Wildfires burned 1.9 million acres of Oregon land this summer, shattering the previous state record of 1.2 million acres in 2012. The events of this summer were not a sudden jump. Average burned acreage has been steadily ramping up since the mid 1990s, reports the Oregon Department of Forestry. Curtis Martin, a rancher in Malheur County, says his experience matches this rise in destruction: “[The wildfires are] definitely worse than what they were 25 to 30 years ago.” Most of this destruction occurs in, but is not confined to, southern and central Oregon. Areas like the Columbia Gorge have been considerably affected as well.
Even as the fire season wanes, their significant economic, emotional, and environmental tolls are far from over. Residents are still reeling from the destruction of their homes, businesses, and communities. As it hits especially close to home, how is climate change affecting Oregonians’ votes?
In 1988, climate scientist James Hansen testified before the Senate, warning of climate change. His testimony, supported by other climate researchers, cautioned a drastic predicted increase in temperature and drought. These statements, along with growing concerns over the climate, mean climate change hasn’t left the political sphere since.
A report from the Pew Research Center found that climate change was “very important” to 52% of registered voters in 2016. Pointing to the economy, Republican candidate Donald Trump ran in favor of fewer restrictions protecting the environment, like those on oil, coal, and natural gas industries. Trump has repeatedly publicized his doubts of climate change; on Nov. 6, 2012, he tweeted, “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese.” Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, however, ran hoping to regulate methane, reduce oil consumption, and heavily invest in renewable energy. “I will not, for one minute, give up on Appalachia,” Clinton said at a campaign event, referencing her idea that her green energy policies would benefit all Americans.
Trump won the 2016 election. During his four years in office, he withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, and rolled back nearly 100 environmental rules and policies.
“In this election cycle, climate change has not been a focus for either presidential campaign despite the candidates’ historically different stances on climate change,” says Dr. Janel Jett, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Oregon. “But that doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t an important issue to voters. Concern over climate change is growing in the U.S., and for many voters, especially younger ones, it’s becoming a priority.” According to the Pew Research Center, climate change is a top ten issue to voters, with 37% of registered voters saying it’s a very important factor in how they will vote in the 2024 election.
The 2024 presidential candidates, as in 2016, have extremely contrasting stances on climate issues. The Democratic Party emphasizes the importance of protecting resources and investing in clean energy, as per Democrats. The approach of Kamala Harris, current vice president and Democratic candidate, is along the lines of her party; if elected, she will “[protect] public lands and public health, [increase] resilience to climate disasters, [lower] household energy costs, [create] millions of new jobs, and [continue] to hold polluters accountable to secure clean air and water for all,” as the Harris campaign’s website reads.
The Republican Party tends to focus their climate discussion on the economy. Trump calls climate regulations burdensome to Americans. While the Republican Party platform doesn’t explicitly mention climate change — in fact, none of the main speeches at the Republican National Convention discussed climate change — it does mention energy. “We will DRILL, BABY, DRILL,” the party’s platform document says emphatically. The party pushes the idea of energy as a well of power, one that will “establish the United States as the Manufacturing Superpower of the World.”
In Oregon, the effects of climate change manifest most notably as wildfires, often hitting rural Oregonians the hardest. “[It] woke me up,” says Charlie Crocker, describing a fire in Wasco County, OR, that came within a mile and a half of his property. Crocker owns Sol Rides, an electric bike tour and rental business, in Hood River. In the summer, Hood River residents are often impacted by smoke and property damage from wildfires.
Tourism, as for many other towns nestled in the Columbia River Gorge, is a main driver of Hood River’s economy, and so poor environmental conditions, even if they subside, can have lasting economic impacts. A portion of the Historic Columbia River Highway State Trail was closed this summer due to the Microwave Tower Fire. The fire, which burned through an old disposal site, shut down outdoor-adventure businesses, like Sol Rides, and turned away tourists. “We lost two and a half month’s worth of the Historic Highway State trail [revenue],” says Crocker. “I know I lost a significant amount of money from that. I know the other shops in Mosier lost even more.”
Recovering from fires comes with a hefty price tag. Martin explains how 28 miles of fence need to be repaired on his ranch following this summer’s Cow Valley fire. “Some of it’s going to have to be totally torn out and rebuilt,” laments Martin. “[It’s a] horrendous expense — about $20,000 to $25,000 per mile of fence.” Through cost-share services with the Farm Service Agency and Natural Resources Conservation Service, Martin’s burden has been somewhat lessened. Crocker, however, has not received government assistance for the economic damage of the wildfires, and wishes that the “economic disaster” was declared to provide his community access to more assistance.
Wildfires dramatically change the areas they burn, impacting both the existing ecosystems, and those who use the land and its resources. “My biggest concern right now is the loss of topsoil that is there,” says Martin. “Once you lose the topsoil, it’s gone, it’s not going to be replaced. And that’s what’s really so tragic about it.” Topsoil is important to ecosystems because it contains the nutrients needed for plants to grow. Aftermath of the fire includes erosion, mudslides, and “hazard trees” — weakened trees which could come down at any moment. Noah Estes, U.S. Forest Service senior firefighter and city councilor for Mosier, additionally states that, “Residents were particularly affected by a strain on our water supply, and [the fact that] our drinking water [was] no longer usable for a period of time.”
The capabilities of firefighters are one of the main difficulties in response to wildfires. Estes points to funding, staffing, and diminishing wildland urban interface — the area between wildland and human development — as reasons for wildfires becoming more destructive of personal property.
As of August, federal wildland firefighters were 25% below desired capacity. The job of a wildland firefighter is an increasingly difficult one, with long hours and prolonged periods away from home. Estes explains that, even though the job requires environmental expertise and advanced tactical knowledge, someone with twenty years of experience will be lucky to make thirty dollars an hour. “For this relatively low wage, they will likely be in charge of millions of dollars worth of equipment, tens of millions in property to protect, and sometimes be responsible for hundreds of lives.” Additionally, Estes states that a century of federal forestry management tactics of aggressive fire suppression led to unprecedented long term effects on forest conditions that allow for more intense and rapidly spreading fire.
Dissatisfaction with politicians seems to be a recurring theme among Oregon residents affected by wildfires, who stress that it is the federal politicians with whom they are upset. “My unhappiness is not with the local officials and the local people that are trying to do their job,” says Martin. He says that decisions made “a million miles removed” on the federal and state level often don’t properly serve residents. “When these kinds of catastrophes occur, it just exacerbates the disconnect, and [impairs] the ability to rebuild and recuperate,” he says.
Britney VanCitters, a political and organizing director with Oregon League of Conservation Voters, calls the disconnect between government and local perspectives, in part, a symptom of Oregon’s strong urban-rural divide. While climate change is an issue faced by all Oregonians, VanCitters points out that rural communities are “more acutely” impacted by wildfires, drought, and extreme weather. These impacts are amplified by delayed emergency response. Small towns want to make changes. “In reality, we’re on a shoestring budget. We often don’t have much financing to accomplish this sort of thing,” says Estes, referring to the efforts to implement various green initiatives in Mosier. He adds that other issues, like ensuring residents have food and housing, take precedence over environmental concerns.
Dissatisfied with the current situation, Oregonians work to create their own solutions. “Politicians are currently failing to address the climate crisis with the urgency this emergency demands,” says Lucy Breuer, a freshman at Reed College. Breuer is a member of Sunrise, a youth organization for climate justice. They joined Sunrise in their junior year of high school, feeling the “climate crisis was too big, too hopeless, [and] too overwhelming.” Breuer is not content with how politicians are addressing climate change, finding their action lacking. “Our policy makers must listen to the needs of the people they are representing and commit to fighting for our communities,” they say. Crocker adds to this sentiment: “Practicing policies that have been in place [for] a hundred years [aren’t] working anymore. Dams on rivers aren’t working anymore, completely logging out forest isn’t working anymore. I do believe the politicians are aware of this, but how are they going about trying to make the changes?”
Nearly nine-thousand volunteer firefighters work to protect communities in Oregon, especially during the initial response stages. Hoodland Fire District #74, located near Government Camp, for example, is a combination department, with both career and volunteer staff. Some small towns in Oregon, like Dufur in Wasco County, maintain a fire department composed entirely of volunteers. Mosier’s fire department, like many small towns across Oregon, has a majority volunteer staff, which they hope to grow.
Beyond larger political policies, the various actions taken by communities are key ways communities can protect themselves and save lives. Mosier tries to educate its residents on how to protect themselves and their property from threatening wildfires. Crocker personally works to prevent fires through maintaining and thinning the forest on his property. “I always believe that if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem,” he says.
However, the individuals and communities responsible for defending themselves from wildfires aren’t the ones responsible for their worsening. “We need big corporations that are polluting on a massive scale to also do their part to reduce their carbon footprint and make better choices for the planet,” says VanCitters. “That takes change at a policy and regulatory level.” Political action possesses power for change the individual simply does not. “High-level government action sets the stage for what is obtainable when we are thinking about climate futures,” explains Jett.
It’s hard to know exactly how experiencing wildfires and other climate-worsened disasters will affect the election. Despite some, like Crocker and Martin, who will vote for their originally decided-upon candidates, people without a strong party affiliation could change their mind if they believe a candidate isn’t taking their concerns seriously. “When someone has gone through [wildfires, extreme heat, hurricanes, and other natural disasters], they’re more likely to connect them with the need for climate action, which can influence their voting behavior,” explains Jett. “It makes the issue less abstract and more urgent.”
People are motivated by the change they want to see. The future people hope for is one that addresses their needs and the needs of their communities. Breuer hopes for the election of an administration that passes the Green New Deal. Crocker wants better forestry practices and accountability for big companies and big polluters. Martin believes that in order to create a government that better serves its citizens: “We’ve got to make closer connections to the landscape, to the community, and closer to the people that live and utilize these resources for … economic and environmental opportunities.”
While climate policy may not be the deciding factor at the polls, it is an increasingly pertinent issue to everyone. It is important that our elected officials understand the urgency of climate action, and that they prioritize the issue. Jett encapsulates this point: “We need collective solutions, which is why we need to be considering climate change when we vote.”
