Politics Is Blame For A Changing Climate

In the upcoming 2016 election, there are many political topics that voters may see as more important than another. Voters are normally inclined to elect someone with the same look on immigration or economic problems, so that they can influence the world the way they would like. The author of “One political issue matters more than the rest, and it’s climate change,” Courtney Butterworth, argues that the topic that should be a priority and influence our decision making the most is that of climate change. In her article Courtney argues that by focusing on the issue of climate change we can help the economy. She gives the fact that “coral reefs alone generate about $375 billion per year.” This statistic may be true be true but is this the most important matter of the campaigns? Courtney also states that in 2000 “more than 150,000 people died due to the effects of climate change” but is this the only way people are dying in our country? This essay will not only show how climate change has affected our world, but also how other debates are more beneficial to the campaigns.

Climate change is one of today’s most hotly debated topic. Scientists for many decades have made supposed claims that current energy creation and reliance on fossil fuels will lead to inevitable changes to the planet. Today, climate change denial is still a popular to most of the world despite the mounds of evidence to support that it exists. The climate change issue suffers from being mismanaged by various parties through focusing on the wrong issues and the lack of true commitment from the general public, according to Sandra Steingraber.

In his essay titled “Climate of Denial”, Al Gore, a well known environmental advocate and former vice president, verifies the reality of climate change and global warming. The piece is an attack on corrupt companies and news outlets that attempt to persuade the public that global warming is not a critical issue. Gore also earnestly conveys our environment’s current state and offers possible solutions that would increase awareness about global warming and begin to revert the planet back to a healthier, more sustainable state. The overarching purpose of Gore’s work is to call attention to the widespread climate change that is occurring. However, he also focuses on the corruption and bias within the media, and their attempts to conceal the truth about global warming. Writing to those who are conflicted about who to believe, he makes a valid argument that defends the beliefs of he and his fellow activists and encourages others to become more active in the climate change issue.

As a kid who has cared about nature his entire life, and an avid modern environmentalist for four years and counting, this issue has been at the center of my psyche for quite some time. I have seen public perspective on this issue change before my eyes. From the original rejection of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth movie on “global warming” to personally marching alongside 300,000 people in our nation's capital to raise awareness on climate change. However, despite all of these avenues the issue is still spoken about as this distant idea that eventually will be a disaster. Many politicians and news networks speak of the need for slow implementation of policies and programs to right our environmental wrongs. The best way to paraphrase the common narrative of this issue would be to say, climate change is going to happen down the road, it will probably be bad and trying to fix it in the near future would be a good idea. That weak call to action shoves climate change onto the long to-do list of the leaders of our world. Not only does it not create the urgency needed to actually curb the effects of our environmental ignorance, but it does not accurately describe the threat of a changing climate. Treating this like a political issue will not allow for the rigorous changes needed to address such a problem in the timely manner that is required.

The North American Drought of 1988 marked the very first time global warming crossed over from scientists to mass media coverage. Following an American professor’s address to the Senate correlating abnormal weather to global warming, European nations addressed the issue, and many countries began to reduce greenhouse gas. The European Union ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 to make it legally binding. In Europe, global warming was acknowledged as a problem, with the only debate centered around how serious of a problem it was- 87% said it was a very serious problem, where around 10%

The problem that the pro- global warming theorists have created is that of social standing and little else. While there may be scientific backing to support some of the theory, the media presents the problem with great sensationalism. Global warming and energy conservation has thus become a trend and losses some of its validity through this. The scare tactics used by the media to “promote awareness” are just that, a linguistic ploy to gain favor. “Awareness of this global threat reinforced public concern and environmental problems and thereby provided environmental activists, scientists, and policy makers with new momentum in their efforts to promote environmental protection.” (McCright, 2000) This statement draws line to the potential benefits that would be received if the pro-global warming theorists were to draw enough attention to the issue. Driven by social empowerment and conviction to environmental protection, these activists misrepresent the actual threat and paint it as being much more

Climate change has been a subject of discussion in the media for many years, supported with the use of arguments against oil polluting the environment and extreme scare tactics of Polar ice caps flooding civilians backyards. The issue has been ignored by the majority of lay people as seeming too complicated, and with all the conflicting information in the media in the past, who can blame them? However, scientifically, climate change and what perpetrates it is fairly simple to understand and society as a whole is beginning to come to a clear consensus on climate change. Thanks in part to more readily available forms of media and information, people have become cognizant of the fact that climate change is a legitimate problem which requires immediate amelioration. While this may seem melodramatic, society is realizing that climate change is an issue which can no longer be denied if the human race wishes to continue.

Christine Todd Whitman chose to write this op-ed months into the Trump presidency at a time when many natural disasters plague the country. In it she addresses both the administration and her fellow Republicans, many of whom do not view climate change as a threat. Whitman’s principal grievance with Scott Pruitt, the current director of the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.), is his creation of a “red team” to research an opposing view to the scientific consensus on climate change. In her op-ed, Christine Todd Whitman condemns the way Scott Pruitt runs the E.P.A. and tries to convince the reader that climate change is a tangible threat. Whitman makes it clear that her criticism is not that of a lay person or a contrarian but comes from experience and a common worldview.

Richard A. Epstein is a frequent contributor to the Hoover Institution, and his piece, “Scott Pruitt And The Environment”, hopes to ease hysteria over President Donald Trump’s selection of Pruitt as the 14th administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt denies the importance of climate change, he is a pro-industry former attorney general of Oklahoma. Epstein dances around rhetoric on both sides of the polarized climate change debate, creating a discourse which seems unbiased to the casual reader. This rhetorical analysis will strive to keep its proverbial ear to the ground and listen to the elephants hustling in the distance. References leading to right-wing contributors, language that evokes a sense of loss, and taking

Climate change is one of the leading global and political problems we face today. Recently, Texas experienced the worst flooding from a major hurricane in their history. Aside from Harvey in the United States, India, Bangladesh, and Nepal also had dangerous monsoons that caused massive loss of life and property. Although there have been fewer hurricanes in the last decade they have become significantly stronger causing more devastation wherever they make landfall. While Harvey gained strength just before landfall it stalled over Houston causing massive flooding before returning to the Gulf again. Climate change remains a divisive political issue, with a significant percentage of Republicans saying they don’t believe the scientific consensus that man-made industrial emissions are accelerating the rise of global warming due to climate

The election of 2000 took place during a time that was mostly peaceful, unemployment rates were historically low, but however, there were a record number of terrorist threats (Muhlhausen). Despite all of these headlining topics presidential candidate Al Gore and Vice President Joe Lieberman were far more concerned about global climate change (“Al”). Gore was, and still, is very passionate about this topic (“Al”, 9). He has challenged the two biggest polluters in the world, China and The United States to, “Make the boldest move in climate change.” Figure 5

With today’s broad spectrum of opposing political ideals, climate change is one of the most polarizing and argued points. In an article entitled “Why Some Conservatives Can’t Accept That Climate Change Is Real” by Carolyn Gregoire, we are presented the supposed thought process and biases held by modern conservatives. The author, Carolyn Gregoire, serves as a senior science and health writer at The Huffington Post. Though challenging competency is a common attack used on both sides of the political isle, this piece sidesteps petty mudslinging and instead takes root in the psychological differences between liberals and conservatives. Inherently, as a political piece, this article criticizes the conservative thought camp. In doing so, this article (like a majority of articles on the Huffington Post) is written towards a sympathetic, liberal audience. Pertaining mainly to psychology, there is no doubt logos is the appeal used by the author. Furthermore, with logos often comes strong, inductive reasoning. As we delve deeper into this article, we also will examine and explore several fallacies implemented by the author. Also

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change not only reported about the occurrence of global warming, but also stated that it is caused by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. The Gallup poll has tracked the views of Americans on this issue since the year 2001 and it has been consistent. Fewer people who were surveyed in 2008 said that global warming is due to human activities than natural causes, than people who were surveyed back in 2001. Republicans’ belief in human-caused global warming has decreased from 2001 to 2008 while the Democrats’ belief has risen in the same period of time (Dunlap&McCright, 2008, pg 29).

It is crucial to begin with an analysis of the most current public perspective, using surveys and research done by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and Pew Research Center. This point will be characterized by how environmental issues tie into politics and influence a registered voter’s vote. Will set up the framework for the following point of past trends and laying out why public influence is impacted by events. Prior to the 1960s, environmental issues were not of principal concern or of mass knowledge. (Rome, 2003)

Climate change has undoubtedly become one of the most prominent debate topics in the world today. With that being said, there are multiple aspects of climate change currently being discussed; causes of climate change, the idea that climate change may be a hoax, and whether or not climate change affects human health are three of the many ongoing debates about climate change. Climate change is surrounded by negative connotations, but Jay Leno, former host of NBC’s The Tonight Show, shed some light on the darkness of climate change, saying "According to a new U.N. report, the global warming outlook is much worse than originally predicted. Which is pretty bad when they originally predicted it would destroy the planet.” Although his first statement is rather true, Leno manages to lighten its load with a less true, but hilarious, comment. His words force one to realize that climate change impacts everyone in any area of the health triangle, whether it be through a joke such as Leno’s, or directly through issues such as pollution and pollen; the areas of the health triangle include physical health, mental/emotional health, and social health. Therefore, climate change is a threat to all aspects of human health; social health, mental/emotional health, and physical health.