The United States of America is an impressively diverse country, with citizens originating from all over the world, involved in all sorts of trades and professions.  So I’m wondering, then, what makes certain parts of the nation, like Massachusetts and California, so inclined to pursue ecologically-friendly climate policy and legislation, while much of the rest of the country protests it bitterly. 

My first inclination is to blame political alignments. After all, Massachusetts and California are two of the most firmly liberal places in the US. Both states allow same-sex marriage, and neither has cast electoral votes for a Republican candidate for president since 1988.  And despite the scientific facts that overwhelmingly reflect the existence of climate change, the politicization of the issue has led party leanings to be a very good indicator of willingness to take action on the global warming issue.

But I think the facts of politics in both states belie their reputations. Between 1991 and 2006, the governorship of Massachusetts was held by the Republican Party, and aside from currently being run by a Republican, California has a long history of producing influential politicians from both parties, from Ronald Reagan to Barbara Boxer.  

Instead, I think the two states’ willingness to doggedly pursue cleaner air, power, and vehicles stems from the fact that they are, compared to much of the rest of the country, very heavily affected by the negative impacts of a fossil-fuel-driven lifestyle. Californian cities, with their dependence on freeways and underdeveloped mass transit systems, are extremely susceptible to heavy smog, while all of Massachusetts, and indeed much of New England suffers ozone levels that are near constantly above the levels the EPA has recognized as safe.

Furthermore, each is squarely in the gunsight of the predicted negative effects of global warming. California’s current tinderbox conditions are only a sample of what may happen if global temperatures continue to rise, while summer conditions in Massachusetts will switch from their legendarily moderate variability to the consistent humid swelter seen in Southern states like South Carolina. 

This overlap of impact and concern seems also to play out across the rest of the nation. Iowa, hard hit by floods both this summer and in 1993, was one of the first states to adopt a biofuel standard. While recent research has shown this to be an ineffective carbon solution, the fact remains that the state was a pioneer in this regard. 

While there are doubtlessly other factors involved, from the aforementioned political situations, to the make-up of individual state economies, to historic dependence carbon-unfriendly practices, it’s clear the perceptibility of ground-level warming impacts drastically affect a locality’s willingness to act against those unfavorable climate changes.