In the woods of central New Hampshire, Martha Carlson has a 60-acre “sugar bush” where she produces maple syrup. Carlson is part of an iconic industry that brings millions of dollars to the state each year, and she tends forests that help attract nearly $300 million worth of fall foliage tourism. Yet in the past few years, she has seen the sap season growing shorter and leaves sparser. There are fewer crisp nights to fuel the brilliant red of autumn. Even more alarming to Carlson: the syrup is less sweet. Her research found that the decline in sweetness parallels the rise in temperature since 1970–a rise linked to climate change.
“Anyone can look at a picture of the polar bear, but what does [climate change] look like in my backyard with my animals and my plants?” Carlson asked. The state’s scientists are exploring those questions, and some predict that maple forests will move 300 miles north in coming decades.
Carlson is just one of many Granite State residents feeling the sting of climate change. Whether it’s the local ski industry that lost $54.3 million in low-snow years or the communities hit by severe storms requiring 12 FEMA “major disaster declarations” in the past decade, New Hampshirites are experiencing firsthand what climate change can do to their homes and livelihoods.
Yet none of the Republican presidential candidates arriving for the state’s primary are addressing these challenges. And not one of them champions the progress New Hampshire has made in reducing climate change pollution and its expanding clean energy economy. Instead, they either deny the existence of climate change or vow to block, rollback, and prevent climate measures across the country.
That won’t sit well with most New Hampshire residents. According to a January poll, more than 60 percent of the state’s voters favor the EPA’s new carbon pollution limits. And GOP pollster American Viewpoint found that Republican primary voters in New Hampshire want presidential candidates to maintain or strengthen national environmental safeguards.
While the GOP candidates passing through the Granite State ignore the climate challenge, many residents are rolling up their sleeves and doing something about it. New Hampshire’s Seacoast region, for instance, is a major economic engine for the state, home to aerospace industries, manufacturers, tourist businesses and commercial fishing. Yet residents have already seen an increase in flooding, and rising seas will only increase the threat.
Several towns have started using regional climate assessments to prepare infrastructure for higher waters. Kim Reed, the Rye town planning and zoning administrator, said, “In Rye, it is not an option to ignore the effects of the changing climate. If we don’t do anything, it may hurt the community.”
Even as New Hampshire towns become more resilient, the state is also tackling climate change at its root. In 2006, New Hampshire helped launch the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative to reduce power plant pollution across nine northeastern states. The program has cut carbon pollution by one-third while saving people $1.5 billion on utility bills, creating more than 22,000 additional jobs and bringing $2.9 billion in additional economic benefit to the region.
New Hampshire also has a renewable energy standard that will ensure the state gets 24.8 percent of electricity from wind, solar and other clean power resources. And many Granite State businesses are investing in climate solutions, from Timberland to Stonyfield, Worthen Industries to Smuttynose Brewing Company.
Local action like this is important, but to paraphrase climate denier Marco Rubio, New Hampshire is not a planet. Each one of the Republican contenders for the White House has attacked similar climate action on the national and international level, from carbon limits to clean energy incentives. Both Democratic candidates, meanwhile, support the kind of progress that New Hampshire is making–the kind that will help keep the maple syrup sweet and the state strong for generations to come.