Opinions

A divided country ignores climate change

In the 2016 election the GOP saw over a dozen candidates show interest in the presidency; however, only two of them — Bobby Jindal and John Kasich — believed in man-made climate change and thought it necessary to stop.

Meanwhile, the top two candidates during the first few months of the campaign, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, flat out denied that climate change was real and happening.

On the other side of the political spectrum, every single Democratic presidential candidate believes in climate change and feels that urgent action is necessary in order to prevent its progression.

Something that both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders had in common is that they proposed cutting billions of dollars in subsidies for fossil fuel divestment and instead invest in renewable, cleaner energy sources — such as solar power.

While America decides what to do about climate change may be widely agreed upon, climate change is still occurring regardless of debate. Until the disdain between the two major political ideologies in this country is resolved, pressing issues like climate change aren’t going to be solved in a timely fashion.

According to NASA’s climate change website, sea levels and global temperatures are rising, oceans are warming and ice sheets are shrinking. The fate of our planet seems to not only be overlooked in the world of politics, but when the climate change issue is addressed, the redundant divide between parties keeps any progress from being made.

As reported by an energy poll conducted by the University of Texas, 76 percent of Americans believe in climate change, a figure that has continued to increase since the poll results were released in Oct. 2015. Furthermore, as reported by an article titled “Republican Voters Evenly Split on Climate Change” by Jack Fitzpatrick for the Morning Consult, a figure of Republicans believe in climate change.

So, why is it that while the majority of the country believes climate change is pressing, the Republican Party continues to deny its existence and severity?

Before President Obama took office, taking action to stop climate change had bipartisan support from both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Prior to the 2008 election, two former speakers of the house – Republican Newt Gingrich and Democrat Nancy Pelosi – had a very prominent commercial which was part of the $300 million dollar ad campaign called, “We Can Solve It” launched by Al Gore. In this specific commercial, both speakers shared how important it was for the entire country to recognize the importance and the necessity of stopping climate change.

This marked a time when there was clear support from both parties on the issue — unlike in the present day election.

One of the major concerns that the Republican Party has regarding climate change is the economic impact that  environmental policy reform may have on the nation’s economy. They claim reform would threaten current utility and oil prices and damage the economy by discouraging current major energy businesses from working with the United States.

If you watched any of the Republican primary debates last September, you’ll notice that when it came to the issue of climate change, there were some fervent skeptics.

Marco Rubio, Chris Christie and Scott Walker all agreed that following a “liberal” approach toward preventing climate change would — as Rubio phrased it, “destroy the economy” and “make it harder to do business in America.”

The current position of GOP candidates toward climate change is that contrary to what NASA’s researchers state: it’s not man-made.

If GOP candidates were to acknowledge the issue as a serious threat, they would give capitalists the opportunity to try and fix it.

This argument is a poignant one aimed at people who are worried about making ends meet. Oil is far more abundant than we are led to believe. According to an article titled “Energy Scarcity” for semi-monthly conservative magazine, National Review, oil has never been scarce and remains in staggering abundance.

Other than the economic argument, Republicans like Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina and Donald Trump all point to China and note that whatever environmental changes we make here are going to be undone by the incredibly lax regulations in China. For those unaware, one of the reasons China is able to out-manufacture the U.S. is  because they are not held to the stringent American environmental standards.  

As for the disparity in emissions standards between China and the U.S., America is in a tough position. American business wants to take advantage of the cheap manufacturing that their country is currently capable of, but American government also wants them to reduce their emissions and increase regulations. Having our cake and eating it too is going to be hard over the next few decades.

Debate between Republicans and Democrats has become so intense that the Republican party has split from one of its own chief luminaries.

What might be surprising is that the Republican Party has faced similar concerns before, under the Reagan administration. George Schultz, Reagan’s Secretary of State was convinced by scientists that the ozone layer was rapidly depleting, and according to recent information from NASA’s Global Climate Change website, “we [humans] punched a hole in it.”

Schultz’s revelation helped coerce Reagan to create significant regulations in cooperation with a large company that had heavy involvement in chemical production – Du Pont, which would later become the basis of the Montreal protocol.

There’s no denying politics have never been as divisive as they are now. According to studies published by both Voteview and the Washington Post, the average party member view on the Liberal-Conservative dimension has never been farther apart. This greater separation in ideology proves that the divide in this country has grown too wide for us to be effective at solving problems of this scale as we once were.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Daily 49er newsletter

Instagram