Climate change: the areas which voted Trump are 'substantially more vulnerable' than those won by Clinton'

From earlier this month:

As can be seen from the map there are winners (shown in green) and losers (in red) from climate change. The scale shows the total economic damage as a percentage of county GDP. Since the colors show damage, negative values are desirable and positive values undesirable.

While global warming may bring a slight net benefit for Milwaukee, the United States as a whole loses. In addition to reducing the American economy as a whole, it would make inequality worse. As a whole the counties losing the most are already poorer than the gainers.

In political terms there is an irony to this geographic distribution. One might expect that states and regions that are likely to suffer the most from global warming would elect governors and legislators who are most supportive of efforts to reverse its causes. Yet it is clear from the most recent elections that the opposite is the case: those states likely to be hardest hit tend to elect climate change deniers.

To further explore the issue of whether political office-holders protect their supporters, I calculated the average predicted damage percentages for counties won by Hillary Clinton versus those won by Donald Trump. The Trump-won counties are substantially more vulnerability than those won by Clinton, mostly reflecting their preponderance in the South.

Data Wonk: Who Wins From Global Warming? » Urban Milwaukee

The picture is pretty clear:
How Despair Helped Drive Trump to Victory - ineteconomics
Clinton Rally Focuses on Climate - Scientific American
A Running List of How President Trump Is Changing Environmental Policy - National Geographic
.
.
.