Climate science, Political science

This Tuesday Americans will vote for the presidential candidate whose propositions best represent their views and interests. During this election cycle, the candidates’ views have been exposed and scrutinized by the press and we have seen them debate on issues of immigration, national defense, labor law reform, social issues of race and gender, health coverage, and the welfare system. However, there is one certain obvious truth that has been surprisingly neglected this election—it starts with a “C” and ends with “limate change”.

Being a global phenomenon, climate change is an important topic not only for America but for the entire world. According to a 2015 survey of 40 nations by the Pew Research Center, the majority of the world thinks climate change is a serious problem, and around half the people surveyed think it is a very serious problem.[1]

Climate change is in the same group of topics as evolution. It is backed by science, and in its general formulation, it is a fact. The physics behind climate change are well understood and climate models are well founded. There is little doubt about the theoretical mechanisms behind climate change. The greenhouse effect certainly exists and is exacerbated by man-made CO2 emissions. The planet is going to get warmer, average temperatures are going to increase, and seal levels will rise.

Of course, data problems, computer technology limitations, and human biases justify skepticism towards specific predictions rendered by climate models. There is little consensus about the ways that climate change may manifest itself, but the general idea that climate change is real and that its impacts are weighted toward unfavorable outcomes is undeniable.

Climate change is real and climate change is in large part caused by human activity. The world will experience climate change differently, with some regions seeing positive impacts. However, the consensus is that the negative outcomes will have disastrous consequences that will vastly overwhelm the positive ones.  To get an idea of the scale of the negative impact, think of the millions, if not billions, of people living in large urban centers along the coast that will be affected by sea level rise. Also, think of the millions of farmers in developing countries located in the tropics that rely heavily on rainfall for their livelihoods.

That’s what science says. However, whether you agree with it or not may have to do more with political loyalties than with reason and experience. Americans seem to be especially good at ignoring or denying the existence of climate change. As an international student of environmental sciences I was disturbed to find that Americans are among the least concerned about climate change and its potential impacts. In fact, according to a recent poll from Monmouth University, 30 percent of Americans do not actually believe in climate change, and of the believers, only 27 percent of respondents agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity is the main cause of climate change.[2]

In a university context we’d like to think that science and politics are different realms with different objectives and different rules. However, in a larger social scale, it seems that politics can tell us more about climate science than is appropriate. In fact, surveys and polls consistently find that Americans’ views about climate change issues divide sharply along partisan lines. Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to consider climate change a very serious problem, believe its effects are being felt now, think it will harm them personally, and support US participation in an international agreement to limit greenhouse gas emission.[3]

Accordingly, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Jill Stain and Gary Johnson all have very different stances on energy and environmental policy and their approach to address climate change varies wildly.[4] That they have different positions and opinions is not really the issue—that’s perfectly consistent with the premises of representative democracy. What is truly freaky is that not only do they differ on the extent to which the government should regulate domestic industries or on the role of the US as a global leader; they also differ on their support of the very basic science that proves its existence and its human cause.[5]

It troubles me that a topic that is so important globally did not received proper attention in this election. Equally worrisome are the actual views and positions that were left unexposed—especially when blasphemous statements were being made left and right by the potential president of the most powerful country in the world.

I am not the only one who thinks this way. Although majorities of Americans appear skeptical of climate science, there is a group of Americans who are more pragmatic than ideological and who are deeply concerned about climate issues, regardless of their partisan orientation: The Millenials (here).

A USA TODAY/ Rock the VOte MIllenial Poll found that the under 35 generation places climate and energy policy among their top political priorities, together with the labor market, welfare programs and gun control (here). As a participant in the poll put it, “If we don’t have a place to live then, it doesn’t really make sense to worry about anything else”.

Both the environment and the economy will suffer from the impacts of climate change. According to an analysis by the think tank demos and liberal advocacy group NextGen, if policymakers do nothing to deal with climate change, the Millenials generation is set to lose $8.8 trillion in income over their lifetime–for reference, compare this to the projected $1 trillion lifetime income loss induced from the student-debt crisis (here).

Yet, despite being disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change, the recent elections does not even come close to representing the views of Millenials on climate and energy policy. When will the aging voters yield power to young people to start acting on the mess they have handed to us?

In future elections I expect citizens of this country and of the world to demand their representatives to take responsibility and propose solutions to all issues that matter to them. It seems clear that students, academics, and researchers concerned with the environment and the livelihoods of those most vulnerable to its changes must stop hiding behind their science and must take their voice to the public domain. After all, in the US, climate science is the ultimate political science. Students, researchers and professors must speak up their science so that in four years our world is not ignored by our leaders again.

[1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/18/what-the-world-thinks-about-climate-change-in-7-charts/

[2] http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/264767-poll-70-percent-believe-in-climate-change

[3] http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/11/05/global-concern-about-climate-change-broad-support-for-limiting-emissions/

[4] https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_energy_and_environmental_policy

[5] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/energy/2016/01/voters-guide-how-the-candidates-compare-on-climate-and-other-issues/

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s