Should the climate change issue be non-partisan?

I go to Denmark most every year and have been a guest professor at the University of Copenhagen three times. Danes do not see climate change as a partisan or polarizing issue. All the major political parties in Denmark are committed to working together to address climate change. This is not the case in the United States. Should elected officials from all parties work on this issue together in the US? This artucle compares the positions and views of the two major candidates for President of the USA. https://www.yahoo.com/news/the-stakes-what-a-trump-or-harris-presidency-would-mean-for-climate-change-175435320.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACG8cpCVZ5CVC8b50U84ob7ZzxsyO4zgdpICg0W1dvQF-9sw36Alkl7qFD_Fd1AVwhfAPGokwpFwyESvJOUyUsHVabjM88IEUfB_FOK_xnWPIAOXVV41VrUIJi7T5jBJLN-udzkjQc0rbBjf1VkeYfe_M9-g2b0OfiQzSazFNrw3

Comments

  1. Jess SiciliaNovember 25, 2024 at 11:21 AM

    I think education is a solid approach, but I think there's a risk to their willingness to listen. Republicans receive a large amount of sponsoring funds from fossil fuel corporations to advocate for their interest, this lays in the root I believe of their refusal to acknowledge its consequences, as admitting such could result in a lack of funding they rely on for their campaigns. Additionally, doing so would be admitting themselves to be wrong, which is heavily against their current culture of never backing down on an argument, rather doubling down. I think until the consequences of climate change are dire enough to personally affect them, they will continue to view it as a partisan issue. It's extremely unfortunate, but I find them to be extremely selfish and within the consequences of such. We cannot have an argument with them until they are willing to listen, which means we cannot educate them until they are no longer being paid to ignore us. I'm not sure what the best way forward is, but I believe it's an issue we must be more aggressive on.
    Source for a significant instance of the GOP's fossil fuels sponsorship: https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/07/texas-oil-gas-political-donations-august-pfluger/

    ReplyDelete
  2. Taina StetserDecember 6, 2024 at 7:34 PM

    As others have mentioned, I think that in U.S. climate change is seen as a polarizing issue because of how the issue is presented to each side and how it impacts their values. People are becoming more educated on the topic, but there are still a large portion of people who continue to believe that it is not an issue that they should be involved in. I think the Republican and Democratic Party's over the years have become more and more opposed, seeing each other as opponents rather than collaborating to solve issues. I'm unsure if there is a certain or more effective way of solving this divide, but continuing to learn and educate others can help to bring more awareness to the issue and may help to change people's opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Joshua WrightDecember 7, 2024 at 2:30 AM

    Fighting climate change is going to be a long term goal that must be non-partisan, as how it is currently many other people said this as well, but the Democrat party is fighting climate change and pushing for regulations while the Republican party is against these regulations and even outright denying the existence in some cases. Unfortunately this is a complicated issue, with the current landscape of politics in the US it is nearly impossible for the 2 parties to agree on something, but the issue of climate change should not be a decisive political issue as it is something that everyone must work together to combat. Any changes that could be made for one president could be reversed by the next, so simply passing laws or regulations is not currently enough.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kiana ShahbaziDecember 12, 2024 at 4:25 PM

    It is so much more difficult to make progress when the other party is actively fighting against you, such as in the US Congress, or with presidents reversing one another's regulations. Making climate change a non-partisan issue would be a much more successful way to pass regulation and actually make progress, as others have mentioned, but the political landscape of the US is just too polarized to effectively do this. The arguments have not even reached the issue of how to fix climate change, and are still arguing about whether or not climate change is a real thing, and an issue in the first place. It also doesn't help that oil and fossil fuel companies have such big stakes in the US political climate, and lobbyists pay primarily Republican members of Congress to keep the priorities of the oil and gas industries in the forefront of their minds.
    This article describes this phenomenon: https://www.earthday.org/the-gaslight-effect-lobbying-in-the-fossil-fuel-industry/

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What role do fossil fuel companies play in the climate crisis? Accountability? Responsibility?

The global communmity relies on fossil fuels for energy and seems destined to do so for many years ahead. Every nation is (and will continue to do so) experiencing the impacts of GHGs. Many fossil fuel executives and lobbyists were at COP 29 in Baku. Do fossil fuel companies bear significant responsbility for the climate crisis, and if not, who does? And if so, what does that responsbility mean? Here are some interesting articles... https://apple.news/AQx-6z0NCTOSD5qJ86mg2bA https://www.theguardian.com/environment/live/2024/nov/15/cop29-live-day-five-begins-with-demands-for-change-to-way-summits-are-run?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/16/trump-administration-chris-wright-energy-secretary?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Read more

Climate change, environmental issues, and religious faith

I have worked in the environmental policy field for over three decades, work that includes climate change science and policy. I have also studied the world's primary religions. We can consider the relationship of faith and concerns about the environment. Should people of faith commit to being advocates for a healthy planet and be good environmental stewards? Here is an interesting article that relatea to this topic. https://www.nbcnews.com/science/climate-change/evangelical-christian-environmentalists-push-climate-votes-election-rcna174018
Read more

Is adaptation the most important climate policy area?

When the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was established in the 1990s, negotiators focused on greenhouse gas emissions, or GHGs. They discussed mitigation actions; ways to reduce GHGs. The landmark Kyoto Protocol of 1997 (at COP 3) emphasized mitigation, with commitments from developed countries to reduce their production of and reliance on fossil fuels. The 2015 Paris Agreement set the goal of a global temperature rise of no more than 1.5 degrees centigrade by 2050. This goal would be achieved only if developed countries - the major GHG emitters - transitioned significantly to renewable energy sources. This has not happened. Countries are expanding their use of renewables but not fast enough th meet the 1.5 degree goal. Consequently, negotiators now devote considerable time to discussing adaptation - how to deal with a warming world and its consequencxes, such as wildfires, drought, intense hurricanes and typhoons... These articles relate to the imp...
Read more