In American politics, we like to take sides. Perhaps it’s part of our blood to debate on any issue under the sun, even if it seems like an issue that would unite us and yield a concerted effort. 9/11? Should we nuke everyone or blame our corporate industrial machine? Japanese tsunami ? Should we do everything we can to help a struggling nation, or laugh at their recycling efforts?
Let’s take climate change as another example. In the UK and many other nations, action on climate change has been a bipartisan effort where political parties try to “out green” one another. The Labour and Conservative parties show the public how their programs will maximize environmental benefits with reduced costs to industries. They know the science is settled and have actually put aside self-interest to avert catastrophic climate change. Their counterpart to the DOE is called the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Probably a laughable concept here.
Democrats and Republicans in the U.S., meanwhile, can only seem to partially agree on calling climate change issues “energy security.” It’s not surprising when “just 51 percent of Americans -- or one percentage point more than in 1998 -- said they worry a great deal or fair amount about climate change,” according to the latest Gallup poll. Why? It’s yet another polarized issue that has become split down the middle…the GOP wants to cater to business interests and the Dems want to rally their environmental base. Both want to shut each other out of legislation and have their way with it.
What if Americans demanded reason? Let’s continue to disagree on the science behind climate change…hell, we even continue to debate about evolution around these parts. Instead, let’s focus on risks. If nearly half of us don’t believe in climate change, but think it’s a possibility (even a glimmer of one), why not take action within reason and take a loss now? Is it better to take a 1% global GDP loss and make our industries more efficient and depend less on foreign oil….or should we wait and see if those damnable scientists are correct? Many economists debate how the costs of future climate change should be taken into account. It seems like an easy decision for me…at least if I take risk analysis into view and think about how I would make an investment decision.
Perhaps this is asking too much, but let’s drop climate change from partisan politics and move on with it. NOW.
