By Emily Embleton, Emergency Management Communications Analyst
On the last Friday of every month, a handful of climate activists stand outside of City Hall in Florence, Oregon, demanding that the council declare and subsequently act on a citywide state of emergency due to climate change. This group is known as the Florence Climate Emergency Campaign, boasting 141 Facebook members and roughly 7-15 monthly protestors. They have been protesting regularly since July 2019, when founder Michael Allen’s request to the city council to formally address climate change was dismissed.
I was informed about these monthly protestors before moving to Florence. A friend shared a newspaper article about them with me the month before I moved, telling me to “get excited to make some waves” down in Florence; and I was. I was excited to see that there were peaceful and progressive protests happening there, excited to witness political action and change in a small town, excited to be a part of it all! Yet, I wasn’t aloof to the reality of my situation; while Portland may have garnered Oregon quite the liberal reputation, this state is vast, and within that vastness is a lot of small, conservative towns. Florence would be no exception, but perhaps more “politically balanced” than I had originally assumed.
But of course, the other end of the political spectrum made its presence extremely well known. It was evident in the jacked-up trucks around town and the “Trump 2024” stickers, in the man who condescendingly assumed I was the city’s new secretary. But none of that really bothered me. I pride myself on living outside of my own political bubble, striving towards depolarization as a means of communal healing particularly in rural areas. My new job working in emergency management served me in that regard. The only agenda I have is one to promote actions and policies that keep our community safe in the event of a disaster. My input, especially as a city employee, is apolitical, solely focused on improving public safety. Or so I thought.
A little more than a month into my service, I attended a city council meeting to approve Lane County’s Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP). To my left was Michael Allen, who has attended nearly every city council meeting since his request for a declaration of a citywide state of climate emergency had been denied 4 years ago. At each meeting he provides public commentary on the importance of recognizing climate change and actions he wishes the city would take to address and mitigate its impacts. At this particular meeting, his allotted time came after the assistant city manager’s presentation on the new HMP. Allen took to the stand, paper in hand, and applauded the city for participating in Lane County’s mitigation efforts, citing the increased likelihood of natural disasters as climate change worsens. I was happy to hear such positive feedback in place of his usual list of the city’s environmental failings. But when I looked past Allen, Mayor Rob Ward looked less happy.
Before voting to approve the plan could commence, Mayor Ward took a moment to address the public comment. He announced that he would not vote to approve any motion that so much as mentions the words climate change. My heart dropped. Michael Allen shook his head and looked down at his lap, whispering “oh my god… oh my GOD” over and over. I couldn’t believe what I had just heard. I didn’t expect Mayor Ward to be a champion of or even believer in climate change, but I did (and do) expect him to make sound decisions to keep his community safe. That’s his job, isn’t it? I began to worry. What if he voted not to approve the Hazard Mitigation Plan because of this? Thoughts whirled through my head: the City would be ineligible to receive FEMA funding without an updated HMP; our community wouldn’t directly benefit from mitigation projects funded by the county through the HMP; we’re already underfunded and lacking capacity.
As my mind began to spin, sizing up the potential severity of this issue, the city manager and assistant city manager sprang in to action. They assured the mayor that this HMP had nothing to do with climate change, that Allen was just mentioning climate in relation to natural hazards, that approving this plan would not result in any direct environmental action. Their responses appeased him, and voting commenced. Thankfully, the motion passed, and the City of Florence formally adopted Lane County’s Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Despite the ultimate success of the meeting, I was left troubled. I couldn’t believe the mayor would endanger his community because of his beliefs. In one fell swoop, the illusion of my job’s apolitical nature had been shattered, leaving behind broken bits of a political agenda I was hoping to avoid. But I could no longer deny the political nature of emergency management. I was overcome with truths I’d known but hadn’t properly assessed yet in my new position:
- Climate change impacts the rate and severity of natural disasters
- The impacts of climate change dictate the best practices for mitigation
- Financial support for human services is essential to communal preparedness
So, I began to reframe the way I think about my job and emergency management as a whole. “Progressive ideals” like acknowledging climate change, investing in community services, and engaging in mutual aid are inherently part of this field. My professional support for these ideals is not because I’m some tree-hugging liberal (which, granted, I am), but because acting on these values is essential to effective emergency management. This realization elated me. As someone who adamantly supports political depolarization through finding common ground, this may be the perfect field for me.
Everyone values their safety. Everyone wants their community to be prepared for disasters beyond our control. Public safety is the common ground from which I can build on. My job isn’t to convince you climate change is real; my job is to keep people safe. There are actions we can take to prepare our communities for a disaster, and I want us to implement them for the SOLE PURPOSE of public safety. If people want to shut down these actions due to their beliefs, that is their political agenda getting in the way of their communities’ livelihoods. In this way, I have found emergency management to be an avenue to encourage ethical policies through a lens of public safety. Public safety in emergency management unites all political parties and ideologies under one unified goal: keep the community safe. We may differ on how to go about doing this, but we are one step closer to cross-political collaboration when we can work together to determine the best steps forward for our community. And in doing so, we are revitalizing the communal heart of rural America that has been bleeding dry as we grow more and more polarized. Leave personal political agendas at the door, for in here lives are at stake, and we must do whatever we can to keep our communities safe.
