This is undoubtedly one of the most frequently asked questions at the moment: what can individuals do, on their own scale, to tackle the scale of the global warming problem? What action has the greatest impact in reducing CO2 emissions? Going vegan? Stopping flying? Recycle? Buy carbon offsets? And what about our participation in the democratic life of our country? In 2021, three researchers published a study assessing the responsibility of Canadian citizens in reducing CO2 emissions when they decide to vote for a candidate who supports strong climate action.
What is the carbon footprint of the candidates?
Seth Wynes, lead author of the article, explains the purpose of the study: “If I want to know how much emissions I save by switching from a combustion engine vehicle to an electric vehicle, I can easily find that out; the same goes for buying more efficient refrigerators or switching to a vegan diet. But what will happen if I vote for a particular candidate? We have no idea. It’s disappointing that no one has ever tried to measure this.”
Based on the observation that there is currently no way to measure the impact of a vote on CO2 emissions reduction, the authors set themselves the challenge of estimating voters’ responsibility. They based their analysis on the 2019 Canadian elections, where the parties were clearly divided on the issue of climate change. On one side, the Conservative Party wanted to cancel the carbon tax and enact policies contrary to the advice of climate experts. On the other, the Liberal Party (the winner) and three other parties wanted to implement policies designed to reduce CO2 emissions.
An analysis of the platforms of the two leading parties concluded that, by 2030, Canada would emit 100 million tons (Mt) less CO2 per year under a Liberal-led government, representing 14% of the country’s emissions in 2021. This estimate would result in a cumulative total of 612 Mt by 2030 and a total of 192 Mt for this election, while retaining the projected emissions reductions that would be achieved over 3.4 years (the average length of a term in Canada).
What is the carbon footprint for voters?
To estimate voters’ responsibility for emissions, researchers divided total emissions among the 338 electoral districts that elect members of Parliament and assigned equal responsibility to each registered voter in those districts. This resulted in a median value over one year of a reduction of 6.7 tons of CO2 (equivalent) emissions per registered voter. This estimate assigns responsibility to registered voters who did not vote and to those whose chosen candidate did not win in their district.
To take this further, they also distributed the emission reductions expected following the election only among the winning electoral districts. These are the districts where the Liberal Party or another party promoting climate policies was elected. Emissions in each winning electoral district are then distributed only to those who voted for the winning candidate. In this approach, the median winning voter is responsible for a reduction of 34.2 tons of CO2, while voters in the most influential electoral district are responsible for a reduction of 228.7 tons of CO2.
After comparing these results with other “green actions,” voting would be 14 times more impactful than giving up driving, 21 times more impactful than giving up transatlantic flights, 43 times more impactful than following a vegetarian diet, and 171 times more impactful than recycling!
Who to vote for?
In a second, more probabilistic approach, the researchers studied the rationality for a citizen to choose to donate to a “pro-climate” election campaign rather than purchase carbon offsets. They conclude that supporting a campaign can be more effective in terms of CO2 reduction than private investments.
Regarding the study, the researchers specify: “The case studies serve as illustrative examples and should not be considered accurate estimates of the climate impact of voting. The cost of obtaining a vote in a campaign will always vary depending on the specifics of the campaign in question. In the future, we may have a better understanding of how this value changes in different circumstances. Nevertheless, the case studies suggest that individuals’ responsibility for emissions in the context of elections may be comparable to their responsibility for emissions in their daily lives.”
If the study had been conducted in France, the results would undoubtedly be different. Nevertheless, voting and helping to elect politicians who take the ecological crisis seriously and try to remedy it is a more important “eco-gesture” than we might think. Admittedly, there are not necessarily candidates in the elections who take the ecological crisis seriously AND at the same time defend the values that many Christians identify with. Nevertheless, we invite you not to neglect the power of your vote, to inform yourself and to pray to know which candidate to vote for…and why not consider running in the next election?
Source: Bloomberg, May 23, 2022