Can any progress be made in regards to climate change as long as it remains a political issue?

Answer 1

I think political interference is hampering progress within the scientific community.

I feel that some politicians, when they go on a crusade, aren't doing much to help either. A few years ago it might have brought environmental problems to people's attention but there surely can't be anyone on the planet that's not aware of climate change - regardless as to whether they beleive it or not.

Many people (myself included) have an inherent mistrust of politicians and don't have agreat deal of respect for them. Are these really the right people to be 'educating' the masses? I think not.

Leave the science to the scientists, the environment to the environmentalists and the politics to the politicians.

Answer 2

Of course there can. I understand where you are comming from. Unfortunately climate change isn't an issue that will be solved by politicians... it took them this long to decide there was a problem. Then they have to consider their re-electibility if they vote one way or another, and the economics, and their standing with fellow politicians, and the issues put forward by lobbyists, and international issues. It's way too complicated to exact change through politicians. Luckily, all politics are local.

So as a grass roots effort we can all swap out incandescent light bulbs, use less energy, water our lawns later in the day, fuel up later in the day or at night, plan our trips better, use ride sharing or alternative transportation. Climate change progress begins with me, and you. Check out the wikihow link for a list of the stuff we can do. I've seen your avatar around so I'm sure you are aware of most of these methods.

Us changing our lifestyle will answer a lot of those questions for the politicians, and that is the progress that we need. njdevil mentioned that no big law is going to save us, which is correct, because laws are just a way to motivate people (usually not in a good way). People acting will save us.

Answer 3

Yes and no. Since it IS a global problem, any action has to be taken by everyone. That makes it inherently political. But there are some non-political actions possible. Like funding research and development of alternative energy. Fusion power research qualifies. If the research produces a workable and economical new energy source, no political pressure would be needed, because it will automatically take over the marker if it really is better. Especially after oil starts to run low, which may be very soon now (within 100 years or less).

Answer 4

If it were a universal political issue and all parties supported doing something for the environment, then yes. As it is now, with the politics being used to drive a wedge between half of the country and environmentalism, then no.

Answer 5

Yes , but at a snail pace. TO improve the chances we need to have the changes made at an individual level. COnvince people to spend extra for Environmentally friendly products. Soft sell works better than hard. I offer to buy my sister Compact flourescent bulbs for her. I finally got a free one from Yahoo!!!!!!! and Once in a while I will got to a place that is subsidized by Southern California Edison, and sell CFL for 3 for a $1.

Answer 6

I doubt it, except on an individual basis. The situation is similar to seat belt laws or motorcycle helmet laws in the United States. The people opposed are concerned only with the effects on themselves, and indifferent to the effects on everybody else. That puts the USA pretty much in opposition with the rest of the world except for part of OPEC. It's the inherent elitist nature of the culture that will be our undoing.

Answer 7

Progress will be made on energy conservation, and pollution reduction, when people are willing to endure the hardships that are necessary to bring about change.

There are definitely tradeoffs. Would you be willing to pay more for your new (or used) car? Would you be willing to pay $10 a gallon for gasoline? Would Hollywood celebrities be willing to live in smaller houses and stop flying on private planes? Would you be willing to have American jobs move to China and other places where they don't worry so much about pollution?

Sacrifice is necessary in order to bring about change, and so far, most of us (including Al Gore and the Hollywood types) are not willing to make the kind of changes that would significantly decrease energy usage. So, we must not think it's that important.

I think that the solution is to identify ways that we can decrease use of polluting energy (particularly petroleum) without decreasing our standard of living. American ingenuity and entrepreneurism will make a lot of progress if people are willing to support it. But we have to be realistic about the tradeoffs involved.

Answer 8

Well you know the answer to this one!! Has politics has the reputation to solve problems or to respond to non profitable concerns? So I am pretty sure that it doesn`t solved anything and will certainly not even come close to reach a common consensus on the CAUSES of such climatic shift!!
I guess we call this arrogance, me I call this auto-destructive behavior!!!

Answer 9

progress can be made within community groups and on an individual level but if you are waiting for some great law to be passed to drasticalyl cut greenhouse emissions it wont be coming from the US political system....half of them are still in denial which amazes me but we can only hope at this point to show them that it exists and then maybe finally they will do soemthing

Answer 10

Not really. Too much money being paid by the people that don't want every car to make 60-70mpg.