Giving Compass' Take:
- Shannon Osaka highlights how perception of the relationship between natural disasters and climate change differs in different political circles.
- How can funders invest in resilience planning that reduces the damage and injury caused by disasters?
- Read about how climate change could force many Americans to migrate.
What is Giving Compass?
We connect donors to learning resources and ways to support community-led solutions. Learn more about us.
In the midst of a freezing cold winter storm that left millions of Texans without power or heat, Republican Governor Greg Abbott appeared on Fox News on Tuesday to bash the Green New Deal, blaming shutdowns of wind and solar for the emergency.
Fact-checkers descended upon Abbott’s claims almost immediately, pointing out that wind and solar played only a small part in the statewide catastrophe. But the governor’s false claims sounded eerily familiar. In this rapidly warming and heavily polarized country, Abbott’s interview was yet another sign of how every storm, fire, or heat wave has become a political sparring match — with everyone pointing the finger at someone else.
The problem is that people tend to interpret disasters, and most other things in life, in a way that validates their preconceived opinions. Last year, for example, when much of the West was on fire and the skies over San Francisco had turned bright orange, former President Trump blasted California’s forest management, telling the state government, “You gotta clean your floors” and blaming the state’s rolling blackouts on too much wind and solar. Governor Gavin Newsom countered the following month, warning: “This is a climate damn emergency.”
Read the full article about climate partisanship by Shannon Osaka at Grist.