Between a rock and a hard place: why so many Americans oppose climate change legislation
Kentucky is in the news this week as flooding devastates the eastern part of the state. It is one of several states that are most susceptible to further economic and environmental damage caused by climate change. Why, therefore, are Kentucky legislators opposing climate change legislation?
Kentucky ranks number nine in the top fifteen states at greatest risks for environmental losses, according to Climate Central, a research firm using science and technology to study the impact of climate change. The other states that populate ground zero are California, Florida, Utah, South Carolina, Texas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Arizona. Extreme heat, drought, inland flooding, wildfires, and coastal flooding are all risk factors threatening these states.
Overall, Florida ranked as the most at-risk state, followed by South Carolina, and Louisiana. California came after Kentucky at number 10. Besides Kentucky, the only other landlocked state in the top ten was Arkansas.
On the other side of the equation, the states that emit the most carbon per dollar of economic output are large producers of oil, gas, or coal, Wyoming, North Dakota, Louisiana, Montana, Alaska, and Texas. Agricultural producers such as Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa, as well as manufacturing centers like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana and South Carolina, round out those with the most emissions per dollar. You may notice that some of those states fall into both categories.
Readers might also ask, “what states might be the most resilient?” Minnesota, for example, shapes up better due to its low risk of flooding. Only 3% of its population live in flood plains. Illinois, because of its proximity to the Great Lakes region, faces fewer climate threats than coastal areas. Rhode Island, despite its exposure to the Atlantic coast, has taken ambitious steps in reducing greenhouse gases, targeting a goal of 100% in renewable energy by 2030, while implementing programs to address the health effects of climate change.
Maine, another coastal state, has done quite a bit in the renewable energy space, reduction of greenhouse gases, and community protection plans as well. Wyoming is also in good shape--avoiding the flooding problem--and faces less risk of wildfires and other extreme circumstances than its western neighbors.
Most metropolitan areas, which largely represent the service economy, have less exposure overall to much of the climate change fallout thus far. However, cities like New York City. Miami, and Boston, face coastal flooding and hurricane threats.
Given the overwhelming public support to do something about climate change, you may wonder why there is still so much opposition to addressing the problem in the U.S. Like most things, it comes down to economics. When you add up all the pros and cons of who is impacted by climate change, and who benefits most from carbon emissions, the economics become clearer.
In this, the nation’s 117th Congress, there are 139 elected officials, including 109 representatives and 30 senators, who refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence that humans are causing climate change. These climate deniers represent 52% of House Republicans and 60% of Senate Republicans. No Democrats or independents are among that group of deniers.
These deniers are not bad people. I believe they are simply following the wishes of their constituencies. To understand this, we need to study the states that produce the most carbon emissions. Texas, Louisiana, Montana, and the Great Plains states (among others) are reliant on the fossil fuel economy. They realize, as do most voters, that changing over an entire economy to renewable energy sources is going to take a long time. In the interim, we will continue to need, and depend on, fossil fuels, which are in short supply.
In Kentucky, about 70% of the state’s electricity still comes from coal. The state’s largest utility plans to continue burning coal through 2066. Kentucky still accounts for 20% of all U.S. coal mines in operation. On the floor of the state’s legislative chambers, it is common for lawmakers to tout their coal credentials and that of their family members who have worked in the mines for generations.
Many of the states resisting climate change legislation may benefit from a warming climate, according to a study by the Brookings Institute. In the agricultural sector, the scarcity of food due to drought and other issues, benefits farmers as the world needs more and more of our produce at higher prices to stave off famine. Likewise, the manufacturing sector provides the equipment and hardware for both the energy and farming areas as well as providing the backbone of employment for more than 10% of Americans.
Bottom line: all these industries provide employment for a wide swath of blue-collar workers. As a rough guess, I would say they make up most of the population whose legislators comprise a “brown barricade” against federal legislation to reduce carbon emissions linked to climate change. These Americans, unlike those of us in the service economy, are between a rock and a hard place.
Unfortunately, this segment of the country (mostly red states), must continue to bring home a paycheck, even if they must swim back home after the latest flood or rebuild their houses after a wildfire or tornado. Climate change legislation directly threatens their livelihood.
As soon as the rest of us can recognize and feel some compassion for their dilemma, the sooner we can work on developing a solution that both satisfies and protects their well-being, so they, too, can get aboard the climate change train.
Bill Schmick is registered as an investment advisor representative of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires. Bill’s forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners, Inc. (OPI). None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or e-mail him at bill@schmicksretiredinvestor.com .Investments in securities are not insured, protected or guaranteed and may result in loss of income and/or principal.