There was a time, not so long ago, when both sides of the political spectrum in the U.S. agreed that climate change represented a serious long-term threat. Unfortunately, as the runway for averting the worst effects has shortened, polarization has turned this into a "nakedly partisan issue" to the point where rational discussion too often devolves into shouting. That worries me profoundly. So — to reassure skeptics that this isn't just a "woke" issue — I thought I'd point out some key constituents who raise alarms about the danger of climate change and are far from the "lunatic left tree-hugger" stereotype so easily dismissed when this subject arises.

Actuaries are not alarmists or activists: they're literally the data scientists / statisticians entrusted to analyze and quantify business risk. They dedicate their professional lives to empowering business leaders to make sound financial decisions, based on the weight of accumulated evidence. Here is what the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries has to say on the subject of climate change, as of  the beginning of this year:

The global economy could face a 50% loss in GDP between 2070 and 2090 unless immediate policy action on risks posed by the climate crisis is taken... Current climate targets accept large amounts of largely unrecognised nature and societal risk. This includes accepting triggering multiple tipping points where climate change thresholds, once crossed, may be irreversible and limit our ability to control climate change. There is currently no realistic plan in place to avoid this scenario.

Wildland firefighters are, I think we can all agree, courageous individuals who throw themselves into harm's way to protect the lives, homes, and property of people in vulnerable communities from coast to coast. These brave first responders risk everything to try to keep us safe, and they've had no way to avoid the reality of more frequent and more massive wildfires. Here is a quote from a member of the IAFC’s Wildland Fire Policy Committee:

What we are finding is that the traditional six- or eight-week season in any particular area that may have the highest risk, that’s now spread out over 12 weeks or 6 months... So when you increase those seasons and increase the overlap between those seasons, it stresses the resources even further because we are used to sort of moving them around and kind of sharing them. Now we are doubling and tripling the demand for premium resources (e.g., the management teams or large air tankers); there are just not enough of them.

The American military is one of the few institutions in our nation — possibly the only one — still viewed positively by a majority of citizens. The military has long identified climate change as one of the major global threats to U.S. national security. Here, for example, is a relevant quote from President Donald Trump's first Secretary of Defense:

Climate change can be a driver of instability and the Department of Defense must pay attention to potential adverse impacts generated by this phenomenon... I agree that the effects of a changing climate — such as increased maritime access to the Arctic, rising sea levels, desertification, among others — impact our security situation... Climate change is a challenge that requires a broader, whole-of government response.

And, to provide even more context from the right side of the political divide... we can probably agree that Elon Musk — President Trump's most generous financial backer during the 2024 campaign and the impetus behind DOGE — is certainly not a "left-wing extremist." Musk has warned of the dangers of continued fossil fuel dependence for decades. Here are two relevant quotes from Mr. Musk on the topic:

The overarching purpose of Tesla Motors (and the reason I am funding the company) is to help expedite the move from a mine-and-burn hydrocarbon economy towards a solar electric economy, which I believe to be the primary, but not exclusive, sustainable solution. ( https://www.tesla.com/secret-master-plan )

And:

If we wait and delay the change, the best case is simply delaying the inevitable transition to sustainable energy. This is the best case if we don’t take action now. The worst case, however, is more displacement and destruction than all the wars in history combined. These are the best and worst case scenarios. This is why I call it the dumbest experiment in history. ( https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-on-climate-change-2015-12 )

Anecdotally, I can confirm that we in the upper Midwest are experiencing the pain of a changing climate quite directly. This summer, we've suffered through a relentless series of 90+ degree days, exacerbated by suffocating humidity that pushes the heat index toward triple digits. Many areas of Michigan are enduring drought conditions punctuated by extreme rainfall events that flood our streets and rivers. And, of course, we've wrestled with numerous air quality alerts due to Canadian wildfire smoke pushing our cities into the "worst in the world" category for particulate pollution. For our most vulnerable and impacted — farmers, outdoor workers, the elderly, people afflicted with respiratory illnesses — the specter of global warming is impossible to ignore.

Politically these days, I feel like a man without a country. I'm a firm independent, disillusioned with both major parties, and sick of the "demonize the other side and refuse to compromise" approach. How did we get here? I grew up in a home with a Republican dad and a Democrat mom who loved each other and agreed on key issues far more than they disagreed. At minimum, they agreed on facts. With siloed news sources and toxic social media algorithms, we're now in a place where, if the "other side" says X, we automically say Y and refuse to consider evidence that contradicts that position. Climate change is far too serious a challenge for half of us to dismiss it as a hoax because "our team says so." Heck, even the fossil fuel companies themselves funded research that warned of the dangers of global warming and internally acknowledged the risks all the way back in the 1950s. (Of course, they then proceeded to copy the tobacco industry's playbook and publicly deny everything; we shouldn't wait for our planet to get lung cancer before we call their bluff.)

People of good faith can strongly disagree about which policies are best to deal with climate change. How quickly can we shift away from fossil fuels without cratering our economy and harming vulnerable people? Those are the debates we absolutely should have. But we're far past the point where we should still be arguing about whether global warming is a hoax. In the real world, people who can't ignore the impacts — like insurance actuaries, wildland firefighters, and our military planners —are sounding an alarm that leaders of every political stripe need to hear.