How can we bridge the political gap on environmental issues and climate change?

Question

I'm looking for answers about how we can bring both sides together, by the way. Please no blaming, finger-pointing, name-calling, etc. Whatever side of the issue you are on, I want to know how we can all come together and work for a better environment, whether global warming is man-made or not.

Answer 1

Quite simply, people need to understand the science behind global warming before forming an opinion about what our political course of action should be. Too many people go straight into the politics of the issue before understanding the science, which leads to opinions like "global warming is just a liberal hoax to enact a climate change tax!".

There needs to be some sort of effort to make sure everyone is educated about the scientific evidence regarding global warming.

Answer 2

Excellent question. Difficult question.

Bridging the political gap on environmental issues and Climate Change is far more challenging than the science itself.

I tnink that one of the best politicians the we have that has demonstrated the capacity to truly understand the science and the politics of an issue is Bill Clinton.

Part of the genius of Bill Clinton was his focus on the economy.

During Bill Clinton's Presidency I think that we had one of the best economies that we have had in our history. No matter what the issue, the effect of any of the proposed actions on the economy was given high priority during the Clinton adminstration..

When I see discussions of Climate Change and Global Warming, one of the strong underlying currents that I see is concern over the cost and the sacrifice that may be involved..

People on one side of the issue are concerned what negative effects actions to stop Climate Change and Global Warming will have on the economy and how much it will cost.

People on the other side of the issue cite the cost to the economy if we do not stop Climate Change and Global Warming.

People are also concerned about the amount of time and effort it will take if we all must adopt many of the time consuming rituals that have been recommended that we perform to reduce the size of our "carbon footprints".

Unfortunately even though the science that has been devoted to the analysis of Climate Change and Global Warming is quite good, the economic investigation into the costs of all of the different options I think leaves much to be desired.

One thing is clear to me, it is very important to come up with actions and solutions that minimize the cost to individuals and the economy, If anything, we must be doing things that will help the economy.

People do vote their pocketbooks. If we do not maintain a good economy as we work on the problem of Climate Change and Global Warming the public will vote to elect politicians who will deliver a good economy even if that means failure to address the Climate Change and Global Warming issues.

Because the costs of Climate Change and Global Warming are largely in the future and the costs of preventing Climate Change and Global Warming are immediate, there will be a bias in favor of politicians who put off into the future actions and solutions that would reduce Climate Change and Global Warming.

Another large challenge is the issue of credibility. Climate Change and Global Warming have become issues that have become quite popular in the press.

Unfortunately to get attention, the issues of Climate Change and Global Warming have been over hyped and exaggerated in the popular press.

That destroys the credibility of people who address the issues of Climate Change and Global Warming.

The movie "The Day After Tomorrow" is a good example of some of the exaggeration in the popular media.

We will need to persuade the popular media to do a better job of disseminating factual information without all of the exaggeration that we have been seeing on these issues.


Essentially I think that the key to bridging the political gap on these issues will be economic issues.

Any solutions that we propose on these issues must have a minimal cost to individuals and to the economy.

We must maintain our credibility that we will sove these problems at minimal cost to individuals and to the economy if we are to be successful at bridging the political gap on these issues.

Answer 3

Well, thats simple, climate is one thing and environmental issues are another thing. If it takes improvements on the environmental issue to improved our climate, is not really an issue, as our air quality will always have an impact on our general health. So I guess that if our social priorities would be reset to proper realistic values, we could say that if we work toward preserving better breathable air as EVERYBODY will win if such consideration is taken into acccount. Now the other problem is that most peoples cannot noticed that urban air is bad for our health and have an impact on our brain functions (less oxygen means less brain power), but WE do know that its bad for the climate (even without accurate figures)... So I guess our society is not really objective anymore, and since you are in sociology, you should know, that no human beings on earth can REALLY be objective... Cultural prism are much more powerful in our society than it has ever been before, and this can only be corrected by proper education... That is, educate your people in a broader way and eyes will open. I guess its why the Freemason and the Rosicrucian are so powerful in our society today, they share all the knowledge of the world among themselves, while our university remain in their stronghold preserving the little they know about this world... Knowledge is power, and its time that such knowledge be made available for the whole planet population...

Answer 4

That may not be possible.

The AGW movement demands that everyone accepts that man-made forcings have caused the majority of current climate change. Every solution that seeks to alter the climate back to what we perceive as "normal" turns out to be ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL (ie, destroys the environment) if man is not the primary cause. And with the global population momentum that is sought, this does not appear to be a "let's dip a toe into the water and see if it's warm" situation, but a charging "cannonball" into the swimming hole - the "splash" is going to be big, and not necessarily good.

If you have not guessed by now, I am dead set against this type of global meddling.

However, there is a lot of room to find this bridge by seeking the commonality with other proven environmental problems and solutions - we can absolutely guarantee the fruitfulness of our efforts, regardless of whether our environmental destruction is causing this climate change. The chief concession by alarmists will be the abandoning of "alarmism"; regardless of what anyone says, climate predictions have never been shown to have any long term accuracy, and that is all the alarmism amounts to. There will have to be a great level of trust that people will learn to do the right thing for the environment because it IS right, not because they are afraid for their own butts.

One thing is for sure, the political bridge will never be created as long as we allow those wealthy enough to purchase a little carbon "salvation" to continue "sinning" against the environment.

And yeah, folks, let's get those thumbs downs going - it's your own way of blocking opinions you don't accept.

Answer 5

This is a good question. But will you consider this idea:

Environmental issues are created by what we call 'the tragedy of the commons', where the common land where 'everyone' owns is destroyed and polluted by the public because there is no 'one' person to hold accountable to, and since 'everyone' owns the land, no 'one' person owns the land. If it were private property, the owner would not allow his land to be destroyed or polluted by another person, at least not without recourse. So, this so called destruction of the environment happens most of the time in public or federally owned lands. Yes, the destruction of the environment happens majority of the time in federally owned lands. Look it up. Then ask yourself why.

Then ask yourself, if the federally owned land was owned by private owners, would this destruction go un-accounted for, or will the private owners do nothing?

Once the federal government takes away private land and makes it public, you will see the degradation of property values and improper use of the land. Private owners usually care for their land better than federal government. If more land was privatized, there will be less environmental pollution.

So, the bridge is privatization of public land as a political solution. Let the owners clean up the environmental pollution. Private parties do a much better job in anything that the government does.

Answer 6

It's tough. It's very much like asking how we can come together on the Iraq war.

At the person to person level there will be some heated disputes. Particularly on the Internet. I know you don't like that, which I find admirable, if unrealistic.

It will take better political leadership than we have right now to bring the nation together on some issues. Dividing the country has been used incessantly and skillfully as a tool to gain political advantage by people like Karl Rove. Pulling back from that will be hard.

EDIT - Note how many people have used this question as an opportunity to grind their personal axe about global warming. Gives you an idea what you're up against.

Answer 7

I think we need to learn lessons from the past, the relationship between politicians, scientists, environmentalists and other interested parties has often been fraught with conflicts of opinions and opposing sides refusing to listen, negotiate or give ground. There has frequently been a closed minded approach and little respect shown for the other groups involved.

If the parties were more open minded and elected to work together as opposed to against each other I feel more progress would be made. It would aslo help if each person knew their own role, accepted the role of others, and stopped interfering in areas in which they aren't qualified.

Answer 8

Well, there is obviously no simple answer. Other wise they would have done it already. It is a fact that the earth is constantly headed towards distruction. If the world doesn't burst into a ball of flames, it is going to eventually cease to exist one way or another. The best thing we can do is make sure that everyone is aware of the environmental issues that surround us. If they don't know then they can't help. I really don't think that polotics should have anything to do with it. We should all be working towards a common goal of helping to restore the earth regardless of our political beliefs.

Answer 9

One of the suggestions that has been raised on a number of skeptical websites is a funded, independent audit of the data and calculations relating to the GW problem. This is, I think, a good idea. The cost is tiny, especially when compared to the costs of GW and the costs of mitigating GW. The audit should be fully public, and publicly verifiable. Every step, every program, and all the original data should, for example, be put out on the internet, along with full documentation about how these items were used.

Such an "audit" might go a long way toward persuading the unconvinced and the conspiracy-minded.

Answer 10

Well it's sad. A tiny minority of people representing themselves as Republicans (or Conservatives) have assured the election of a Democratic President. This starts with President Bush and ends somewhere in the neighborhood of Mr. jello or his descendants. If the Democratic President has a Majority in Congress, and if that Democratic President is concerned about the environment (not a con artist like Gore), then the will of the majority will have ruled, and you can consider the gap bridged. Pretty iffy, ain't it?