didn’t make conservatives less likely to support climate policy either.
…
What mattered most was affective polarization.
Negative feelings toward the left and positive feelings toward the right were by far the strongest predictors of climate policy attitudes, and explained the most variation in support.
In simple terms, people on the right who felt the most hostility toward the left, and the most warmth toward the right, were more likely to oppose climate policy.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/climate-policy-isnt-partisan-research-suggests-more-on-the-right-support-it-than-oppose-it-280912
The abstract of the study;
Negative partisanship, positive partisanship, and variation in climate policy attitudes on the political right
Emily Huddart , Tony Silva , Parker Muzzerall , James N Druckman
PNAS Nexus, Volume 5, Issue 4, April 2026, pgag094, https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgag094
Published:
28 March 2026Abstract
Conservatives are more likely than liberals to oppose climate policies, resulting in political polarization over climate change. Most research treats this gap as if it reflects two cohesive blocs on opposite sides of an issue. Drawing on original survey data from a probability sample of Canadians (n = 2,503), we find that while liberals are highly uniform in their orientation toward climate policies, conservatives are far more heterogeneous. Further analyses reveal conservatives’ policy positions strongly correlate with their partisan affect—both the extent to which they dislike opposing liberals (negative partisanship) and the extent to which they like fellow conservatives (positive partisanship). These findings highlight the importance of considering variation within, and not just between, political sides. The results additionally suggest that reducing hostility toward the other side (particularly among conservatives) may facilitate cross-ideological climate coalitions.
Read more: https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/5/4/pgag094/8553701
The study appears to assume conservatives who oppose climate action are irrational. From the first paragraph of the study – “… Climate mitigation policy in democratic nations requires coordination and compromise between political elites, scientific experts, and citizens. Yet sound public policies are often rejected due to partisan or ideological divides. …”
The determination of whether someone was conservative was based on self identification – “… We use “liberal” and “conservative” to denote respondents’ self-placement on a 0–10 ideological scale (0 = extremely liberal/left, 10 = extremely conservative/right), rather than formal party affiliation …”. This introduces some obvious potential biases.
The unsupported assumption that climate policies are “sound”, and by implication that opposition to climate policies is irrational, is the key mistake which led the study authors to an erroneous conclusion.
When I first heard of the climate crisis I was concerned. It was when I heard the absurd proposed solutions – solar panels and wind turbines – and heard and read claims that nuclear power was too dangerous, that I started digging deeper.
If the world was truly on the brink of a climate catastrophe, how could the risk of a few nuclear meltdowns possibly be worse than a global warming mass extinction event?
It didn’t long to discover the truth of the situation. The reality is claims we are in the midst of a global warming crisis are just as irrational as green opposition to nuclear power. The world is in no danger of overheating – our world has been locked in the Late Cenzoic Ice Age for the last 34 million years, an ice age which shows no sign of ending.
Why would awareness of these facts lead to feelings of hostility towards climate activist politicians?
The ongoing affordability crisis in renewable enthusiast regions like Europe more than demonstrates a world with energy systems dominated by wind and solar would be a world locked in a permanent economic great depression, with industries crushed by the cost of unreliable energy, by having to continuously start and stop the engine of society depending on hour by hour changes in the weather. Not the kind of world most people would want to leave to their kids.
The study authors considered none of this. By blindly assuming climate policy proposals are sound, by inferring respondents who opposed climate action did not have rational reasons for that opposition, without bothering to ask what those reasons are, the study authors confused cause and effect. The study authors leapt to the false conclusion that opposition to climate policy is motivated by emotional prejudice against liberals, without considering the possibility those negative feelings are motivated by reason.
