There are countless bodies of data available to the public about the continuous rise in global temperatures, sea levels, and frequency of extreme climate events, yet many of the world’s citizens and elected officials turn a blind eye to this multitude of compelling evidence. In fact, the political polarization around the issue of climate change is highly contrasted by the amount of scientific evidence that has been compiled over the past 50 years. As early as the 1970s, the majority of scholars working within atmospheric sciences agreed that the climate was changing and that it was, at least in part, anthropogenic (Fisher). Now, 11,000 scientists from 153 different countries around the globe have declared a climate emergency (Freedman). This may incite action from some, but inevitably, there will still be those who either deny climate change altogether, or are simply apathetic to its existence. The root of both these attitudes towards climate change appears to be linked with one’s political orientation. While identifying with a political orientation is a great way to choose the lenses in which one views the world, the divide in political orientation on, or the apathy towards, the topic of climate change poses an imminent threat to both the environment and the societies that are supported by it.
Though there are many factors to which one can attribute differing beliefs about climate change, the greatest culprit of them all is political orientation. Arguments about climate change are largely polarized between left and right, and the public widely sees it as a left issue. This is a problem primarily because people are more likely to believe what they hear from those they identify with, and to reject what they hear from others. This partisan divide began in the late 1990s and has only increased over time. For example, in 1997, a nearly equal number of Democrats and Republicans believed that the effects of global warming had already begun. Ten years later, the gap was 34%: 76% of Democrats said the effects had already begun, and only 42% of Republicans agreed (Kamarck). Furthermore, it appears as though this gap in opinions surrounding climate change is, at its root, highly intentional. In Peter J. Jacques’ article, “The Organisation of Denial: Conservative Think Tanks and Environmental Scepticism”, Jacques describes powerful conservative leaders’ response to the environmentalist movement:
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
As environmentalists began to argue that global problems such as loss of biodiversity and climate change indicated that the lifestyles and industrial practices of modern societies were not sustainable, conservative spokespersons responded that environmentalism was a growing threat to social and economic progress and the ‘American way of life’. The perceived threat to American values and interests posed by environmentalism helped justify the creation of a sustained anti-environmental counter-movement, institutionalised in a network of influential Conservative Think Tanks (CTTs) funded by wealthy conservative foundations and corporations. While these CTTs sometimes joined corporate America in directly lobbying against environmental policies, their primary tactic in combating environmentalism has been to challenge the need for protective environmental policy by questioning the seriousness of environmental problems and the validity of environmental science (352).
Because of the efforts on behalf of these powerful CCTs to discredit climate change, many people now believe that climate change is either not real, or not something to worry about. Aside from the outright denial of climate change, an even bigger threat may be the overwhelming indifference towards it. Without adequate government intervention, there is not much incentive for people to change their collective actions around sustainability. Sustainable alternatives to common products are often more expensive, and even if people value the environment, they will still typically take the most cost-efficient route. In most European countries, for example, about three-quarters of the public say they’re worried about climate change, yet less than a third would accept higher taxes on fossil fuels to cut emissions (Barasi). Additionally, the mental distance between people’s individual carbon emissions and the effects that they cause makes it difficult for people to feel guilty about their less sustainable actions. In the article, “Climate change apathy, not denial, is the biggest threat to our planet”, Leo Barasi explains the psychology behind that concept. Barasi says, “It’s easy enough to be angry when a crime has an identifiable victim, and to feel ashamed when we are at fault. But climate change is double-blind: everyone’s emissions go into the same atmosphere and no one knows in advance who exactly will suffer. Burning fossil fuels isn’t a victimless crime, but it’s not instinctively obvious who the culprits and the victims are.” The effects that this apathy may impose on the environment are not definitive, but scientists have a rather clear idea of what could happen if sustainable efforts are not accomplished in a timely manner.
In the beginning of Elaine Kamarck’s article, “The Challenging Politics of Climate Change”, she quotes David Wallace-Wells, an American journalist known for his writings on climate change, his book detailing the things that could happen if appropriate action on climate change is not taken:
In “The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming,” David Wallace-Wells paints a frightening picture of the coming environmental apocalypse. Whole parts of the globe will become too hot for human habitation and those left behind will die of heat. Diseases will increase and mutate. Food shortages will become chronic as we fail to move agriculture from one climate to another. Whole countries like Bangladesh and parts of other countries like Miami will be underwater. Shortages of fresh water will affect humans and agriculture. The oceans will die, the air will get dirtier. “But,” as Wallace-Wells argues, “what lies between us and extinction is horrifying enough.” That’s because, as climate change takes its toll on Earth’s physical planet, it will also cause social, economic, and political chaos as refugees flee areas that can no longer sustain them. If this prediction seems a bit extreme, all we have to do is look at recent weather events that keep breaking records to confront the possibility that the threat from climate change may indeed be existential.
While the overwhelming amount of research on climate change may paint a rather disheartening picture, all hope may not be lost yet. In Leo Barasi’s article, “Climate change apathy, not denial, is the biggest threat to our planet”, Barasi says that part of the solution lies in understanding the psychology behind this all too common apathetic stance on climate change:
This climate apathy can be overcome if it’s tackled in the right way. The first step is to understand the psychology behind apathy. Climate change is exactly the kind of threat our minds aren’t equipped to worry about. It seems distant, happening mostly in the future and to other people. The widespread tendency to think “I’ll be OK”, known as optimism bias, makes it easier for people to assume such distant problems won’t affect them.”
Another part of the solution, according to Barasi, is political leadership and accountability. He says, “To start with, the international community has to admit its plans aren’t enough. Commitments to cut emissions, such as the Paris Agreement and the UK’s Climate Change Act, give the impression the problem is under control. It isn’t. The UK is set to miss its targets from the mid-2020s, while global plans are so weak they would, even if achieved, leave us on course for dangerous warming.”
As a part of attempts to increase accountability, private and public actors alike must be rewarded and punished for their environmental actions. For example, large agribusinesses like Cargill, Nestle, and Monsanto use many unsustainable practices in their supply chains, but they also shape government food policy, so they face little to no negative consequences for their actions (Wallich). There needs to be a global system in place that holds huge corporations like these accountable for their actions. Additionally, entire governments in specific regions of the world also must be held to a higher standard in terms of their efforts, or lack thereof, towards sustainability. Brazil’s government, for example, is primarily responsible for environmental policies in regards to the Amazon. The Amazon contains not only the single largest tropical rainforest in the world, but also 10% of the world’s total biodiversity (“About the Amazon.”). When the Amazon was facing raging forest fires this past year, the Brazilian government did little to nothing, and even rejected help from other governments so that the new open land caused by the fires could be used for industrial agriculture, and they faced no repercussions. Until there are penalties for things like greenhouse gas emissions, excessive energy use, and deforestation, issues such as these will not be addressed sufficiently in time to combat climate change.
While the vast majority of countries around the world still have a great amount of work ahead of them, a few countries such as Iceland, Sweden, and Costa Rica are leading the way in sustainability, already running on nearly 100% renewable energy. Iceland, for example, derives all of its energy for electricity and home heating from geothermal and hydroelectric power plants, while Sweden has increased its investments in solar power, wind power, energy storage, smart grids, and clean transport (“12 Countries Leading the Way in Renewable Energy.”). Costa Rica also uses hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, and wind sources for the majority of their energy (“12 Countries Leading the Way in Renewable Energy.”). What is very impressive about this is that in the ranking of national net wealth, Sweden is only the 21st wealthiest country in the world, while Costa Rica is the 76th, and Iceland follows at 83rd (“List of Countries by Total Wealth.”). If these three countries that vary so greatly in national net wealth can figure out sustainable ways to power their societies, the richest countries such as the United States, China, and Japan certainly can follow suit.
In conclusion, while identifying with a political orientation can give individuals a sense of belonging and community, the divide in political orientation on, or the apathy towards, the topic of climate change could cause many negative consequences for both the environment and the societies that are supported by it. Though the threat that climate change poses to humanity is great, the power of a global community uniting to combat it could be even greater. Solutions to climate change are possible, but in order to achieve them, people, corporations, and governments around the world are going to have to look at climate change outside of a political lens and take collective action. From easy individual fixes like recycling, using less plastic, and flying less, all the way to fixing major supply chains, eliminating fossil fuels, using renewable energy, and ending deforestation, now is the time when unprecedented action must be taken.
Works Cited
- “12 Countries Leading the Way in Renewable Energy.” Click Energy, 10 Aug. 2017, www.clickenergy.com.au/news-blog/12-countries-leading-the-way-in-renewable-energy/.
- “About the Amazon.” WWF, wwf.panda.org/knowledge_hub/where_we_work/amazon/about_the_amazon/.
- Barasi, Leo. “Climate Change Apathy, Not Denial, Is the Biggest Threat to Our Planet | Leo Barasi.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 5 Oct. 2018, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/05/climate-change-apathy-not-denial-threat-planet.
- Fisher, Dana R, et al. “Where Does Political Polarization Come From? Locating Polarization Within the U.S. Climate Change Debate.” American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 57, no. 1, 2013, pp. 70–92., doi:10.1177/0002764212463360.
- Freedman, Andrew. “More than 11,000 Scientists from around the World Declare a 'Climate Emergency'.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 5 Nov. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/11/05/more-than-scientists-around-world-declare-climate-emergency/.
- Jacques, Peter J., et al. “The Organisation of Denial: Conservative Think Tanks and Environmental Scepticism.” Taylor & Francis, 20 May 2008, www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644010802055576.
- Kamarck, Elaine. “The Challenging Politics of Climate Change.” Brookings, Brookings, 23 Sept. 2019, www.brookings.edu/research/the-challenging-politics-of-climate-change/.
- “List of Countries by Total Wealth.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 7 Nov. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_wealth.
- Wallich, Paul. “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Big Ag.” IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News, 30 May 2013, spectrum.ieee.org/energy/environment/everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-big-ag.
Stuck on your essay?
