CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate Change has been an issue from farther back than we can remember. Millions of years ago, the world was at its coldest point, covered in ice during the Ice Age. Our climate has truly taken an enormous turn from then to now with global warming. Recently, film makers have been creating documentaries that depict the beauty of nature. One specific film called Home from 2009 is a notable documentary as it can enlighten viewers on the consequences of climate change because of human pressure on the environment. What can we do to change that?
In past years, there have been many predictions that the world will end. How will we know? Will climate change be the world’s breaking point? What can we do to protect our home and preserve it for generations to come? There are so many questions, but not enough answers.
As we discussed in class, we must learn to be comfortable with uncertainty. Of course, we won’t always be able to answer every single question that comes to mind about the future of this world. However, researching this topic and being able to connect climate change with other sectors old and new has taken our group one step closer to making a global change. We hope that this project will open your eyes to the depths of climate change and encourage you to plan while thinking differently.
SOCIAL PERSEPCTIVE
Our daily life as a community is organized around past and present climatic circumstances. Thus, we may be sensitive to extremes that lie outside of the range of conditions we are normally accustomed to. The health of people, infrastructure, and transportation systems, as well as the availability of electricity and energy, food, and water, could all be impacted by climate change, for instance.
Climate change can affect human health in two ways—by changing the severity of health problems that are already affected by climate and by creating unanticipated health problems in different places at abnormal times of the year where they have not previously occurred. For instance, global temperatures have increased 1.1℃ since 1750. These warmer temperatures have led to longer heat waves in the summer months, which results an increase in heat-related deaths including dehydration and heat strokes, as well as cardiovascular, respiratory, and cerebrovascular disease. Certain groups of people are more at risk than others—the homeless, low-income families, young children, pregnant women, the elder population, outdoor workers, and even student athletes. Today, for example, in the middle of November was roughly 75℉ in New Jersey. In Arkansas, prior to kick off in the LSU v. Arkansas game, snow was covering the field. LSU had requested that they had hot chocolate on the sidelines because of how cold it was. Urban areas are affected worst of all by heat waves because the air circulation is very stagnant and all that there is to breathe is polluted air. In general, air quality has not met national standards in the last couple decades. Thus, asthma diagnoses have gone up significantly, as well as other respiratory diseases. Rising carbon dioxide levels are to thank for this. California by far has the worst air quality due to the increased number of wildfires.
2020 was arguably their worst year, which recorded five of their most destructive wildfires in state history. California wildfires produced more than 91 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2020, according to statistics from the Global Fire Emissions Database as of September 2020. This is nearly 30 million metric tons more carbon dioxide emissions than the state produces through the generation of electricity each year. In addition, scientists predict warmer temperatures will increase the harmful levels of ground-level ozone. Ground-level ozone is essentially a component of smog made up of pollution from cars, power plants, and refineries. People who are exposed to these harmful levels are at risk of damaging lung tissue and lung function, inflaming airways, and worse case dying prematurely. If expected air quality measures remain the same, the increased ozone concentrations brought on by climate change may cause tens to thousands of ozone-related diseases and early deaths each year by 2030. Of these diseases, vector borne diseases are affected the most—Lyme disease and West Nile. Vectors in this case would be ticks, fleas, and mosquitoes. These vectors can transmit infectious illnesses from animals to people, including viruses, bacteria, and protozoa. The geographic range of diseases spread by vectors expands due to changes in temperature, precipitation, and extreme events, which can also cause illnesses to arise earlier in the year. Therefore, climate and non-climate factors, such as land use, socioeconomic and cultural conditions, pest control, access to healthcare, and human reactions to disease risk, will all affect the spread of diseases that are susceptible to climate change.
With climate change already expecting more intense weather events, infrastructure and transportation systems are at risk of being disrupted. Warmer temperatures cause roadways to soften, increasing the number of potholes and sinkholes. Rail lines in subway systems can expand and crack as a result. Extreme flooding weakens the foundations that support bridges and tunnels and reduces the life expectancy of highways and roads. Subways are subject to storm surges. When Hurricane Sandy and Ida hit, NYC subway systems were flooded out, and service was suspended for about a week due to storm damage. Because of increased frequency and ongoing flooding brought on by sea level rise and storm surges, road infrastructure in coastal locations is particularly vulnerable. In the United States, 60,000 miles of coastal roadways are already at risk of flooding from coastal storms and large waves. Air and marine transportation are also impacted.
Extreme heat waves can affect aircraft performance, causing delays and cancellations. Flooding can cause damage to tarmacs and air facilities. Storms that are stronger might cause even more shipping and marine traffic disruptions. It might cause shipping channels to close, and increased runoff from intense precipitation events could result in the accumulation of silt and debris, making waterways shallower and less accessible. Water levels may occasionally drop in areas of escalating drought, restricting inland river shipping in places like the Great Lakes.
Flooded road in Coastal Georgia
Numerous other facets of contemporary life, including water use, the use of goods and services, transportation, economic growth, land use, and population expansion, are intertwined with how we produce and use energy. However, the amount of energy produced, transported, and used in the United States will change because of variations in temperature, precipitation, sea level, and the frequency and severity of extreme events. The demand for electricity for cooling in the summer is likely to rise about 5-20%, and the demand for electricity, natural gas, heating oil, and wood for heating in the winter is likely to fall about 3-15%. At the rate the planet is warming, there will likely be a shift in the balance of energy delivery from natural gas and fuel oil to electricity. With that being said, more infrastructure investments in energy generation and distribution may be required to keep up with the demand. Hydroelectricity and cooling water are important energy sources in the Southeast and Southwest. Changes in precipitation heavily affects their energy generation. Powerplants require large amounts of cooling water when creating energy to keep the temperatures neutral. Due to worries over an adequate supply of cooling water, several local governments in these areas have halted or stopped plans for new power plants that require huge water withdrawals. The Colorado River, which supplies energy and food consumption to seven states, has dropped capacity by about 25%. This region has had a greater increase in temperature than any other part in the United States. Parts of the Basin have warmed up more than twice as much as the average worldwide. Half of the decrease in the Colorado River's average flow since 2000 can be attributed to temperature increases. By 2050, it is expected that temperatures are going to continue to climb, which might result in a further 10–40% decrease in river flows. Because of this, states are now forced to cut their reliance by 40%, otherwise the federal government will have to intervene.
Food and agriculture are important industries in our economy. Farmers and fisheries are highly dependent on the climate. Some crop yields in certain regions can increase because the temperature and carbon dioxide levels increase. However, more severe warming, flooding, and drought may reduce these yields. Heat waves might also seriously endanger livestock. Back in 2011, there was approximately $1 billion in heat-related losses for agricultural producers because of exposure to high temperature occurrences. Animals are impacted by heat stress both directly and indirectly. Heat stress over time can lower fertility, decrease milk production, and make people more susceptible to illness. In addition, disease and risk of parasites increase. Fisheries feel the effects of climate change through water pollution. Changes in water temperature have caused most species to migrate north. Migrating puts these species at risk because for one they are in competition with other species, and two exposes them to marine disease outbreaks. To boot, increased temperatures affect the timing of reproduction because it can harm a species’ lifecycle.
There are several instances where enhanced knowledge and technologies from space travel have benefited society. A wide range of facets of daily life have benefited from space exploration, including solar panels, implantable heart monitors, cancer therapy, lightweight materials, water purification systems, enhanced computing systems, and a global search and rescue system. The above-mentioned ambitious aspirations for future exploration will increase the economic value of space. As new areas of science and technology are opened by space exploration, other industries will be encouraged to collaborate with the space industry on joint research and development. This will provide direct benefits to Earth in the fields of resources, energy production, power generation, medicine, computing, and AI.
Pop culture is filled with visions of the future. Revolving around the worldwide response to climate, energy, and space. Today, space is a badge of honor on par with the Olympic Games, dating all the way back to the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. Having the ability to launch satellites, exit the planet’s atmosphere, and join the international space station can elevate a nation to elite status. For the wealthy, space travel is the ultimate status symbol. With the world’s wealthiest people building and treating space like their own car show. Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, in particular, have been in their own space race for the past two decades. The two have been conspiring all through the pandemic. During which Bezos' personal wealth nearly doubled. He is now focusing his time on Blue Origin, a corporation he believes will establish huge human settlements throughout the solar system. Musk’s rival SpaceX wants to “make humanity multiplanetary.” His goal is to establish colonies on Mars and build technology capable of bringing hundreds of people and tons of equipment into the solar system. He even secured a $2.9 billion contract from NASA to make this happen. Now, despite its allure, this is all at best a diversion and at worst a deadly distraction from the essential work of reestablishing a society that has been devastated by social injustice, climatic change, and a lack of hope for the future. However, at this point, it may be too late.
ETHICAL PERSPECTIVE
Science plays a huge role in finding a solution for climate change. It can inform us of how detrimental climate change can be according to different greenhouse gas levels, but is morality and ethics taken into consideration when deciding what we can do to slow down climate change? The answer is no, but it should be.
When dealing with any situation, there are always at least two sides. Being that climate change is a global issue, it affects more than the current society. Around the world, debates are rising since there is a lack of clarity on actions against climate change and how they align with fairness and responsibility.
The first challenge around the climate change debate is the balance of accountability and responsibility between developed and underdeveloped nations. All countries would collectively want to limit emissions to reduce any catastrophic outcomes. A climate conference by the United Nations brought about a statement that declared that all greenhouse gas emissions should be cut at least 50 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050. However, some nations disagreed with such binding commitments since some aren’t nearly as accountable for the increase in emissions as other countries. For example, the United States, “has produced about a quarter of carbon dioxide that humankind has added to the atmosphere” (Somerville), yet they were one of the nations to pull out of the Paris Agreement to help mitigate climate change. That is not fair to vulnerable countries who have emitted the least number of gases in history and whose emissions are still low. Fortunately, the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer serves a great model in addressing how to oversee this ethical dilemma. This agreement recognized that developed and developing countries has different concerns when it came to this issue. Therefore, the agreements asked developed countries to take the lead on addressing the issue since they are the nations who had produced most of the substances that destroy the ozone layer.
The second challenge is the debate of using a “technological remedy” for climate change. We are quickly moving into a more technology-based world. The recent COVID-19 pandemic has expedited that process. While we were having class online or working from home, there was enough time to start thinking of ways for us to use technology to our advantage. This is proposed as an ethical issue because there is uncertainty of whether technology could help the climate change situation or hurt it. People are turning to geo-engineering as a solution but are unaware of its known negative side effects. Although geo-engineering is inexpensive and conceivable, it could lead to further destruction of the stratospheric ozone. Experiments using solar forcing to lessen greenhouse gases have been proven to show significant changes in temperature and precipitation, but not simultaneously given that Earth’s hydrological system responds differently to solar forcing. It is also important to note that geoengineering will be needed in different amounts for some climates more than others based on how much restoration occurs. The ethics behind this is that it would be irresponsible for us to implement geoengineering to mitigate climate change. Using geoengineering will continue to cause use to rely of fossil fuels which we are trying to avoid. Moreover, it would intervene with international nations without us knowing what the outcome could be, meaning that there is a possibility that we can make the climate change situation worse than it already is.
The third ethical challenge is how we make decisions concerning climate change for future generations. It takes years and years for the Earth to heat up even a single degree Celsius. Therefore, it would take an equivalent amount of time to cool the Earth down. Some critics argue that although we should take future generations into account, we should focus more importantly on the present generations. However, many generations to come will be affected by all the actions we take now to mitigate climate change, especially since the effects of greenhouse gases will materialize after decades or even centuries. It is estimated that if the Earth is reaches a 2 degree Celsius warming, it could lead to “extreme precipitation, more heat waves, compromised agriculture in tropical and temperate regions, and widespread species extinction” (Institute for Futures Studies). If this is how the future will be affected, one could only imagine what the effects of a warming of 4 degrees Celsius or more will do. Sea levels are expected rise up to 1 meter in the next 80 years. Not only is this detrimental to coastal areas, but to inland areas as well. There is a great chance that many parts of Earth will be underwater! If we do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions immediately, it is possible that the Earth will warm up to a point where the Greenland Ice Sheet will collapse resulting in up to 7 meters of sea levels rising, making the Earth inhabitable.
Recently, a debate on individual responsibility on climate change has come up. Some say that individuals’ responsibilities are solely political where there is no obligation to change their choices. However, the other side states that individuals should consider a set of greener values and take responsibility for their personal choices. Even though the emissions of a single human might not seem like enough to affect the world, it has been challenged that they are actually “significant enough to contribute to the severe suffering and/or deaths of two future people” (Nolt). This statement in itself should be enough to open our eyes to climate change and its future impacts.
LEGAL PERSPECTIVE
Air pollution is a rights-based issue, and law is a tool for positive change! Air pollution, which affects the climate, violates the rights to life and health, the rights of a child, and the right to live in a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. The main cause of air pollution is the burning of solid fuel and diesel use in transportation. The implications from this include premature deaths in cities where there has been consistent failure to meet legally prescribed air quality standards.
Where governments fail to act to protect the rights of citizens, courts step in. “The fundamental rule of law is a principle under which all persons, institutions, and entities are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, independently adjudicated, and consistent with international human rights principles.” Courts need to step in to ensure that laws aren’t being ignored and that their people are protected. Otherwise, an implication would be distrust in the court system, and a surge of upset people advocating for change.
In a recent case in the Netherlands, the court found that its current generation of citizens will be confronted with loss of life and disruption of family life and ordered the government to cut emissions by at least 25% by 2020. Although the Netherlands only contributes 0.5% of emissions, the court found that they still had an obligation to actively protect their citizens.
Say the Netherlands ignored these requests and kept doing business as usual the implications they could find themselves in a bad position legally and financially. They could have claims for failing to mitigate impacts of climate change under public and private nuisance, negligence, failure to warn, trespass, and unjust enrichment laws. States that do not wish to protect their citizens and do not see climate change as a serious issue will soon encounter a strong force called ClientEarth. They are a “global environmental charity using the power of the law to protect people and the planet.” They have taken on a huge responsibility, but a necessary one at that. They are international lawyers working together to find practical solutions for the issues that effect the whole world. For example, if a company were to try and build a new coal-fired power plant, ClientEarth would bring a case against them for failing to adapt to the impacts of climate change. The claims would include the engineers, and other professional services for breach of their duties of care if they do not design their infrastructure in a way that would accommodate the future climate conditions.
Furthermore, an important legal document with its main goals to mitigate climate change would be the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement is a legally binding, international UN treaty under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It strives for economic and social transformation and works on a five year cycle where the terms become increasingly more intense. The goals for this agreement are very well said and is a start to solving the problem and saving the Earth. The problem is that countries are failing to accomplish their goals, and are breaching their contracts by not posting their progress or ignoring their responsibilities all together. The agreement includes commitments to holding the global average temperature rise to below 2⁰C and to continue to put in effort to limit the temperature increase to 1.5⁰C. Another goal set out in the agreement is to reduce emissions to net zero by mid-century. The implications that come from setting up an agreement but not following through would be a significant increase in regulations. If countries are not doing their best to mitigate climate change, hopefully this agreement, which has not been taken seriously, will push countries to make real change. Although the Paris Agreement has good intentions and includes important goals, it has failed to meet deadlines. Governments are not behaving as if global warming is a crisis.
Although Pakistan, Australia, Africa, and India are already experiencing extreme temperatures, droughts, and death, it seems like nothing will change in climate until the death tolls begin to rise. The $100 billion climate change finance from rich nations has yet to reach poor countries. Currently, there is distrust in climate change initiatives because of broken promises and breached agreements. At Cop 27, which are climate talks held in November, many countries will need to speak honestly that they have not fulfilled their statutory duty to publish environment bill targets. It is serious business that the United Kingdom Government “has delayed publication of clean water and biodiversity targets, putting it in breach of its environment act”. Several environmental groups have accused the government of an “attack on nature.” Only a select few countries have taken these agreements seriously since COP26 climate summit in Glasgow last November. “Failing to meet legal deadlines to introduce targets to ensure we have clean air, land, and water amounts to a monumental dereliction of duty.” Governments are upsetting the people and are not following through on their promises.
Delivering on the Paris Agreement requires a "dramatic shift in the way that we produce and use energy" and "The UN Environment Programme, the international Energy Agency and the Intergovernmental panel on climate change have made it clear that it requires significant reductions in coal, oil, and natural (fossil) gas to reach the goals in the Paris Agreement." We need others who work in Policy, Government, and Security, as well as News and Information to work with us to make change. If we were to work together on our topics, we could find a beneficial solution to climate change.
CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE
The effect of climate change on cultures is not something we often think about. Glaciers melting, sea levels rising, prolonged droughts. These are the things we picture in our head when the topic of climate change comes up. In reality, many cultures are suffering due to the change in climate. Numerous communities are forced to consider moving from their homelands, as it is becoming harder and harder for them to survive. There are two aspects to this predicament. Either migration might lead to communities losing part of their culture by leaving their homelands, or their strong devotion to their cultural beliefs and values lead to many refusing to leave which threatens their life. There is no good outcome. Many different cultures are facing this difficulty. An example would be the Himalayan village of Dhye in Nepal. This village resides about 12,000 feet above sea level, and they are very dependent on natural resources for their livelihood. Due to climate change, the land where the villagers grow crops has dried out. The living conditions were becoming tough, so many of the families came to a tough decision: whether to stay or leave. There were a total of 26 families in this village; 17 of them decided to leave. The villagers migrated about one mile downhill from their original village where the living conditions were more suitable. However, they could not raise yaks anymore. Raising yaks was a big part of their culture, and something that they had been doing for many generations. This tradition is impossible to continue after they migrate. For the villagers of Dhye, not being able to raise yaks represented a loss of culture. In another instance, a coastal community in Alaska is experiencing a loss of culture as well. Shishmaref is a small indigenous community that resides in coastal Alaska. This community depends on consistent hunting of sea mammals for their livelihood. Unfortunately, this lifestyle is at stake due to climate change.
Rising sea levels, melting ice, floods and erosion have made their land inhospitable, threatening their life. The people of Shishmaref would like to relocate to survive, but at the same time, they are afraid of losing their village lifestyle and culture. Specifically, they are afraid of losing their long tradition of hunting sea animals and being beside the ocean. To the people of Shishmaref, the ocean is a big part of their social and cultural life, and they are afraid of losing that. The villagers on Dhye and the people of Shishmaref are just two examples of many instances where people are undergoing a loss in culture because of climate change.
Dhye Village
Losing culture is not something to be taken lightly. Cultures are created through decades and centuries of tradition and practices. For the Dhye village, this was raising yak; for the Shishmaref community, this was hunting sea animals. Having culture and following their rituals and traditions gave them structure and a purpose. For those engulfed in their culture, it teaches them a way of living, humanity, and history, essentially shaping who they are as human beings. When you are immersed in a culture for your entire life, and suddenly, it is being taken away from you, it affects these people significantly—many who lose their culture experience a loss of direction and meaning. For a lot of people around the world, their culture is essential to them, and climate change is putting it all at risk. Many cultures were created on land. Their practices and way of life revolved around the natural resources they were given based on their environment. Climate change is causing many cultures around the world to migrate in order to survive. With migration comes a change in environment and natural resources; therefore, many are no longer able to practice their culture.
Historically, cultures were able to aid themselves by predicting weather patterns. Foreseeing when it is going to rain, or when big storm hits can be essential for many communities. Doing so can help by knowing when storms will hit so they can accurately prepare for them. Predicting when rain will come is also important because a lot of cultures rely on growing their own food. In the past few years, many communities have been hit with droughts. Their soil is dried out, and crop production has dramatically decreased. Being able to predict when it will rain can help farmers by knowing when water is coming for the crops. Recently, the weather has been unpredictable, and many have been having trouble predicting it. This is shown in the Maasai tribe of southern Kenya and northern Tanzania. The Maasai tribe has been one of the largest and most popular African tribes for a long time. As of late, they have not been able to accurately predict the weather patterns. A member of the tribe said, “In the recent past, we have been experiencing unpredictable rain patterns”. Another member said, “From the way the weather has become unpredictable our children will never be like us, the way we were brought up on how to locate grazing lands. They will only know the language but never understand the Maasai traditions”. This just shows how big of an impact the changing weather is having on them, as many are concerned that their culture is coming to an end. With that being said, members of the Maasai tribe are doing anything they can to keep their culture alive. Prolonged droughts are worsening the child marriage situation among the tribe. Many families are giving away their daughters, as young as 12, to be brides in exchange for cattle. The droughts have led to a high cost of raising children, and this all too often results in girls being viewed as economic burdens, and families end up shipping them away to get married. This situation accurately displays how much culture means to the Massai tribe, and how desperate members of the tribe are to stay practicing their culture. They could easily leave for a better way of living, but they would rather give their daughters away and stay.
While many cultures are suffering as a result of climate change, culture can also be a vital component in mitigating this pressing issue. A new study has found that world heritage sites serve as crucial “sinks” for greenhouse gas emissions. Researchers at UNESCO found that world heritage forests in 257 separate sites absorbed about 190 million tons of CO2 from the atmosphere each year. To give an idea of how much that is, the UK emits just about half of that. While this is not a solution, it definitely helps. At the end of the day, culture is a way of life. The behaviors, beliefs and values we exhibit are all reflected in our culture. Ultimately, we all have a culture of some sort. In order to fully solve the problem of climate change, we as a society must reflect it in our culture. Our values, behaviors, beliefs and overall way of life must mirror how crucial of an issue climate change really is.
POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE
The government plays a huge role in climate change being that the executive branch implements existing law through regulation and programs. The issue of climate change has become highly politicized and controversial. Specialists who focus on news and media and their impacts would say that the political culture is shaped by the media. Different party leaders will use different words in order to convince others to agree with them. For example, the phrase “extreme weather” was more effective in winning over American conservatives – for whom “climate change” has become an overused and emotional term.
People’s views on climate change is influenced by so many things from political philosophies to religious beliefs. Most importantly, the political climate and the tone of the media debate play a significant role in people’s beliefs.
When humans and scientists started to notice the effects of climate change it was looked at purely through an environmental lens. People wanted to know what it was and wanted to see the research to back it up. Then, attitudes shifted when the Kyoto treaty on climate change came along. People’s views started shifting from a purely environmental lens to a more political one. Naturally, the divide started, and people started to take sides, people disapproved, and other just simply did not believe.
Now, with the rise of social media it is easy to become secluded to the group that you side the most with and possibly share false information just to get others to agree with you. The highly politicized controversy creates statistics such as this one.
“72 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning Americans say human activity is driving climate change, only 22 percent of Republicans and Republican leaders agreed.” This split contributes to debates and controversy over economics, and biased information being shared with their own parties. If a certain party finds it hard to believe that human activity is driving climate change, then it is hard to move forward if one party has more voting power.
First, the Democrats. “Democrats believe that climate change poses a real and urgent threat to our economy, our national security, and our children’s health and futures, and that Americans deserve the jobs and security that come from becoming the clean energy superpower of the 21st century.” Under President Obama, this party was able to protect our environmental and public lands. President Obama also instructed the Environmental protection agency to take stapes to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. Democrats believe that by being a clean energy superpower, then we could create millions of good-paying jobs and protect the planet for future generations.
Liberal democrats place more faith in the work of climate scientists. They believe that the possible causes as well as who should be sorting this out is the job of a scientist. Thus, Democrats believe that a much more natural disasters are headed out way and that the cause of this is human actions. They will be inclined to believe that policy and individual actions is the way to mitigate some of these changes. Democrats are also especially likely to see scientists’ evaluations and research for the truth. They make decisions based off of science and view that information in a positive light. They believe that with a mix of science and policy climate change can be tackled and is not just a lost cause.
Now, for the Republicans. At an average amount, there is some recognition of the significance of global warming and how important it is to act on it. The party is divided on whether human activity has anything to do with it. In fact, certain party members do not recognize that climate change is real, and others believe that it is a natural progression of the planet. Under Donald Trump, the United States stands alone as the only nation in the world that is not a party to the Paris Climate Agreement. Donald Trump also called climate change “a hoax invented by the Chinese,” and withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement. Republicans are more less quick to believe scientists information and research. They are skeptical about scientist’s motives and hesitate to want them getting involved in policy decisions about climate issues. “No more than about two-in-ten conservative Republicans consider any of these potential harms to be “very likely”; about half say each is either “not too” or “not at all” likely to occur.” The difference in the parties creates controversy and debate over climate change.
In America, citizens are divided by party more than the serious importance of global warming. However, there is more agreement across party lines when it comes to legislative action to address climate change. Americans across the political spectrum are more receptive to climate change measures such as “increased emphasis on developing and using alternative energy sources, tax credits for corporations that reduce carbon emissions, and increased government regulation on corporations carbon emissions.” More than 60 percent of all parties supported these proposals. Lastly, different factors influence individuals’ decisions regardless of their party. For example, a person’s concern about climate change is influenced by whether he or she has experienced unusual climate events. Also, people with high knowledge about climate change, and who have been shown a multitude of research tend to agree more with research.
Republican and Democratic Viewpoints