Voting in a time of climate chaos

October 9, 2024

low angle view Thermometer on blue sky with sun shining in summer show higher Weather, concept global warming, climate change

Thermometer-sky-with-sun-shining — low angle view Thermometer on blue sky with sun shining in summer show higher Weather, concept global warming, climate change

By David Suzuki

Disasters are indiscriminate when it comes to election cycles. People reeling from the devastation of Hurricane Helene in the southeastern United States are likely having a tough time focusing on the November election — some could even find voting difficult as polling locations and mail delivery have been disrupted.

During last year’s Alberta election, several candidates had to suspend campaigns as wildfires raged through their communities.

Election outcomes, however, can make an enormous difference in crisis response and in the frequency and intensity of the instigating events. Governments are responsible for everything from warning people about storms and ensuring they’re kept safe to cleaning up after disasters.

Governments also have the power to enact policies that could prevent or reduce impacts caused by extreme weather, from building codes to climate policy.

Despite the increasing number and intensity of these climate-related events, voters usually rank the economy and health care as top priorities, with environment and climate somewhere down the list — regardless of whether it’s a provincial, state or national election. To some degree, that makes sense. Economics and health care are immediate concerns that affect people in tangible ways.

But environmental issues, especially climate change, are also economic and health issues. Treating them as separate concerns to be ranked in importance creates a misleading narrative. It also creates a disconnect between human activities and governance and droughts, floods, storms and other impacts.

Those who argue for less government and reduced government spending are often willing to sacrifice policies, programs and institutions that keep people safe during times of crisis. For example, the controversial Project 2025 plan in the U.S. calls for breaking up the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Weather Service, reviewing the National Hurricane Center’s work, privatizing the National Flood Insurance Program, shifting emergency spending from federal to state levels and downsizing the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, including disbanding much of its climate change research.

This could severely affect health and economic outcomes.

The death toll from Hurricane Helene alone is now more than 200 and climbing. Scientists explain that warming oceans fuel hurricanes and cause more water to evaporate, increasing precipitation. As the planet heats up, in large part because of the enormous amounts of coal, oil and gas we’re burning, hurricanes become deadlier. This Category 4 hurricane is thought to be among the most powerful ever to hit the U.S.

Fossil fuel pollution and wildfire smoke exacerbate health issues such as asthma and contribute to increasing premature deaths. All of this affects personal and societal health care costs.

The economic impacts of climate-fuelled disasters are also skyrocketing. From rising grocery prices due to drought and flooding of agricultural lands and disaster-related supply chain issues to cleanup costs for devastating storms, the monetary impacts hit at personal and societal levels.

On the other hand, working to resolve the climate and other environmental crises offers tremendous economic benefits — from job creation to tax revenue. For example, the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act has spurred US$100 billion in private investment and created at least 100,000 jobs in clean energy manufacturing alone in just two years.

As we’ve written before, extensive research shows that investing in climate action reduces energy costs and makes energy markets less volatile, spurs technological development, cuts health care expenses, avoids costly impacts on everything from agriculture to urban infrastructure and creates greater economic opportunities for a wider range of people.

The urgent need to quickly shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy and to enact policies to reduce energy consumption shouldn’t even be a subject for political debate — and as recently as the late 1980s to early 1990s, it wasn’t politicized. The only debate should be about the best ways to make progress. It’s clear that the climate and other environmental crises are increasingly costly to individuals, families, communities and society and that effective policies, programs and actions to address them offer countless economic and health benefits.

Of course, ensuring our continued ability to survive should be the highest priority. We must extend our compassion and empathy and do all we can to help those affected by extreme weather events. But we must also ensure that our politics are guided by commitments to addressing their causes.

David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Written with David Suzuki Foundation Senior Writer and Editor Ian Hanington.

Learn more at davidsuzuki.org.