It's Not Left or RIght, It's Global

The government has a nefarious way of turning every situation into a politically divided issue.  Whether the situation be healthcare, infrastructure, international affairs, hell even internal scandals; every single topic becomes a senseless bickering fest between the left and right as they try to beat out the other side.  Recently enough, the issue of climate change has also been sucked into this futile whirlwind of inactivity.  Take a moment to reflect that one over.  Climate change has become a political issue.

Since when is there anything political about the climate?   The climate has been in existence since the earth was formed and has been continuing right along ever since.  Does Congress really feel the need to establish illicit dominance over Mother Nature, and if not that then at least abuse her for its own trifling aims?  The climate is an international entity.  It can’t be made to belong to a certain group of people, nor can it be politically deliberated by a single nation.  Due to that fact, there is no reason climate change needs to be debated as intensely as it is.

            In an academic article by Debra Javeline, Jessica J. Hellmann, Rodrigo Castro Cornejo, and Gregory Shufeldt titled “Expert Opinion on Climate Change and Threats to Biodiversity,” the authors took a survey of 2329 environmental biologists and asked them what their predictions were for the future of climate change.  According to the article, “they expect larger temperature increases, higher percentages of species extinctions, and a high percentage of species' ranges will change in response to climate change over the next 100 years” (Javeline, Hellmann, Cornejo, Shufeldt par. 1).  However, they also came to the conclusion that the scientists with the most expertise on the subject were the ones who projected more severe consequences.  The authors said, “Climate experts (i.e., those with a high self-assessed level of knowledge and high number of publications) estimated, on average, that temperature will increase between 3.3°C and 3.5°C over the next 100 years” (Javeline, Hellmann, Cornejo, Shufeldt par. 25).  However, “these estimates are conservative relative to the range of ‘likely’ projected temperature change by the end of the century” (Javeline, Hellmann, Cornejo, Shufeldt par. 25).  This article basically states the fact that climate change will continue to become a bigger problem with growing temperatures, species extinctions, etc. due to the fact that so many knowledgeable biologists agree on that matter.   If this is the case then there really shouldn’t be an argument over whether or not it exists.  Obviously it exists since there is proof that temperatures have risen, ice caps have melted, and habitats have drastically changed on top of the fact that these scientists, whose living is acquired totally around this subject, concur with the evidence, so what is the debate here?  Global warming has happened.  It’s here.  It’s real.  The real question is how responsible humans are for it, but that’s a debate for another day. 

            Another article by Jonathan P. Schuldt, Sara H. Konrath, and Norbert Schwartz titled “’Global Warming’ or ‘Climate Change’” points out that Congressional Republicans seem to prefer to use the term “global warming” while Democrats prefer “climate change.”  The article reveals that “Republicans were less likely to endorse that the phenomenon is real when it was referred to as ‘global warming’ (44.0%) rather than ‘climate change’ (60.2%), whereas Democrats were unaffected by question wording (86.9% vs. 86.4%)” (Schuldt, Konrath, Schwartz par. 1).  This finding hints at the fact that Republicans generically don’t believe that the planet is actually warming; yet they still believe in the more vague term “climate change.”  Does it really matter what the issue is called?  If they believe in climate change enough to have a motive to do something about it, then it must be pretty detrimental, but God forbid they believe the planet is warming since that’s what the Democrats believe.  The authors go even further to say that “as a result, the partisan divide on the issue dropped from 42.9 percentage points under a ‘global warming’ frame to 26.2 percentage points under a ‘climate change’ frame” (Schuldt, Konrath, Schwartz par. 1).  Isn’t that ridiculous?  The political parties are literally arguing over what to call it.
 
 It doesn’t matter what the hell you call it if it’s actually happening and is happening quickly enough to have 2329 scientists agree that the consequences of the issue will be detrimental.  Besides that, why do they even feel that the issue is their issue to debate?  If it’s going to affect every single person in the world, doesn’t that make it everyone’s issue?  It’s embarrassing to the nation that the parties have to come to terms with what they are even going to refer to a crisis as before they act on it, and it’s embarrassing that the name actually affects the partisan divide. 

            A third article by Brian Dickerson titled “Conservatives Warming up to Climate Change” explains exactly what the title says.  Apparently conservatives are warming up to climate change.  This article is an Op-Ed piece designed to persuade an audience to believe that the liberals are not the only people concerned with climate change.  Dickerson states in his article, “One of the most courteous people you could hope to meet, Inglis will tell you straight out that he would rather discuss global warming with tea party conservatives than with any left-of-center newspaper columnist” (Dickerson par. 13).  In this quote, Dickerson is discussing Bob Inglis’ contributions to fixing climate change and explains how much he prefers conservative ideology on the matter as opposed to liberals.  Being a conservatively one-sided article, Dickerson is trying to convey the argument that conservatives are just as concerned about climate change, if not more concerned.  Again, this is just another article filled with propaganda about a certain side’s view of climate change and how that view is better.  If the politicians really do want to help with the issue then it would probably be a wiser idea for them to work together and work together with other nations since it is, after all, an international issue. 

            To recap, I believe it is pointless to argue so intensely over climate change, especially politically.  The United States Government has no authority to decide what to do about the climate.  I believe that it is important to take care of the environment and try to do something positive about the situation the planet currently seems to be in, but there is no need for there to be any legislation regarding the climate, especially by a single nation, and the issue should not have such an immense partisan divide.  If Congress really wants to help the planet, they should spend less time bickering over trivial matters like what to call it and who agrees on what aspects and start focusing about how to start making a difference for the future. 

           

Works Cited

Dickerson, Brian. “Conservatives Warming Up to Climate Change.” Detroit Free Press. October  6, 2013.

Javeline, Debra, Hellmann, Jessica J., Cornejo, Rodrigo Castro, Shufeldt, Gregory. “Expert           Opinion on Climate Change.” BioScience. Aug2013, Vol. 63 Issue 8, p666-673. 8p.

Schuldt, Jonathan P., Konrath, Sara H., Schwartz, Norbert. “’Global Warming’ or ‘Climate           Change.’” Public Opinion Quarterly. Mar2011, Vol. 75 Issue 1, p115-124. 10p. 2 Charts.