Who should pay for energy transition costs? Political ideology and distributive fairness in Alberta

Public support for energy transition does not necessarily imply agreement over how its costs and benefits should be distributed. As governments accelerate the transition to low-carbon energy, political conflict increasingly centers not on whether the transition should occur, but on whether its economic burdens and benefits are allocated fairly. This paper examines how left–right political ideology shapes perceptions of distributive fairness in Alberta's energy transition. Using original survey data from 1527 Alberta residents, multivariate regression models analyze four dimensions of distributive fairness: funding mechanisms, responsibility for transition costs, the regional distribution of costs, and the regional distribution of benefits. The findings show that political ideology exerts selective rather than universal effects. Ideological differences are strongest when policies explicitly redistribute economic costs or benefits, particularly through higher taxes on the oil and gas industry and the regional distribution of transition benefits. By contrast, other dimensions of distributive fairness are more consistently associated with household energy burden, local energy dependence, institutional confidence, climate concern, and broader political value orientations. These findings demonstrate that distributive fairness is a distinct and multidimensional aspect of public opinion, with different distributive questions activating different political and contextual considerations. Rather than serving simply as a proxy for support for energy transition, distributive fairness reflects how citizens evaluate the political legitimacy of allocating transition costs and benefits. The study suggests that the long-term political durability of energy transition depends not only on reducing emissions but also on designing policies that citizens perceive as distributively fair.