The Economist - UK (2022-04-16)

TheEconomistApril16th 2022
Graphic detail Climate change and voting

77

Feeling the heat

T

hebiggestobstaclesto slowingcli­
mate  change  are  political.  Although
carbon emissions can be slashed with cur­
rent technologies, such cuts are perceived
to  require  sacrifices  today  in  order  to  re­
duce  the  risk  of  calamity  in  future.  Many
voters refuse to shoulder these costs.
Global  temperatures  are  already  rising
fast. Even if today’s weather extremes may
look mild by future standards, they are still
more severe than those of the past. In theo­
ry,  unusual  weather  events  like  dry  or
warm spells might have a silver lining: pro­
viding a wake­up call to complacent voters.
A recent paper by Roman Hoffmann, Raya
Muttarak  and  Jonas  Peisker  of  iiasa,  a
think­tank,  and  Piero  Stanig  of  Bocconi
University finds evidence for this pattern,
with  a  caveat.  It  shows  up  mostly  in  rich
countries with cool climates.
To  test  the  link  between  weather  and

environmentalism,  the  authors  compiled

data  on  wildfires,  droughts,  floods  and

temperatures  in  1,239  European  adminis­

trative  areas  in  1994­2019.  They  also

tracked  two  measures  of  public  concern

about  the  environment:  responses  from  a

long­running  European  survey,  and  the

performance in European Parliament elec­

tions of green parties, whose voters tend to

be particularly focused on climate change.

The  researchers  found  that  unusual

weather,  particularly  in  the  form  of  heat,

did  focus  people’s  minds  on  climate.  The

more  unseasonably  warm  days  (when

compared with the average in 1971­2000) in

a given region during the year preceding a

poll or European election, the more people

in that area said that they were concerned

about the environment, and the greater the

share of votes green parties went on to win.

The  same  was  true  of  droughts,  and  to  a

lesser degree of wildfires.

The  impact  of  other  types  of  weather

was  much  less  clear.  Cold  snaps  did  seem

to help green parties, but to a lesser degree.

Extreme  wet  periods  had  little  effect.  And

green parties may in fact have fared worse

in  elections  following  floods  (though  fur­

ther study is needed to confirm this effect).

The authors speculate that use of the spe­

cificterm“globalwarming”ratherthanthe

broader “climate change” may prevent the

public  from  attributing  weather  events

other  than  heatwaves  or  droughts  to  hu­

man activity. Another study found a simi­

lar  discrepancy  in  America:  hot,  dry  days

raised  the  chances  that  poll  respondents

said  they  believed  in  climate  change,  but

floods and low temperatures did not.

Even high­temperature episodes do not

consistently  strengthen  environmental­

ism. Instead, the effect is limited to specif­

ic  contexts.  It  is  greatest  in  the  temperate

and  colder  regions  of  northern  and  west­

ern  Europe,  and  mostly  absent  in  the  arid

Mediterranean  basin.  One  possible  expla­

nation  is  that  southern  Europeans  are  al­

ready used to hot weather, and may be less

perturbed by extreme heatwaves. They are

also more likely to have air conditioning.

Another  source  of  variation  is  income.

In  rich  parts  of  the  eu,  such  as  Brussels,

votes  for  green  parties  tend  to  surge  fol­

lowing  high  temperatures.  No  such  in­

crease  occurs  in  poor  areas  like  western

Bulgaria,  where  green  parties  are  uncom­

petitive  regardless  of  recent  weather.  For

families struggling to put bread on theta­

ble,  worrying  about  the  fate  of  the  planet

decades hence might seem like a luxury.n

In rich, chilly parts of Europe,
heatwaves bolster environmentalism

20

15

10

5

0

2000 05 10 1915

Eastern

WesternEurope

Northern

Southern

500km

Russia

Ukraine

Belarus

Norway

Tu r ke y

France

Britain

Ire.

E

Spain

Portugal

-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

←Lowershare Highershare→

0 1.00.80.60.40.2

Dry

Hot

Cold

Wet

Weather

Statistically

significant

95%confidence

→ Extreme weather is most helpful to green political parties in northern and western Europe

Impactofabnormalheat*onvoteshareforgreenparties†
Standarddeviations,controllingforlocalincomelevelsandclimate

Green parties’ vote share in elections

for the European Parliament, %

Change in green parties’ vote share† after

one-standard-deviation increase*, % points

*One standard deviation from long-term monthly average

†European Parliament, 1994-219 Sources: “Climate change

experiences raise environmental concerns and promote green

voting”, by R. Hoffmann et al., Nature Climate Change, 222