The Politics of Climate Change

Climate Change. Such a word holds the capability to stir hatred, loathing, resentment, inspiration, panic, concern, and a further swarm of emotional cacophony enough to shatter the foundations of bipartisan agreement and teamwork. Rather than reaching across the aisle, the topic has erected a steel curtain between sides upon its existence and implication. Why did this rift come about? Should it remain, or thicken with the uncouth rejection between both parties of perspective? Such questions are met with naught but singular dimension anger. Of course, it is imperative to be informed of the subject if one seeks to provide insight on it.

The politics surrounding Climate Change have been stirred up, and became a systematic game of political warfare. The original offense, however, is one that is a fascinating effect upon the modern thought processes. A primary cause for concern when speaking about the profusion of greenhouse gases are the proliferation of the gas from industry cars, factories, manufacturing processes, and general burning of the finite resources of oil, coal, and natural gas. This was, and still remains, a primary goal of those concerned with the rapidly changing climate: to reduce the carbon emissions of such industries, and hopefully lessen the damage that it may incur upon the environment that we share. This of course, when referring to the zeitgeist of the transition between the 20th to 21st centuries, the transition to more renewable energy sources was monstrously expensive and difficult, and potentially cut into profits of industry.

The discussion of Climate Change became a cost-result problem, rather than that of a humanitarian or environmental discussion. It was taken upon with fear and hostility, for the concerns to be lifted involved a complete turnover and revolution of the manufacturing process. Though the ends were noble and logical, the means were costly, and so believed would annihilate economic growth and productivity. When faced with the idea and imperative you believe will crumble your business or empire you sought so long and fought for? What if your entire business was built upon the foundations of natural gas, coal, oil, or otherwise? It is a natural reaction to oppose that imperative, to resist the request. Such, with a believed threat of economic disaster, the idea of Climate change is rejected vigorously, to this day.

But each dawn is a different situation. Modern day has seen an advancement of renewable, sustainable energy. The revolution has progressed, and the clean energy industry has generated billions of dollars in new technologies. Efficiency has increased, and is rapidly approaching the ability to surpass traditional fossil fuels. Whether it may assist in the effort to lessen the disastrous impacts of Climate change is still up for debate, however the idea of a sustainable, non-finite resource of equal efficiency is the obviously preferred option over finite resources. Does this mean the conversation of the reality of Climate change and the surrounding conflict losing it’s value or purpose? It is up to those informed whether this is the case.

Between the two sides, there is undeniable conflicts of interest, and conviction in their ‘irrefutable’ perspectives. The most effective thing the individual make accomplish in the midst of warring sides to remain knowledgeable, and to be open to the alternative points of view.


Please follow and like us: