The most pivotal climate story in 2024 is likely the elections in November, and I’m choosing topics I think could change a few voters’ minds.
Half or more of Americans believe that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of climate change? These people should look favorably on politicians who will work to reduce fossil fuel usage. I could encourage them. Right?
Apparently not in many communities. Here’s a case in point. Last week the Florida legislature advanced a bill that will among other things,
repeal programs that help local governments and school districts reduce greenhouse emissions,
limit utilities’ sale of electricity to people who charge electric vehicles at home,
reduce regulations on gas pipelines,
take away local governments’ control over natural gas storage locations, and
remove the requirement that local governments consider fuel efficiency when buying vehicles.
You notice this bill is aimed at only one thing, protecting Floridians’ right to burn oil and gas. Proponents simply claim that restrictions on fossil fuels are
unfitting for our country. We need an adequate, reliable, and cost-effective supply of energy for the state. Our country would not be where it is today without fossil fuels.
They don’t see the irony in that last sentence!
Their attitude is widely shared among other Conservative voters. It supports Trump’s mockery of electric vehicles and his vow to “drill, baby, drill” if he returns to the White House. Can ClimateDog make inroads among supporters of fossil fuels, maybe switch a few minds and a few votes?
My gut says no.
Local protections against climate damage
A much higher percentage of Americans want to avoid the growing costs and harm in their lives from climate effects. And I think those voters need to see that putting Republicans in Congress or the White House will kill the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), close the Environmental Protection Agency, and thereby slow or eliminate those fast-growing local programs which protect families and communities from the spreading effects of flood, drought, storm, heat, bad air quality, and other climate dangers.
These protections cost money. Money for sandbags, tree planting, air purifiers, flood gates, porous pavements, raising or razing buildings, drought-tolerant landscaping, forest clearing, wetland restoration, and many other small mundane projects. The money’s got to come from somewhere. Few towns have the budget for these protections.
Even Florida legislators understand there are two sides to the climate problem. First, CAUSES: they want to burn more fossil fuels. Second, EFFECTS: they know there are few places in America more endangered by increasing storms and sea level rise than Florida. Even as he pushes the bill, the House speaker acknowledges the need to fight climate change effects:
So if the climate’s changing, if that’s going to have negative consequences, we put aside a bunch of money for flooding and resilience. I don’t think you should interpret anything we’re doing as a lack of commitment to anything that’s happening in the environment. To the contrary, we’re not backing away one bit from a resilient state and taking whatever the climate sends us.”
What voters need to understand is that this bunch of money is coming from the IRA, hundreds of billions of dollars dedicated to state and local grants for these sorts of protections. I’m thinking ClimateDog should spend some of this election season pointing out the benefits - to everyone - from these hometown projects and the big danger to those protections if we elect Republican politicians in Washington.
More about Florida’s climate bill.
Talk about failure to connect the dots!
Any state that does not take concrete steps to reduce fossil fuel consumption should not be eligible for hurricane relief. Already no one in Florida can get insurance and the seas are rising. Building walls will not work, only eliminating fossil fuels will