Recently, I was cycling on a shared street: on my right, parked cars; on my left, the section intended for cars.
A pickup overtook me, sticking so close that there was no space between him, me and the parked cars. As a result, the trailer behind his car hit me. I was lucky; the event left me almost unscathed after a morning in the hospital. More fright than harm, as they say.
Cycling is not only a sport that I love and my way of getting around, it is also my subject of study. As a master’s student in political science, I specialize in the social acceptability of environmental measures in Quebec.
In short, I study the factors that explain why some people accept environmental measures while others oppose them. For example, why do some people oppose active transportation projects such as increasing spaces for cyclists?
Every day, cyclists experience events like the one I just reported, telling them that they are not welcome. These incidents are symptomatic of the fact that bicycles “disturb”, in the sense that they disrupt the habits of some motorists and the organization of our living environments.
They are shaking up the status quo that tends to favor the car as a mode of transportation. These events are also indicative of a broader opposition to environmental measures that shake up our lifestyles, that are disruptive.
Science
While we are increasingly experiencing the effects of climate change and we have all the financial and technological means to deal with it, climate action is slow to be implemented. Why? We can see that the main obstacle to the climate fight is now political in nature.
Among the factors that help explain public opposition to environmental measures, the most important is whether a measure is perceived as fair or equitable. For example, building a new cycle path without consulting local businesses and residents can leave the feeling that some people have no say in the matter even though the project directly affects them.
Injustices can also be created if we do not think about how to make cycle paths inclusive for everyone, including children, people with reduced mobility and seniors. It is possible to take these considerations into account. In fact, it is necessary to do so to avoid creating inequities and people being left behind, and to reduce popular opposition to environmental measures.
Then, the position of elites, also called “opinion leaders”, has a significant influence on citizens’ opinions regarding environmental measures.
When we hear politicians, radio hosts or others say that bicycles are waging war on cars, it is obvious that their comments fuel popular discontent. They contribute to making automobiles an identity and polarizing issue, rather than the subject of a healthy political debate where we collectively question how to effectively reduce their place in our society.
Turn
Political debates are healthy and necessary to adopt environmental measures. However, it is time to refocus our debates on the environment.
We should not (and in fact can no longer) ask ourselves whether we should act. We should ask ourselves how to act. For example, we should ask ourselves how to make cycle paths beneficial for our society as a whole, rather than whether we should make them.
Reframing this debate would first allow us to think about more effective, more inclusive, fairer and, therefore, more accepted environmental measures. Then, reorienting the political debate would allow us to leave less room for leaderss opinion groups that oppose any environmental measures and who are the standard-bearers of an anti-climate action struggle. They fuel popular opposition and polarization towards any environmental measures.
On the eve of the parliamentary session, and then of the federal and municipal elections, we can only hope that our political debates will focus more on how we should act, rather than whether we should act.
For my part, I also hope that some opinion leaders will stop galvanizing their troops by demonizing environmental measures. They undermine our chances of succeeding in the fight against climate change and they legitimize unacceptable behavior towards defenders of climate action and those who benefit from it, such as cyclists.