Problem will require political action

Matt Stern
Although the evidence of climate change continues to pile up, tangible change continues to be in short supply. This is unfortunate, as the forecasted impacts of climate change are dramatic in the worst sort of way. Whether you are worried about the environment, economic vitality or simply how comfortable your local climate will be in the not-so-distant future, climate change is a serious problem.
Thus it is crucial we find a solution, and that process can only begin once we acknowledge that it is a political problem we are dealing with. The science explaining climate change is clear, and there are plenty of solutions on the table. What is not so clear is how we will be able to mobilize political society and encourage enough people to make the necessary — and sometimes painful — changes.
At this point, there is virtually no debate in the scientific community about climate change and the impact CO2 has on global temperatures. Records indicate CO2 levels over the past 650,000 years had never risen above 300 ppm until 1950, according to NASA. Today, however, they are on the verge of topping 400 ppm. Global sea level has risen in excess of six inches during the past century, and temperatures have risen by every measure.
Despite the overwhelming evidence of climate change, scientists have been devastatingly useless in sounding the alarm and explaining to society why we have to change our habits. Science itself has come under attack recently by flocks of people who are convinced the earth is only 6,000 years old and that an empirical worldview has nothing useful to offer to humanity.
This is truly stunning when we consider the results the scientific method has produced over the years. Nobody alive today worries that his or her child will be stricken with polio, or that most of us would be disappointed to die before 80 should be testament enough to the benefits of holding a scientific empirical worldview. Instead, scientists have completely failed to capitalize on literally the best track record any group in human history to which we have ever laid claim.
This is not surprising, as taking credit and looking good are not what scientists are trained to or care to do.
Such efforts are best left to political leaders who live and die by what people think of them and their accomplishments. Thus, if we are going to confront this crisis, it is clear that we need a political movement overshadowing anything the human race has seen before.
Instead of declaring science apolitical, we should embrace the fact that humans have a natural tendency to want to be on “a team” and harness the power of that urge. We need to make living a sustainable life the only socially acceptable life to live.
Current political efforts being made by environmental groups fall short of this standard.
Time spent talking about the impact your actions will have on others in some far-off land or time is time wasted. Frankly, our human nature favors self-interest. Instead of fighting this natural tendency, we should embrace it. The price of consuming fossil fuels should be high and should result in unanimous social exclusion.
There is arguably no better way to impact behavior than by tapping into humans’ need to be accepted, and tapping into this need is the best way to address climate change as a political problem.

Positive change dependent on people

Patrick Boner
People within the political landscape are beginning — slowly — to realize steps must be taken to combat climate change that is being substantially affected by humans. Yet climate change is too big a problem to be solved with political action alone. People everywhere must take part in reducing the trends of rising CO2 levels, ocean levels and global temperatures.
The topic of climate change is older than most people realize. Debate regarding climate change started in the 1960s when the initial environmental movement began to gain prominence.
Despite more than 40 years of conversation, our government has remained virtually neutral, or worse yet useless, in combating climate change. Climate change is a bigger problem than political society is willing to deal with or can handle.
Political society is especially unequipped to handle climate change on a global scale. Climate change is also affecting nations differently. Some are in better positions environmentally than others — such as those in northern parts of the world — and developed nations have better infrastructures to deal with the changing environment. There are, moreover, countries opposed to global climate regulations on principle, such as China, Russia and India, which often oppose broad measures on climate change at international conferences.
Unfortunately small nations often bear the brunt of climate change. Whole societies of people will be drowned by rising waters, yet their pleas are muffled by bigger nations.
Look at the island nation of the Maldives, which because of rising sea levels, will vanish if climate change continues.
Countries like Maldives have little sway at international conferences, compared to bigger, northern nations, and thus are largely incapable of moving the dialogue on climate change forward.
Here at home, political society has a horrible environmental track record on climate change — one that is only focused on short-term solutions.
For instance, we are one of the few nations that has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, yet at the same time, we are one of the leading nations for per capita greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
This is why people, not political society, must act as agents of change.
According to a PEW research poll, “34 percent of people in the poll called taking action on climate change ‘essential this year.’ Thirty-nine percent said climate change needs to be addressed in the next few years, while just 19 percent said nothing should be done and 8 percent had no opinion.” The concern the people share regarding climate change is not shared by political leaders.
Our local governments have an even worse environmental track record. The Utah House supported HJR21 in 2010, which called for Utah’s withdrawal from Climate Change Initiative, and HJR 19 was passed in 2011 in the House and Senate, which “calls on the U.S. Congress to adopt legislation prohibiting the [EPA] from regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions without Congressional approval.”
“The best way to combat climate change is a full-scale assault on the issue,” said Matthew Kirkegaard, president of the U’s divestment club. “The problem is so large, so universal, that we need to be throwing everything we have at the problem. Our politics and our institutions are incredibly ill-equipped to deal with climate change. Investors don’t care about the conditions of the climate in 2050 or 2100 — they care about the profit from Quarter 3 or Q4. Politicians similarly run for office every two, four or six years in this country. If they can create economic gain now at the expense of the next generation, in many cases they will do it.”
Relying on political society to solve the problem is an untenable solution. The mechanisms of government cannot solve it. People must.