I bet you can feel it, can’t you? The heatwave that often occurs in the summer, the fact that rains don’t come in drizzles anymore but a torrential downpour that becomes floods, the significantly rising sea level, and the staggering amount of coral reefs that died due to ocean acidification. Much has been written about the environmental implications of climate change and yet the horror of it is still rather hard to grasp for many people, particularly conservative Republicans. What is it about climate change that presents itself as one of the biggest security threat and yet its implications are often simply ignored? Politics play a vital role in addressing these issues and with denial Republicans at the top chain of command, it is highly unlikely that humanity will yet respond in a meaningful way to avert disaster. If the signs are that obvious, why do people with mere different political beliefs could react in such a different manner? It is my personal opinion that there are many political ‘incentives’ as well as significant difference in the way of thinking of a liberal democrats and conservative republicans.
It is no secret that the Republican party relies heavily on fossil fuel companies as the main funding for their campaigns. These industries are pursuing a strategic action as they try to maximize profits and eliminate potential threats. Republican party finds itself in a perfectly apt position where supply meets demand and sustainability is taken out of the equation. The Trump administrations have been challenged several times of colluding with the fossil fuel companies to suppress climate change warnings. Indeed, climate change is a gradual process that doesn’t present itself vividly enough for people to act upon it. However, that is not the case here. Political incentives from the ‘Big Oil’ play a much greater role regarding the actors’ action or inaction about climate change policy even though the individuals involved very much acknowledge the existence of these environmental hazards. This is the ‘denial’ that is prevalent among the republicans who choose to believe that there is no problem; thus, there is no need for questions regarding the issue or how to solve them. Given that we live in a capitalist-dominant era, the highest bidder will always earn its place in the decision-making process. This argument is evident in the recent dramatic shift of the direction of U.S environmental regulations in which Trump once again uses his bizarre rhetoric to dismantle environmental regulations and refer to this as a measure to promote energy independence, targets a slew of environmental measures, etc. Summing up, republicans deny anthropogenic climate change because that is mutually beneficial for them and their campaign contributors. As Christopher Wright argued, these profit-seeking interest groups only “magnifies a common narrative: a social imaginary of capitalist ‘rationality’ and ‘efficiency’, of human mastery over nature.”
The repercussion of the politics in 1990s might also contribute to the increasingly polarized views of democrats and republicans. At the time, U.S media outlets were starting to recognize the hazards of global warming and anthropogenic climate change due to the heatwave and droughts that occurred. This poses threats to the republicans that just started building alliance with the fossil fuel industries which triggers an attack and skepticism towards global warming from the congressional republicans in 1990s. In 1997, Bill Clinton, a democrat signed the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement that focuses on reducing greenhouse gases. The political atmosphere at the time were heated with heavy resistance towards movement on global warming treaty, inducing uncertainty and political instability amongst the society. Ideological struggles reinforced differences in belief and political action, therefore the party members. Hence, such decision influenced strong democrats to direct their attention to climate change and view it as a real problem whereas the opposing party reacts otherwise. It is common to see party members respond positively to ideological prompts from elected leaders that comes from their party and negatively to ideological cues from opposing party members. When a republican president declares climate change as a ‘hoax’, it encourages bias and differences in values among the society.
Indeed, the most effective way to change the Republicans’ view of man-made climate change is to remove the incentive itself, that is the fossil fuel industries. Regardless, we know that this is not a viable option in our capitalist-driven economy. With such strong denials, perhaps the horror of climate change can only be communicated through the individual’s personal experience that evoke a sense of pathos towards our common home. I’m talking about directly experiencing a massive flood/drought, earthquakes, landslides or losing a loved one in one of these instances. It is almost always a dead-end to change the views of these strong climate change deniers. Why? One might ask. Well, because the universal truth implies that humans are consistently ‘rational’ and self-interested being who always act in favor of himself, which brings me to my next point.
It seems that the idea and policies surrounding ‘climate change’ brings forth some sort of negative connotation to it. An example would be carbon tax. As the name itself suggests, bears two of the most detested terms in the industrialized west. Barry Rabe, a professor of Public Policy at University of Michigan conducted a survey about carbon tax. He and his team asked a number of people how they would feel about carbon tax and the result is as expected. There were strong oppositions about that policy. Then, they rephrased the question and said that the revenue will be used for the government to reduce nation’s deficit. The public opinions shifted a little. However, when they ask the question in the context of revenue neutrality such as reducing individual taxes in other sectors dollar per dollar, the public opinions began to shift substantially. It can be concluded that the rhetoric of climate change poses a noteworthy indication that explains why Republicans deny it so much. Barry Rabe in one of his publications titled, Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy remarked, “Conventional wisdom holds that a carbon tax is a political non-starter.” It is hard to refute that statement because it’s part of human nature to be self-interested beings and they would favor a policy where the benefits to them are tangible and obvious such as oil. I also think that many climate change policies heavily focus on the scientific and social standpoint but are still lacking a foundation in terms of coherent and adequate economic analysis. Therefore, climate change advocates need to take a different approach in order to make it more appealing to the republicans.
Summing up, it is evident that the political orientations in the U.S have become a strong foundation for some people in terms of applying and expressing their knowledge; although, it should be the other way around. The reason behind this varies a lot, ranging from political incentives, aftereffect of past political history, etc. Now, the million dollar question is: what can we do?
Emphasizing climate change across the U.S curriculum can be a starting point for the next generation of leaders, be it Democrats or Republicans. I think it is terrible that the issue of climate change has become politicized and twisted in such a way that many people merely see this as another political agenda rather than a collective effort. Therefore, it is our generation that has been bequeathed with a legacy to tackle these obstacles. As we have embarked in a new epoch called the Anthropocene, it seems just appropriate to label ourselves as Generation A.
Works Cited
Wright, Christopher, and Daniel Nyberg. “Creative Self-destruction: Corporate Responses to Climate Change as Political Myths.” Environmental Politics 23.2 (2013): 205-23. Web.
Rabe, Barry G., David Amdur, and Christopher Borick. “National Surveys on Energy and Environment.” Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy. N.p., July 2014. Web. 11 Apr. 2017.