Should the Climate Crisis be a non-partisan issue?
When I attend UN climate meetings, people from other countries often ask me why the climate crisis is a partisan issue (i.e., "blue" versus "red') in the United States. The issue has not politicized in most countries the way it has in the US. For example, I travel to Denmark annually and have noticed that while Danes are divided on some issues (such as immigration), they are generally united across party lines about the climate crisis (they were also united regarding Covid 19). Ironically, the first candidate for President of the US who voiced concerns about climate change and global warming in a national campaign speech was the late Senator John McCain of Arizona - a Republican. President George H. W. Bush, a Republican, signed the international agreement that created the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992. Senate ratification of the UNFCCC was supported widely in 1992, by both Republicans and Democrats. Yet the only US politicians to attend these COPs are Democrats. I have asked some COMM 114 (Argument and Critical Discourse) students - some self-described as conservative, some independent, some liberal - and almost to a person they tell me that the climate crisis should not be partisan. They think that regardless of ideology or political affiliation - people, politicians, and political parties should work together to confront the climate crisis. Here is as link to an article about the urgency of the situation and a movement to tax fossil fuel companies. I will continue to share links to articles I think are worth reading, and encourage you to be a critical thinker about anything I post.
This is a very interesting component to climate crisis that I have never really thought about- why it has become a political standpoint. Global warming and our environmental footprint should NOT have anything to do with what side ones' vote goes. The world we live on should be a concern to everyone and not a reason to further separate us from one another. Do the representatives from other countries have as much division in this specific issue that you have talked to?
ReplyDeleteIt's unfortunate that the climate crisis has been perceived as a 'red vs blue' issue, our politicians could accomplish a lot more if they didn't feel the need to oppose action on climate change due to party standings. I like the analogy the Guardian creates in the article you shared, that 'solving the crisis is the moonshot of our times.' We certainly have the ability to combat the climate crisis in terms of resources, but the political barrier has been a long standing issue in the way. I hope that humanity can unite for the sake of our future because at the end of the day, climate change won't discriminate between 'red' or 'blue.'
ReplyDeleteI do think it is interesting how climate change has become polarized in the U.S., but perhaps that should be expected. The Republican party believes in small government and freedom of commerce, so policies that would disrupt that in order to combat climate change would be frowned upon. These values are basic tenants of conservatism, so in order to communicate the urgency of the climate crisis, one would have to demonstrate how that wouldn't violate their beliefs.
ReplyDelete-Renee Porter, 934427394
I agree with the COMM 114 students you have asked that it should be nonpartisan. If this doesn't happen then the time in which policies are made toward climate change will continue to lengthen. It already takes far too long for issues to be addressed, as shown by the Guardian Article in that "countries have only promised to do one-fiftieth of what is needed to stay on track to keep temperatures within 1.5C of pre-industrial levels." This is much easier to address and correct in other countries, but with the polarization present in politics today, it will be very difficult to address climate change at even close to the speed needed.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting question that I hadn't really considered before. The United States is definitely very polarized when it comes to the issue of climate change, but I wonder if at this point, there is anything we can do to make the issue more non-partisan, or if differences of opinion are already so extreme that the issue will always be a "red-blue" issue. Hopefully, since our generation seems to see climate change as a more all-encompassing issue (at least from those you asked), we can use that attention for lasting change.
ReplyDeleteAll of those examples you gave all occurred before the citizens united case that drastically changed the state of campaign finance laws and who/what entities can send and how much they can spend on elections. I think that the change that resulted in campaign financing is what has lead to the partisanship of the issues surrounding climate change. It is probably one of the many factors that have caused Republicans to be significantly less supportive of preventative actions in regards to climate change, but it is likely a very significant factor in split in the parties' position on climate change. Fossil fuel corporations have been able to pressure politicians to support policies that help their profit margins rather than protecting the environment as a result of campaign contributions.
ReplyDeleteI believe the issue of climate action being a partisan issue in the US has been partly due to how several politicians make money. On both sides, there are interest groups that stand to benefit from certain policy changes or reinforcements. For example, fossil fuel companies hold a lot of power even at the COP27 event this year. According to BBC.com, more than 600 people who are linked to linked to fossil fuels (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63571610). It seems that many are reluctant to change the status quo if they can profit off the current system.
ReplyDeleteThe article "California’s climate plan calls for no new gas-burning power plants" by the Washington Post talks about the new climate policy's in California. What are ways we can move to a point where other states are also creating plans that are as progressive?
ReplyDeleteFrom an outside perspective, do other people from outside the US have ideas/solutions for how we can solve the issue of having the climate crisis be a partisan issue? What other countries doing that we are missing?
ReplyDeleteI have thought about this before, and I can't seem but to place the blame on wealthy companies. Climate change policies are not great for business, so lobbying to have an entire party against climate action keeps progress slow and profits high. When researching for my speech I found a great study about how corporations (specifically exxon-mobil) have done this since the mid 1900s: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332221002335
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that you found conservative students responded this way, because the Republican Party itself has often voted against slowing climate change. Pew Research Center (link at the end) states that while some republicans believe climate change is an issue, the party as a whole assigns the issue a very low priority spot in their policies. It makes me wonder if this will change as the younger generations become the main voting percentage. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/23/on-climate-change-republicans-are-open-to-some-policy-approaches-even-as-they-assign-the-issue-low-priority/
ReplyDeleteI agree that it's interesting that the topic of climate in our own country has become so politicized. However, I believe that a large reason for this is that the US economy was largely dependent upon fossil fuels for a long time, which resulted in massive pushback when these companies that we were so dependent upon, and who also employed a great many were told that they were the cause of the problem. And this resulted in divides across the country, for example, big oil vs green energy. I'm sure there are some who, unfortunately, do not believe in climate change however, I think the majority of this issue comes down to long-time supporters of a long-time industry vs those who oppose it. Think, for example, if HBO was found to be responsible for 22% of global CO2 emissions and they were told to stop, but this means we'd never get Season 2 of House Of The Dragon. Some would be willing to look the other way because, for them, the heart of this issue is seeing something that they care about die. While others would oppose HBO, no questions asked.
ReplyDeleteAnd here are some interesting statistics regarding the US public's views on Climate Change: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/
As far as I can tell, the beginning of the split down U.S. political isles regarding climate change began in the early 90's when fossil fuel (and other corporate) interests saw opportunities to prolong their viability by sewing seeds of doubt onto the scientific results that revealed a changing climate thereby confusing the public. It sounds like a wing-nut conspiracy theory, however leaked documents over the years have revealed these unfortunate schemes (Hickman, 2012).
ReplyDeleteNow we see such polarization and animosity towards opposing sides that they can hardly have a conversation because they have each dehumanized the other side. The news media has not helped the situation. Its sad and disheartening that this issue has become politicized. It has made a supremely complex issue that much more convoluted to resolve.
Hickman, L. (2012, February 15). Leaked Heartland Institute documents pull back curtain on climate skepticism. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/feb/15/leaked-heartland-institute-documents-climate-scepticism
I think a lot of it has to do with in the United States a lot of climate change deniers try to frame climate change as just an excuse to limit capitalism and erase the free market by limiting companies on what they can do. And in the United States generally the people who care most about the free market tend to be Republicans who quite a few people fall for this trick.
ReplyDeleteI think that as more treaties and political power on climate change emerge the more partisan the topic has gotten. Now that it's impacting economic interests the change has started. With companies and individuals in fields such as oil and gas and the interests of the economy, the environment and climate change is the last thing they have on their minds
ReplyDeleteBefore reading this, I had no idea that climate crisis was a partisan issue only in the United States. Paying attention to only American politics, I had figured that climate change was a contentious topic in governments around the world. However after giving it some thought, it makes sense for climate change to be a nonpartisan issue since it affects everyone regardless of their political alignment. More work would likely get done if climate change was a nonpartisan issue in the United States.
ReplyDeleteClimate change should be a non-partisan issue. As of today, people associate Democrats with being pro-choice and the ones pushing for action on climate change, while Republicans are known to be pro-life and pushing for the right to bear arms and have guns. It is important for everyone to step back and acknowledge that Republicans and Democrats can share the same views, as well as understand the fact that a Republican might agree on certain topics that are usually associated with Democrats and vice versa. All of these political issues should not be associated with one side or the other. Everyone is entitled to their own free opinion, and that opinion should be respected. With climate change, it should not simply be associated with Democrats because there are many Republicans who also support the issue. If our country is going to take action in terms of climate change then people must forget their political affiliations and learn to work together. It might be good for everyone in the United States to take Comm 114 and learn how to better converse with others, as well as be more open to other perspectives and opinions.
ReplyDeleteI whole-heartedly believe that climate change should not only be a bipartisan issue, but an issue countries all over the world tackles. That being said, I think the point you brought up about Republicans being the first to address the issue of climate change, despite climate being associated with the Democratic issue is really interesting. I remember learning in my psychology classes that the difference in beliefs between Republicans and Democrats is actually very minimal, but current media dramatizes situations, creating a tense and polarized social and political environment. Unfortunately, this creates a problem as parties start fighting against each other, instead of trying to solve issues important to the majority of Americans. I found this article by Florida Atlantic University that I think perfectly encompasses how most people can find common ground, despite the stereotypes that exist about both parties: https://www.fau.edu/newsdesk/articles/climate-change-surveys.php. The article points out that majority of both Florida Democrats and Republicans both agree that climate change is an issue. Opinions differ about the cause of climate change, but I think establishing this common ground would increase bipartisanship as both sides would become united on a shared interest.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a controversial statement to say that it's truly unfortunate that the subject of climate change has become so polarized within the United States. I think, in large part, that it is due to the fact that on so many other issues, Republicans and Democrats have become extremely polarized, and are unable to find common ground, and on a major issue like climate change, irregardless of the fact that even within the past 30 years both sides agreed on the issue, it was inevitable that one side would fundamentally oppose the other.
ReplyDeletehttps://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/09/23/how-cdo-we-deal-with-the-polarization-around-climate-change/ - Here is an article from Columbia Climate School that talks about the polarization of the issue at hand, and proposes some solutions to the topic, which, although they won't solve the issue entirely, will help it at least.
Unfortunately, many people fail to realize the urgency of the climate crisis. I feel as though people usually dismiss this issue for two reasons: not wanting to believe it is true and/or disagreeing with it to spark controversy. The climate crisis is not something that, in my opinion, should be a non-partisan issue. I have noticed in my own life that when someone suggests that, for example, someone should carpool to reduce gas emissions, the other person feels as though they have to defend their actions instead of hearing out the idea. We all need to do better at actively listening, instead of immediately reacting when our actions or beliefs are challenged. In doing this, I believe that the climate crisis will become more of a normalized issue and less divided, especially in the United States.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that Climate Crisis should not be a partisan as it is the need of the hour to protect our environment if we wish to save some resources for the upcoming generations. I don't know much about US politics but I do know about India that despite having different opinions on several other issues, all the major political parties in India believe in taking action regarding climate crisis. And I think that is a sensible thing to do otherwise it would be too late.
ReplyDeleteit's very unfortunate that climate change has become a partisan issue in the U.S. do you think it has anything to do with the widespread bias and politicalization of our National News media?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I think that everything in the US has become political. I think this is partly to blame because the fact that the past few presidents have been extremists of their parties. However, I also believe that COVID played a big role is this as the crisis exposed the holes we have in our government.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the climate crisis should be a non-partisan issue. I think that often times we see the political system in the United States convince people that these issues that impact everyone should be seen through an us versus them mentality. Unfortunately many people would end up disagreeing with others because of their political affiliation rather than their stance on an issue.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that one of the most pressing issues facing us is apathy with the multitude of issues facing us on a global scale. The worse thing that we can collectively do is not care; we can address the problems if we work together. In the context of a partisan issue, the unfortunate truth is that we are allowing the division in American politics stop us from positive cooperation.
ReplyDeleteI do thin that the climate crisis should be a non-partisan issue but unfortunately it is politicized especially in the United States. I'm glad that other countries don't see this as a political issue but rather a world wide problem.
ReplyDeleteWhat are some ways we can try and prevent this from being a non-partisan issue? Many government leaders will use their parties to try and sway decisions on the issue.
ReplyDelete