Californians close to wildfires are more likely to vote green

IN RECENT WEEKS wildfires in California have destroyed nearly 100,000 acres and forced thousands of people from their homes. Climate scientists argue that global warming is making such fires more likely. The fires have sparked a blazing political row, too. This week President Donald Trump threatened to cut federal aid to help fight the fires, telling Gavin Newsom, the state’s Democratic governor, “Get your act together”. New research suggests that wildfires can influence voters’ attitudes to climate change. By how much depends on both their geographical and political positions.

Chad Hazlett of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Matto Mildenberger of the University of California, Santa Barbara, combined satellite data on Californian wildfires that burned at least 5,000 acres with the results of four climate-related ballot measures put to voters in the state between 2006 and 2010. The authors found that voters who lived within 15km (nine miles) of a recent wildfire were four to six percentage points more likely to support pro-climate initiatives than those living 35-40km away. Each additional 10km reduced environmental zeal by around 1.7 percentage points, on average.

The relationship was not consistent across the entire political spectrum, however. In places where voters had strongly favoured Democratic congressional candidates in recent elections, those living within 15km of a wildfire were seven to nine percentage points more likely to support pro-climate initiatives. In areas dominated by Republicans, in contrast, residents’ support for such pro-environmental reforms was about the same, no matter how close they were to a recent blaze.

Is it possible that wildfires did not change voters’ minds, but instead merely boosted election turnout? The authors found that wildfires did increase turnout slightly, but not by enough to explain their results. Instead it appears that first-hand experience of climate-related disasters makes voters more enthusiastic about curbing climate change, but only if they accept the scientific consensus in the first place. Even a disaster on the doorstep may not be enough to change some voters’ minds.