I work in forestry. I feel torn as a voter between my livelihood and climate action 

This First Person column is the experience of Sager Bradley, who lives in Nanaimo, B.C. For more information about CBC’s First Person stories, please see the FAQ. 

I stood out on a dock overlooking Quesnel Lake in the B.C. Interior, wondering if it was safe to be there. 

Lightning was striking the hillside just across the lake and the concussion from the thunder was deafening. My skin was shivering, probably more from fear and excitement than the cold. Earlier that day, it had been well above 25 degrees. 

As an island boy working my first job in forestry, I was not used to visible lightning — just white sheets flashing in the sky followed by a distant boom. 

The next day, I was up before dawn to get to work before it got too hot. I hopped into a small aluminum crew boat with five other people, and we crossed the lake’s north arm. Our job was to get the far side of the lake ready for timber harvesting. 

After finishing our work for the day, we returned to the beach — and got our first look at exactly where the lightning had hit the night before. Smoke was billowing out from the hillside.  

For the rest of that summer, we continued working on one side of the lake while firefighters attacked the wildfire on the other. At lunch, we would sit in a clearing and watch helicopters drop water on the growing blaze. 

I remember thinking it was ironic: the world was literally on fire, but I was still out there designing cutblocks and planning where logging activities would take place later that year — because that’s what I was paid to do. 

Seven years later, I see wildfires are an ever more frequent occurrence, especially with climate change making the summers hotter and drier. 

This is where my confusion about the upcoming election comes in. 

Given my line of work, I see the dangers of climate change. Forestry can help, but I must decide which is more important: my bottom line or the climate.

My mother always told me to leave something in a better condition than when I found it and I want to take this approach for the climate. I’d like to reduce my personal carbon footprint and live the granola way. This means to drive less, reduce my waste and care for the planet.

But if I’m being honest, I’d like to have more money, buy nice clothes and a house, and go on vacations. By voting on the right, I’ll be able to afford those things, especially since Conservative governments have traditionally supported resource development.

I worry that a Conservative government would take little action on climate change. 

Forests have the ability to sequester carbon from the atmosphere and store it — as living, growing ecosystems, or as wood for building houses. But the political landscape is not conducive to bringing carbon into the equation. 

Look at the carbon tax, a policy that was generally well written, committing action to carbon emissions, but was squandered in implementation and socially not accepted. 

As part of my job, I work to take care of the environment, promote carbon markets and look for ways to make society flourish — all at the same time. But it’s not easy.

Be it professionally or personally, there is a trade-off between climate action and more money in my pocket. Trees can reduce the impacts of climate change by pulling carbon from the atmosphere, but also provide materials for making homes. Both of these are great opportunities.

The process of determining which forest areas to harvest is complex. The first step is to ensure that we aren’t harvesting more than what is growing back. A simple scenario might look like this: if it takes 100 years to grow a tree and we have 100 trees, then we can harvest a single tree each year. 

But in the real world, this becomes more difficult. Different environments grow trees at different rates. Some areas can’t be harvested due to natural or cultural constraints, such as wildlife habitats or community parks. 

The most recent complication is climate change, which has increased fires, droughts, growth rates, seedling die-offs, pests and much more. 

Each of these real-world complexities reduce or change which trees can be harvested and when. 

Canada has one of the biggest forests in the world, we are one of the wealthiest countries and we have a huge opportunity to work with nature to protect communities. 

For the upcoming election, I am not looking for any specific climate solution — there are numerous ways that could work — but I am looking for a party that will raise it in the agenda and wants action. 

We are not going to find a silver bullet, but we are in a climate crisis. I’ve come to realize it’s about more than my bank balance.

Sacrifices need to be made now, or else things will become more costly and worse in the future.  

The economic impact of climate change is seen directly by the money that’s spent fighting fires or cleaning up floods. This money, which could be used to improve health care or education, is instead being spent cleaning up the fallout from our pollution.

I know that life will continue no matter what direction we take the climate in. The difference between climate action and allowing emissions at free will is whether we want to live in a world with smoky skies every summer, knowing that the natural world is failing — or one where we are made responsible for our carbon emissions.

Personally, I want to live in a world that makes people accountable for their pollution, where I can see blue skies in August, and my children will know the value of nature. 

What’s the one issue that matters the most to you in this federal election? CBC News will publish a range of perspectives from voters who share the personal experience shaping their choice at the ballot box. Read more First Person columns related to the election here.