Paul Doscher is a retired conservation professional who lives in Weare.
“Vote for your Future,” the sign said. I was driving through a nearby town and mostly paying no attention to the dozens of political signs littering the highway. That one caught my attention. I thought, “that’s a good idea.”
So how do I define my future? Is it the short term defined by two-year election terms? The next five years? Ten years? The lifetime of my children and grandchildren? Farther than that?
I’m guessing the candidates who suggested voting my future were thinking short-term. The near-term challenges of inflation, high energy prices, and perhaps the challenges to our democracy from extremism. I suspect I have a different perspective.
As one who worked for many years with foresters, my own span of time for future thinking isn’t that short-sighted. I’ve always respected the way that foresters can step beyond the normal human tendency to think only about the immediate future and imagine a future forest, decades or even longer into the future.
They ponder what the long-term effects will be of the trees they choose to harvest and those they choose to leave to grow. They know that often the benefits of their actions in the forest may not be realized until after they have retired or died. Today they also know that exotic invasive plant and pests along with climate change can undo their best plans and goals. They do the best they can to make a better forest, knowing that what they don’t know can result in an entirely different outcome than they hoped for.
So, when thinking of voting for my future, I try to think like a forester or others who look to try to understand what the long-term impacts of what we do today will have on future generations.
I’ve been a student of weather and climate since my college days, five decades ago. In the years since, I have made it a point to try to stay in touch with current scientific research in the field. Lately, it’s become impossible to keep up. But one current study caught my attention.
A UN report points out that just 26 of 193 countries that agreed to step up their climate actions last year have actually followed through. Without drastic reductions in emissions, the planet is on track to warm by an average of 2.1 to 2.9 degrees Celsius by 2100. That’s a period of time during which my children and grandchildren will face the consequences of the failure to act.
I won’t recite the dire impacts of that level of warming. There’s no need to repeat the scary facts in that regard. It’s sufficient to say that it is not a pretty picture.
So, yes, I will vote for my future, but more importantly, I will vote for my grandchildren’s future. I vote for a future that is prosperous, vibrant, equitable and where the natural world is thriving. Mine is a vote for rapid deployment of renewable energy, saving energy (and money) through energy efficiency, regenerative agriculture, and a host of other innovative strategies and technologies.
As the election looms, take a look at the proposals and policies of the candidates. Do they even mention climate change, or better yet, support the action needed to address it?
Sadly, when I looked at the websites of the numerous Republican candidates running for state and federal office in New Hampshire any mention of climate change, except for one, was absent. It’s one thing to have differing opinions about what to do to address the problem, but another to not acknowledge it even exists.
If climate change remains a partisan issue we are likely doomed to a dismal future. Solving this crisis of global proportions that will change the course of human history cannot be achieved until we find a way to agree on the facts and find solutions that address the climate without creating unintended consequences. Unless policymakers from all perspectives come together with that goal, success will elude us. Until then, we at least need to vote for candidates who will keep us focused on the issue.
Yes, vote for your future. But don’t forget about your children’s and grandchildren’s future.