The Tragedy of Indifference
This election will have huge consequences for climate change. Sadly, that doesn’t seem to matter that much at the polls.
Some observer from Mars might expect that climate change would be a central issue in the campaign. There is perhaps no other issue where the views of the major candidates are so far apart. And there is perhaps no other issue of such long-term importance. But of course our hypothetical Martian would be wrong. Climate change is at most an afterthought in electoral politics.
This is not necessarily because the public is unaware that the climate is changing. In a poll last August, two-thirds of Americans agreed with prioritizing renewable energy and providing federal incentives, and an equal number favored making the U.S. carbon neutral by 2050. The partisan divide is real: Democrats are three times more likely than Republicans to view climate change as a major threat. Even so, a quarter of Republicans agreed with Democrats on this. The problem is that only 37% (almost all Democrats) view climate change as a priority, and even then it wasn’t necessarily near the top.
All of this is intensely frustrating for those of us who believe in the urgency of addressing climate change. We mostly have to watch to see how other issues — immigration, the economy, and abortion, to name a few — shift voter attitudes toward candidates. The fact that one candidate supports climate action and the other adores fossil fuels may make all the difference to future generations. As for today’s swing voters, not so much.
Still, it’s important for people know the climate implications of the election even if only a few are ultimately swayed. In a close election, even a small effect on swing voters, turnout, or third-party support could swing the election to Trump or Biden, or shift the outcome of a tossup congressional race. What people do with the information is their business, but informing them is ours.
Reader Comments
4 Replies to “The Tragedy of Indifference”
Comments are closed.
About Dan
Dan Farber has written and taught on environmental and constitutional law as well as about contracts, jurisprudence and legislation. Currently at Berkeley Law, he has al…
READ more
RE: “Trump’s Replacement for Project 2025: The “Other” MAGA Plan”
Anthony St. John ’63 says: August 26, 2024 at 9:46 am
“Dan, this is one more proof that if university scholars do not learn how to communicate with the public by informing, educating and motivating the public to vote for saving our environment TODAY, during this 2024 election, there is NO HOPE for saving our civilization the way disasters are getting more and more out of control.”
Dan: I HOPE and PRAY your newest post above means you have learned your lesson in time and will apply the extreme need for urgency to save the future for our newest generations at last.
Anthony,
Dan has contributed an exemplary effort to inform the public, its not his fault that we don’t care. Most of us can slowly adapt to climate change with relative ease, so it is definitely not a crisis situation. Relax and have a good day.
Climate change has fallen out of the news cycle. And the only one to blame is the left-leaning media and politicians. In the last several months, the level of coverage that they they typically reserved for the “extensional threat” of climate change has, unbelievably, shifted to Gaza/Israel. (The NYT has run almost 3800 articles on Gaza so far). It begs the question for the average voter, if climate change is so important, how did it just get “forgotten” for almost a year? Moreover, academia, EJ / Climate Justice orgs themselves have been obsessively focusing on Gaza, despite the negligible nexus to their core mission and donor expectations. For example, why did Communities for a Better Environment sponsor a CAIR-drafted antisemitic resolution and expend considerable resources getting it passed in Richmond, CA in November? (The first of many that would be passed in CA cities). Was this a good use of their time and political capital? Ditto the Sunrise Movement, which has, by my count, posted over 2500 times on social media about Gaza and insulting AIPAC (i.e., “dark money” i.e,. “Jews”) since October 7, easily 3:1 in comparison to its posts about the effects of climate change on youth (the organization’s founding mission). Things like this make people mistrust environmental organizations and also environmental reporting; allowing the observant public to dismiss all this as left-wing partisan “rage bait” rather than an actual, bipartisan issue that everyone should care about. Academia’s sad solution is simply to “intersectional” climate change and Israel, such as holding panels and writing articles on “ecocide in Gaza” and the like. As if this one war, over an area the size of Brooklyn, was the destruction of the Amazon rain forest. It may get eyeballs on your paper or panel, but ultimately makes you look frittering, fringe and ridiculous. Adding to this is how the current administration billed the Infrastructure Act and Inflation Reduction Act as “essential” to combat climate change. Yet, they hardly discuss these supposedly life-altering pieces of legislation anymore – as you correctly note. So was this all just political theater for the Democratic Party? You can’t help but wonder if the average voter now thinks that climate change was always political football / much ado about nothing. And its all the fault of the messengers themselves.
Dan, Sarah has made some very interesting points and makes me wonder if, now that we have a new Chancellor, Berkeley Powers That Be shall finally decide to end the era of Environmental Fiefdoms and implement your recommendations for reorganization so progress can be united to protect the human race as the highest priority with the greatest sense of urgency now that environmental disasters are out of control throughout America and around the world.