Who will protect our town better, Republicans or Democrats?
We might be surprised.
Buddy likes door-to-door canvassing. And he’s good at it! It’s the campaign meetings he finds exhausting.
Yeah, there’s flooding, drought, wildfires, sea level rise, all that stuff. But a bigger risk may be our local climate politics. What are residents and leaders thinking - and doing - to protect against those threats already underway in our town?
WILL LOCAL REPUBLICAN LEADERS TAKE CLIMATE ACTION?
For decades Republican voters have shown little acknowledgement or interest in global warming and its effects.
Nearly seven-in-ten Biden voters (68%) say climate change is very important to their vote. Only 11% of Trump supporters say the same. In fact, climate change ranks last in importance (of 12 issues) for Trump supporters. [Pew Trust survey, late 2020]
If we’re worried about the damage climate change is doing to our community and our family, we’ve got to wonder if we want our town run by people who don’t think carbon emissions are important? That’s why ClimateDog lists political leanings as a key measure, called Recognition of Community and Personal Dangers, among our indicators of a climateproof town.
HOW TO FIND HIDDEN POSITIVES IN REPUBLICANS’ THINKING
Things are not, however, as one-sided as the Pew survey indicates. There are reasons, not wideely known, to think that some Republican groups will fight certain aspects of our climate crisis with vigor and conviction. Here are a few straws in the wind.
First, although many conservatives are against cutting emissions, at the same time they help produce clean energy. The nation’s biggest concentrations of wind energy are in red states. Texas is way out in front, with Iowa, Oklahoma, and Kansas next. Of course the incentive for this may be profits, not sustainability. Nevertheless, they are helping us reduce carbon emissions.
Second, Republicans, particularly politicians, are scared to use the phrase ‘climate change’ when discussing actions and policies. Leaders may talk the party line - hoax, fake news, hurting the economy. But we must learn to listen carefully! They use other words to describe reasons for taking what are real climate actions. They talk about fiscal responsibility, public health, sustainability, quality of life, and cost savings. Here are a few entries in the Republican climate thesaurus.
Sea-level rise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nuisance flooding
Greenhouse gases, carbon emissions . . . . Cleaner air
Storm overflows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cleaner water
Cutting oil use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Enhanced national security
It’s better than nothing. We should learn to use this Republican vocabulary when we’re among them. We might be able to join together on significant climate - whoops! I mean sustainability - projects.
Third, if Republicans don’t want to take any save-our-planet actions, it appears they support save-our-town actions.
Ignoring causes and concentrating on specific effects of the climate crisis is becoming a frequent conservative climate approach. All adaptation, no mitigation; yes it’s a form of denial; it benefits only local constituencies (“America first!”), not the world; it ignores broad inequality and related social issues; and it’s blind to the distant future. But this conservative-speak does help recruit fellow conservative residents to support adaptive actions, and it can help justify federal funding under the guise of “security”.
A MITIGATION -V- ADAPTATION EXAMPLE
In Washington State, the parties together recently passed a carbon tax that will raise $4 billion over ten years. The tax makes gas and oil more expensive so we’ll use less of the stuff. And it raises money that can be spent to fight climate destruction in other ways. Hooray, right?
But what should it be spent on? Democrats are pushing for ways that reduce emissions, for instance electrifying a lot of transportation in the state. Republicans, by contrast, push for ways that create climate protections for local towns, for instance enhancing drought resilience, reducing flood risks, and protecting drinking water sources. Democrats want to save our planet; Republicans want to save our neighborhoods.
The Republicans’ argument is that spending billions to reduce emissions will make no perceptible change to the damage that the climate crisis is making in Washington State. Better to build protections and adapt to the inevitable.
BUDDY AND I AGREE
We never thought we’d take the Republican side. Especially Buddy, who campaigned door-to-door for Bernie! But, to repeat the thoughts in our Magical Thinking letter, four months ago, without massive federal initiatives (which we must push for), our mitigation actions are hugely below the scale of the problem. They are willfully self-deceiving, petty, tokenistic, and not matched to the scale of our predicament. Many are simply virtue-signalling. The big delusion is that electrifying transportation, closing coal-fired plants, planting trees, and many other actions being touted today are enough to stop global warming at some agreed temperature, and that coming generations will adapt to a new stable climate.
Given the changes coming fast, more adaptation measures are very welcome. The sooner the better! At the state and local level, efforts like Washington’s are best aimed at fighting the local effects of warming. This has been a conviction of mine ever since I started researching a book that wound up concentrating on how to save our wallet and our lifestyle in the face of global warming.
A CAVEAT
The correlation between Republican voters and inaction on climate change is by no means universal. Look, town by town, for the actions themselves, not what those actions are being called.
What has your experience been?
LEARN, THINK, ACT
The Pew Trust surveys about political leanings can be found here.
Another source of information is Yale's Climate Opinion Maps covering beliefs, risk perceptions, and policy support across the country.
It’s easy to determine the politics of a town. If we want to find out how red or blue it is, we can look at its voting record in the New York Times detailed map.
We can read the Republican and Democratic stances on the Washington Climate Commitment Act.
This good summary of the latest alarming IPCC report points out the importance of adaptation.
My book which emphasizes adaptation is Climate-Proof Your Personal Finances, How (and where) to safeguard your family’s budget and lifestyle.
USA TODAY survey of attitudes towards fighting global warming.
One caveat addendum to blog: In my experience at the local level party affiliations can be meaningless: one must look at the candidates individual positions. In my town, it is the Democrats who want to pave everything over. It is different at the national level, and sometimes state as well.
My experience is that Republicans are in denial, and against spending on the type of infrastructure that would actually protect communities. So I found the article to mostly be wishful fantasy.