Farmers in the East and West are divided on climate change

Climate change is a top concern for farmers in Canada, but for different reasons depending on where they farm, a recent poll has found. 

In Eastern Canada, the ravages of climate change was by far the top concern in the poll conducted by Farmers for Climate Solutions, followed by the rising cost of fertilizers and seeds, and government policy. But in the western provinces, climate change itself wasn't the main concern: government policies designed to deal with the crisis were. 

Almost 90 per cent of the farmers surveyed across the country said they were concerned that climate change will lead to more restrictive policies or regulations. In contrast, only about two-thirds were concerned the crisis would reduce yields or their farm income, despite severe impacts from climate change there. 

"We have strong indications that a decent portion of producers who are worried about climate change are worried about it because they think it's going to lead to more restrictive measures and regulations," said Brent Preston, president of Farmers for Climate Solutions. 

The findings highlight the importance that governments work with farmers directly on climate and communicate climate policies and goals as comprehensively, accurately and in as culturally-relevant a way as possible, he said. They also expose how much people's politics shape their understanding of extreme weather and the climate crisis — an important lesson to heed in developing policies to deal with the problem. 

"It's the political and identity factors which will determine how people interpret something like ‘government policy’ or ‘severe weather’ (be it drought, heat, cold, etc.), or conversely how they interpret the benefits or costs of climate policy," explained Ryan Katz-Rosene, a political economist at the University of Ottawa, in an email. 

He pointed out that a survey question about the impacts of extreme weather on farms revealed that more farmers in the western provinces have been "'severely" impacted by climate change. However, the broader political and cultural context in the region means that how a severe storm is interpreted will be different in the West compared to the East.  

"A major hail storm might thus be more likely to be interpreted as a sign of dangerous climate change out East than out West. And similarly, government policy is more likely to be interpreted as some kind of attack on farmers out in the Prairies than in the East," he wrote. 

This dynamic was evident in the farmer protests against high costs that roiled Quebec this spring. The farmers' union, which organized the protests, made an effort to ensure that it was clear the protesters supported climate policies and wanted government help to prepare for the crisis. 

In contrast, efforts in 2022 and 2023 by the federal government to implement a voluntary 30 per cent reduction in fertilizer emissions was met with a cyclone of disinformation and stiff opposition from farmers, especially in Western Canada. The proposal also quickly got spun into right-wing conspiracy theories that held it was part of an effort by a shadowy cabal of global elites to starve people into submission (It is not). 

The fertilizer debate was a good example of how important it is to have clear messaging around climate change policies and involving farmers in their development, Preston said. The information vacuum surrounding the government's choice of an ostensibly "arbitrary" 30 per cent reduction target gave an opening for industry groups to spread misinformation about the target. 

An investigation by Canada's National Observer found that right-wing politicians — including Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre — helped boost that misinformation across social media and in the halls of power, slowing consultations on the proposal. Since then, the government has done a better job communicating about the target with farmers and there is growing support for the measure, which will also reduce farm costs, Preston said.

"Opposition toward that target has declined as producers realize that the sky isn't falling. It is absolutely achievable, and probably achievable in a way that's going to be financially beneficial," he said. 

Many farmers are already adopting climate-friendly practices, even if they aren't framing it that way. The survey found that nearly all the farmers surveyed were enhancing soil health, promoting on-farm resilience and protecting biodiversity — all key measures in the fight against climate change, Preston said. 

The key is ensuring that any changes improve farmers’ bottom line, either by boosting profits or bolstering yields, he explained. This was reflected in the survey results, with about half of respondents noting that those factors were most likely to convince them to adopt new, more sustainable practices. 

Whether that will work remains to be seen, Katz-Rosene said. In the past, common wisdom by economists and political scientists held that if policies reduced costs or were easy to adopt, they would generally obtain public support. But conservative opposition to carbon pricing — long viewed as a business-friendly approach that meets both criteria — "really seems to be throwing a wrench in our conventional understandings of these things."

Still, he believes that to get farmers' buy-in, making the switch to more sustainable practices easy and cost-efficient remains the most effective approach. 

"The big question is: Is that really possible at the national scale in the very little time we have left?"