Essay: How divided opinions on climate change frustrates progress

The human population’s unnatural acceleration of global warming has the potential to yield quite disastrous and widespread effects. Global warming is an important issue because it will deliver consequences to anyone and anything living on Earth. However, people who have the most influence on this issue cannot seem to meet and discuss the issue at the same level of stasis.
Anyone living on the planet will be affected by climate change in some way or another. After all, the planet’s health is at stake. However, there are some people who will be affected more than others. For example, those of low socio-economic status living in coastal towns are especially threatened because it is likely that their house may endure a significant amount of severe weather such as flooding and hurricanes. Additionally, their yearly low-income rate will make these effects on their homes even more disastrous, as it will be far harder for them to recover from severe natural disasters. For example, it was extremely difficult for those affected by 2005’s Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans to recover. Some parts of the city are still damaged and have never been restored, even 13 years later. The hurricane “killed an estimated 1,200 people and caused more than $100 billion in damage,” according to Andrea Thompson of Climate Central. Gloria Walton of The Huffington Post tells the story of her mother, a Katrina survivor. Walton explains that her “mother earned less than $11 an hour. She didn’t have the means to fix the house after the [hurricane] water receded and mold spread through it like a mile-a-minute weed, so she lost the house to foreclosure.” Walton continued, “it will be [13] years since the deadly storm that pushed families already living on the brink over the edge. My mom, like so many others, is still recovering.” Walton’s mother’s situation is not an uncommon one. Many Katrina survivors are still recovering from the detrimental storm that reigned over New Orleans in 2005. Heather Rosenburg, a U.S. Green Building Council Fellow commented, “the people with the fewest resources to begin with have the hardest times rebounding.”
The hardship of low-socio economic status people on a warming planet is further exemplified by the distinction between the “haves” and the “have-nots” amidst the California drought. The wealthy neighborhoods of the state can easily afford water, and consequently consume a lot of it. Conversely, residents of lower-class neighborhoods have to ration their water intake. “Families that are in a daily struggle to make ends meet limit their water use for the basic necessities of life, including bathing and cooking,” Walton reported. “Compton used 63.6 gallons of water per person, per day, during the summer last year,” compared to the U.S. national average of 100 gallons per day (Perlman). These lower income U.S. citizens hold a very important stake in the lively discussion that is climate change in that they are directly affected by a warming planet. In terms of stasis, this community of people likely argues about climate change in terms of policy. They want legislation that protects them from more environmental damage.
There are also many people who have a significant amount of influence on the path taken to tackle climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, is a government association whose mission is “to protect human health and the environment,” according to their official website. Additional government entities that has a stake in global warming are politicians.  In June of 2015, the EPA made their position clear in regards to global warming. Their content generated in 2015 is centered around “act[ing] on climate [change],” “air quality improvements,” and leaving a cleaner and healthier planet for “our children and grandchildren” (“Climate Change in the United States: Benefits of Global Action”). It is clear here that the EPA argues for climate change-oriented legislation on a level of policy. However, since President Trump’s inauguration, their stance has become less transparent. Their website section on climate change currently reads “This page is being updated. Thank you for your interest in this topic. We are currently updating our website to reflect EPA’s priorities under the leadership of President Trump and Administrator Pruitt (“Page Being Updated”).
Politicians and those holding governmental powers can write and pass official legislation that either slows and prevents global warming, or conversely, accelerates it. The two groups associated with two these two outcomes in America are Republicans and Democrats, respectively.
The American public opinion on climate change is generally split. This can be attributed to the nation’s strict partisanship with the Democratic and Republican political parties. Democrats typically ground their votes and legislation in favor of climate change’s validity. Conversely, Republicans use their influence to draw attention away from the environment, specifically global warming, and toward the national economy. “Republicans and Democrats…[are] still …jousting over whether human behavior is causing the planet to warm and, if so, whether anything should be done about it,” according to Griff Witte of The Washington Post. It is clear that not much progress can be made in the, albeit heated, discussion amongst Democratic and Republican politicians due to conflicting levels of stasis. Democrats speak on climate change in terms of “what can be done” or policy, while republicans mostly discuss climate change in terms of definition or fact, primarily regarding whether climate change can me tied to humans.
Regardless of political affiliation, there seems to be quite polar views on global warming’s validity. According to Texas Senator Ted Cruz, in “The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming” (Lee). Conversely, in his 2013 speech on climate change, President Obama, provided solid evidence for climate change and several logical solutions to the problem. The most recent years have been some of the warmest ever. In his 2013 speech, Obama stated that “the 12 warmest years in recorded years have been in the last 15.” He then went on to suggest that American companies invest more in clean energy such as natural gas because “it releases fewer emissions of carbon dioxide,” and spend more time constructing sources that will provide wind and solar energy, and create jobs along the way (“President Obama Speaks on Climate Change”). It is clear that these two stakeholders cannot have productive discussions about climate change because they cannot agree on a level of stasis. Republicans argue climate change on a level of fact and Democrats argue even amongst themselves on a level of policy.
One of the most direct and direly affected entities of climate change is the planet. The Earth, despite not being sentient or having the ability to express thought or opinion, will be immensely affected by climate change and therefore, by definition, has a stake in this issue, albeit silent. To personify the planet, Earth is likely very scared for its own life. It probably has a great amount of anxiety considering the widely fluctuating temperature. The Earth is likely overcome with depression as it witnesses many of its unique attributes and inhabitants die by the hands of climate change. It is also very likely that the Earth would be infuriated at its most intelligent and sentient inhabitants: humans. Humans have accelerated climate change by relying on non-renewable energy sources such as fossil fuels. When burned for energy, fossil fuels release great amounts of carbon dioxide, according to NASA.
I took to Twitter to get more information. I posted a poll that asked my followers “is climate change real?” and I gave the option to answer “yes” or “no.” After being accessible on my Twitter for a week, the poll received 44 votes and concluded that 91% agreed that climate change was real while only 9% disagreed. However, it is important to consider my following on the social media app. My following is mostly comprised of young, millennials, upperclassmen in high school and young college students. It is also important to recognize the socioeconomic status of those who might have answered the poll. Most of them are upper middle class and are generally intelligent. I created my Twitter account when I attended my Texas high school, where most of my friends and subsequent followers were in my AP, or advanced placement, classes. Most of my friends and followers graduated and attended a respected university. It is also important to note that I went to school in Texas, a historically Republican-leaning state. However, my high school was located in Houston, Texas, more specifically near NASA’s Johnson Space Center. Many of my followers’ parents are astronauts, and software and aerospace engineers. These circumstances may yield different poll results compared to the same poll taken with a predominantly lower class following or even in a different state.
With this same Twitter following, I asked another question. I asked “Assuming climate change is real, would you tolerate/accept legislation in favor of the environment that may otherwise hinder the national economy or even raise taxes?” The answers for this question were a bit more split that those of the previous question I asked. After about 24 hours, I received 48 votes. 13% of my followers would not tolerate this kind of legislation. However, 87% of these 48 people would tolerate or accept environmentally protective legislation. These two polls show that, in general, educated, middle-class millennials generally support climate change’s validity and legislation to reduce its impacts and slow its acceleration. Lastly, I asked my followers on Twitter if they “believe[d] the recent frequency of natural disasters such as Hurricane Irma, Hurricane Harvey, and the California wildfires can be attributed to climate change and global warming. This poll had the most divided results yet. 79% of the 33 people who answered said “yes” while the other 21% disagreed with the natural disaster correlation to global warming.
These polls indicate the planet’s future. My Twitter is composed of primarily college students. These followers have the right to vote and are mostly of legal age. Their level of stasis regarding this issue is policy, as it seems that the majority of the polls indicate a belief in the validity of climate change.
The discussion around climate change is a passionate one because everyone holds a stake. In order to make any progress on the issue, it is important that stakeholders compromise and meet in the middle on their levels of stasis so that progress can be made.
Works Cited
Action, Center for Community Change. “Ten Years After Katrina, Low-Income Communities Are Still Vulnerable to Disaster: Here’s Why.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 28 Aug. 2015, www.huffingtonpost.com/center-for-community-change-action/ten-years-after-katrina-l_b_8055352.html.
“Climate Change in the United States: Benefits of Global Action.” YouTube, uploaded by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 22 June 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Iz0NKA1yuo.
Lee, Michelle Ye Hee. “Ted Cruz’s Claim That There Has Been ‘Zero’ Global Warming in 17 Years.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 26 Mar. 2015, www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/26/ted-cruzs-claim-that-there-has-been-zero-global-warming-in-17-years/?utm_term=.fe4535bc1efe
“Page Being Updated.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/signpost/cc.html.
Perlman, USGS Howard. “Water Questions & Answers How Much Water Does the Average Person Use at Home per Day?” Per Capita Water Use. Water Questions and Answers; USGS Water Science School, water.usgs.gov/edu/qa-home-percapita.html.
“President Obama Speaks on Climate Change.” YouTube, uploaded by The Obama White House, 25 June 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMT87OP21mo.
“The Carbon Cycle : Feature Articles.” NASA, NASA, earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page4.php.
Thompson, Andrea. “10 Years Later: Was Warming to Blame for Katrina?” Climate Central, 27 Aug. 2015, www.climatecentral.org/news/katrina-was-climate-change-to-blame-19377
Witte, Griff. “While U.S. Politicians Argue about Climate Change, British Pols Decide the Debate Is Over.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 13 Feb. 2015, www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/13/while-us-politicians-argue-about-climate-change-british-pols-decide-the-debate-is-over/?utm_term=.f9424330e7ef.