Response: Dialogue on Climate Stifled by Political Two-Step

http://lsc100fall2010.blogspot.com/

             Mr. Spartz describes how recently political figures, such as Dick Cheney and other Republicans, have denied that climate change is occurring despite the enormity of scientific evidence that it is occurring.  By stating that fact is false, these leaders sway a debate in the public eye “toward head-in-the-sand-willful-ignorance”.

Recently in my Environmental Studies class, we have discussed this political denial of reality and how it has largely swayed Americans.  There is no doubt that a climate change beyond natural variability is occurring.  99.9% of scientists believe that it is and have uncovered countless pieces of evidence to prove it.  Mr. Spartz asks, if the question of whether it exists or not (which it does) has already been answered, “why would political figures find it beneficial to perpetuate such views?”  I think the motives behind these highly oppositional views are purely profit driven.  There is a whole industry behind denying proven science to make money.  This is called the denial industry.  The public begins to believe a fact is false through such open denial.  Debate grows and eventually government slows regulation and resists change.  Industries then have more time to make money by manufacturing their products despite environmental harm it may cause.

It is unfortunate that individuals would put the future health of our planet at harm for their own economical benefits, but it is even more unfortunate that the American public is so easily swayed by denial of science.  Does science need to be more widely known to the public or does the public need to reevaluate their priorities?  I believe the later is true.  Americans have lived a very comfortable lifestyle so far without the threat of climate change.  Now that it is eminent, many don’t want to abandon that lifestyle they have grown to know and love.  To persist in the face of climate change Americans must not abandon these lifestyles but adapt to the possible changes before resiliency is not an option.