Both New York and Seattle are in the process of electing their Mayors. Because these cities are very liberal, the key election to watch for is the Democratic primary. Unless something unexpected were to occur between now and November, the candidate winning the Democratic primary will become the next Mayor.
In both cities, Mayor hopefuls are focusing on crime, policing, and homelessness. Climate change does not seem to be on their agendas. Why is this surprising?
Across the world, cities are the central nodes in climate politics. After all, they account for about 70% of carbon emissions. Cities will also face the brunt of climate impacts, such as an influx of climate refugees, water crisis, sea-level rise, electricity blackouts, and the heat island effect. Moreover, climate justice, which is driving climate discussions, is particularly relevant for cities given their extreme income inequality and higher exposure of low-income communities to climate risks.
This is why climate issues should dominate urban politics and, at a superficial level, they do. In the United States, cities have sought to proclaim themselves as climate leaders. Many Mayors opposed the US withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement. Cities including Seattle and New York have joined global climate initiatives such as C40 Cities, Resilient Cities, and Climate Mayors. For international audiences, American cities represent the beacon of hope for US climate action.
But local politics reveals a different story. Climate issues are barely mentioned in Mayoral primaries. No major candidate is running predominantly on a climate platform, although most have probably checked off the climate box in their election manifestos. Of course, one might say that it is less relevant what politicians say; what is more critical is what they do. This is a fair point, but campaign rhetoric is important in shaping the policy agenda. If politicians do not see climate talk winning them votes, why will they think that climate walk with get them political payoffs, if they were to be elected.
Mayoral Elections in New York and Seattle
New York (especially the borough of Queens) is considered among the most vulnerable U.S. cities to sea-level rise. Hurricane Sandy reminded New Yorkers of how extreme weather events can severely impact their city. Moving beyond infrequent hurricanes, many New York neighborhoods regularly suffer from the heat island effect, which will worsen with climate change. However, for New Yorkers, crime, not climate change, is the key local issue.
Seattle is holding its Mayoral primary on August 2. The city has recently experienced an unprecedented heatwave (and no rain for 45 days, and counting!). Yet, when asked, “What policies do you want to see Seattle’s next Mayor implement to improve the health of the city?”, 68% of respondents ranked homelessness on the top, followed by police reform (18%), improving public safety and tackling crime (17%), bringing down housing costs (13%), and increasing police support (10%). Only 5% saw climate policy as the top issue for the next Mayor.
Why do Urban Politicians Ignore Climate Change?
Politicians facing competitive elections respond to issues that have two features: they impact voters’ quality of life in the short run and voters believe that the city government has the tools to address them.
Think of a failed response to snowstorms. The inability to clear roads quickly cost Chicago Mayor Mike Bilandic reelection in 1979. Denver’s Mayor William McNichols experienced a similar voter backlash in 1982, Seattle’s Mayor Greg Nickels in 2009. In these cases, residents blamed the city government, not the state or the federal government for the failed response. For them, the buck stopped with the Mayor.
Climate issues are disadvantaged here. Climate-induced problems either do not appear to spread chaos across the city in the short run, or voters do not blame the city government for failing to tackle them.
Take the case of climate mitigation policies, where cities have sought international recognition for their efforts. Do they have electoral payoffs? Probably not. The reason is that even residents who deeply care about climate issues probably recognize that the actions of a single city cannot affect global outcomes. For reference, New York city accounts for about 0.15% of global carbon emissions. Thus, it is unlikely the electorate would punish or reward the Mayor for climate mitigation policy (unless it is connected with, say, local pollution or public health outcomes that directly affect the residents).
Could climate adaptation, with its local focus, be different? After all, city governments have the ability to address local issues such as the heat island effect and provide protection or relief from floods. The response is: it depends on when the policy is announced and how it is communicated.
Consider Seattle that, according to weather forecasts, will experience a second heat wave this weekend. Imagine Seattle Mayoral hopefuls holding a press conference in low-income neighborhoods with low tree cover to talk about their plans to counter heat island effect. This is how politicians could show that they are solving current problems even as they promote proactive policies. And if politicians do not show this initiative, climate groups should hold community events and invite them to share their climate plans.
Even climate mitigation can be framed as solving urgent local problems. The tendency is to talk about mitigation in terms of a moral responsibility to ensure that global temperatures do not increase beyond 1.5° C. Rather, mitigation policy could be made politically appealing if it is framed in terms of reducing local co-pollutants and respiratory diseases. Here as well, if politicians do not show climate entrepreneurship, climate groups should demand that they articulate their position.
Urban voters will support local climate action if they experience concrete local climate problems and recognize that the city government can solve them. This is where climate groups should invest their efforts. Absent such local focus, politicians will either ignore climate issues or indulge in symbolic politics catering to international audiences.