Does Anyone Actually Care About Climate Chaos?

climate chaos ahead

It’s a polling truism that most people are concerned about climate change – or, more accurately, climate disruption, or climate chaos – but not concerned enough that they base their votes on the issue. You might hope, however, that that largely reflects the fact that most people just haven’t thought about climate change much; they know vaguely that it’s something to be concerned about, but that’s about as far as it goes. By contrast, I would have thought that politically engaged people who have made public statements about climate disruption would understand that it’s too important an issue to ignore when they’re deciding who to vote for.

Turns out I was wrong.

I don’t actually expect the Betsy Johnson campaign to go anywhere, no matter how much money she raises. Historically, independents hardly ever win, and in today’s hyperpartisan environment, I think their chances are even lower than they used to be. But the campaign has already succeeded in doing one thing: it has made me more depressed about the politics of climate chaos. 

Let’s start by making one thing perfectly clear, as Nixon used to say: Betsy Johnson is firmly opposed to doing anything about climate disruption. I don’t know that she has literally said “climate change is a hoax,” but if elected, she will govern as if she believed that. It’s not just that she opposed the comprehensive “cap and trade” bill to reduce overall carbon emissions. She was the only Democrat to vote against the recent, more modest bill to require the electric utilities to move to 100% renewable electricity by 2040. (Decarbonizing the electric grid is actually the easy part of fighting climate disruption; it’s transportation and industrial processes that are hard.) She voted against incentives for electric vehicles. She voted against energy efficiency requirements for new appliances. In a recent speech to farmers, she contemptuously dismissed the idea that “climate change is the most important issue.” A vote for Betsy Johnson is a vote to burn the planet to a crisp.

The first indication I had that this fact wouldn’t hurt her campaign was when Tim Boyle of Columbia Sportwear gave her a ton of money. I was kind of surprised, because I vaguely thought that Columbia Sportwear was one of those companies that talk about “sustainability.” So I called someone I know who actually knows Boyle personally, and asked, “is he some kind of climate denier?” She assured me that no, Boyle is very concerned about climate change. I also did a little googling and found the press release for Columbia’s 2020 Corporate Responsibility Report, which proudly stated that Columbia “Set a climate target goal of 30% reduction in manufacturing emissions by 2030.” The press release also had a quote from Boyle: “Throughout the year, we remained true to our core values by continuing to invest in our employees and sustainable manufacturing processes, while focusing on urgent social challenges.” 

But fighting climate disruption isn’t “core” enough to Boyle’s “values” to stop him from supporting Betsy Johnson. One of the explanations for that, apparently, is that Johnson was an old friend of Boyle’s mom. Oh, I know that personal relationships matter – I myself have voted for people I knew and liked even when on a hair-splitting strict issue basis I “should” have voted for their opponent. In fact, on a personal basis,  I know and like Betsy Johnson herself. But this isn’t about marginal differences. I just can’t fathom saying: “sure, Betsy’s willing to see the planet burn to a crisp, but heck, she was a friend of my mom’s.”

After looking up Boyle, I remembered that fellow sportswear tycoon Phil Knight gave a ton of money to Betsy Johnson. That wasn’t surprising for a guy who’s supported Republicans in the past. But given  that Nike has made all sorts of nice climate change statements like this one, I went looking to see what Knight himself had said and done about climate change. 

And I found a doozy. As the New York Times reported, a few years back Knight gave Stanford University “$400 million to recruit graduate students around the globe to address society’s most intractable problems, including poverty and climate change.”

Four hundred million dollars is a lot of money. To be fair, let’s assume that Knight figured half the money would go to fighting poverty, and only half would go to fighting climate disruption. But even $200 million is a lot of money. But if Betsy Johnson becomes Governor, that will have a much bigger impact on the fight against climate change than anything a bunch of Stanford graduate students are likely to do. Yet that doesn’t matter to Phil Knight. The lesson here, perhaps, is that even when rich people give lots of money to address climate change, it might be purely a public relations exercise, rather than an expression of actual concern.

By the way, I don’t buy the argument that Knight supports Johnson out of personal financial self-interest, thinking she’ll cut his taxes. If Knight’s willing to throw away $200 million on a cause he doesn’t actually care about, he doesn’t really care about money. Nothing Tina Kotek or Betsy Johnson is likely to do is going to cost Phil Knight, or gain Phil Knight, anything close to $200 million. 

More personally distressing to me was Steve Duin’s glowing February 5 column about Johnson. He protests that it shouldn’t be read as an endorsement, but it’s impossible to read it any other way. His only reference to climate doesn’t even use the word “climate”; he says that some people “can’t forgive Johnson her formidable opposition to cap-and-trade.” Note the word “formidable,” which is generally used as a compliment. As opposed to, say, “misguided,” or “destructive.” And this sentence is mixed in with other “reasons” Duin sees for people’s opposition to Johnson, such as “they’re cowed by the thought of an animated, unapologetic personality in the governor’s office” – which makes it hard to believe Duin thinks any reason for opposing her is legitimate. 

Has Duin written about climate change before? Oh, yes. In 2012 he wrote a column about climate hero Bill McKibben and (Duin’s words) “the apocalyptic damage that carbon emissions are inflicting on the planet.” But hey, Betsy Johnson has a colorful personality. Apocalypse, shmopocalypse. 

But the most depressing example of all is former Springfield State Senator Lee Beyer’s support of Johnson. A 2020 Daily Emerald article reported that “Beyer said his primary interests as a legislator are combating climate change … In combating climate change, Beyer said his focus has been on promoting renewable forms of energy, such as advocating for electric vehicle transition and setting requirements for electricity providers to use renewable methods.” But he’s supporting a candidate who doesn’t believe in any of that. 

I’m not sure how to end this article. I guess I’ll just ask for someone to give me reason for hope. Do you know of anyone at all who has said that they really like a candidate on other grounds, but they can’t support them because they’re opposed to taking action on climate? Please tell me that such people exist. 

Steve Novick is an environmental lawyer, former Sizemore fighter, former Portland City Commissioner, believer in taxing the rich and letting people know where tax dollars go.

---

"climate chaos ahead" by pshab is marked with CC BY-NC 2.0.