Putting Politics into Environmental Issues: Bad Habit of Trusting Uncle Sam
Putting Politics into It
We shouldn't need to hear any more statistics, further study graphs or charts outlining our
impending doom to realize what we have done to this planet. Instead we should simply believe in the vast majority of scientists who are calling for a change, because listening to the opinions of the educated and not the powerful is important for this discussion. Politicians don't "Trump" scholars. This is not possible however, because in our current societal landscape politics, advertising, and disinformation campaigns are trusted by the public. The governments investment in companies and products that participate in the degradation of the planet is the reason for its continued lack of policy changes.
Politics relies on the notion that one candidate is starkly against their opponents ideologies, and this mindset leaves room for the support or condemnation of a movement simply because it does not fall within your parties lines. This can be seen by Donald Trump's flip-flopping stances on climate change depending on what political advantage it had to support or deny its existence. A Mother Jones article cites every social media statement and interview appearance that president elect Donald Trump has engaged in regarding global warming and the degradation of our environment. The timeline begins in 2009 with his signature on a letter to President Barack Obama calling for urgent climate action. However, by 2010 he changes his mind and declares that Gore should be stripped of his Nobel Prize on global warming because it was still cold outside. The timeline depicts his varied agendas on the validity and importance of climate change. A day after announcing his campaign he states "When I hear Obama saying that climate change is the No. 1 problem, it is just madness." Conveniently for him, when he needs to appeal to the conservative agenda he skews scientifically undeniable facts about the realities and ultimate effects of climate change. Changing his stance only helps to increase popularity among the global warming denying and downplaying party of conservatives who want to be told what they want to hear. They don't want to hear that the future is not in Oil because we cannot sustain that lifestyle, they want to hear that their banks investments will pay until all resources are tapped.
Satire loves to talk about controversial issues and the ignorance of people when it comes to uncomfortable situations such as the one where you've destroyed your planet and continue to do so. Jerry's disinformation campaign in this video of Rick and Morty eerily resembles the way our government handles our ecological issues.
This timeline accurately depicts what happens when someone infuses political and personal gains into an irrefutable issue that affects every single organism on a planet.
receiving scientific conclusions from politicians or powerful figureheads could be detrimental to receiving accurate information.
There is a Union of Concerned Scientists...
*Pause* Think about that for a moment. The name they chose, the tone they wanted to portray to the world.
Then think for a moment; this union exists not because there are insurmountable amounts of threats to the environment caused by human life which rise daily, but because there are politicians, companies, and banks who use their power to postpone any action regarding these threats. The flip-flop of support of a cause that effects all life, for the benefit of one or a few lives seems to be why this group of scientists have a hard time living in a world which doesn't have a pact of scientists with this name on it. Actually, UCS was founded in 1969 with hopes of starting a conversation about Cleveland’s heavily polluted Cuyahoga River which had caught fire. According to their "About" page they were
"Appalled at how the U.S. government was misusing science, the USC founders drafted a statement calling for scientific research to be directed away from military technologies and toward solving pressing environmental and social problems."
~union of concerned scientist~
Before reading that, during that pause moment I knew exactly why these scientists were concerned. They are so heavily affected by the notion that the authority figure in their modern society was denying facts making it impossible to implement change, not only in policy but also in public opinion.
Changing the stigma from "Tree Hugger" to "Concerned Citizen."
Their Article on Fossil Fuel's companies tract record of being inconsistent or falsified in their claims on fossil fuels affect on the environment is just another example of throwing money and power into an important issue.
Europe sets an example
I was thinking about moving to Germany for the sustainability programs offered, all meant to infuse ecologically sustainable business practices in a working economy. I then learned that most places in Germany do not have air conditioning from a grumpy American immigrant. She went on to explain that their reason for doing so is to reduce their impact on the environment. I then started to do research, and realized that there are entire countries of people with a majority of its citizens and politicians committed to making the kinds of changes that America is seemingly unwilling to implement. The Swedish website on their recycling revolution must make them one of the more environmental conscious countries worldwide. The article goes on to describe the possibilities of moving an entire nation towards zero waste, which they have almost achieved. Swedish households moved from 38% of waste recycled in 1975 to a current percentage of 99%. Not only is 99% of their waste recycled, but also turned into energy. They have figured a way to not only efficiently reduce their waste but also make a profit from it. 50% of all household waste is used to produce energy, and that still wasn't enough. Sweden imports 700,000 tons of waste from other countries on top of their own supply. Taking the burden off of peoples hands in a safe and profitable manner is uncontroversial among people in Sweden according to this website, where it is a much debated topic here in the states. We should instead use this as a real world plan that has proven positive results in the fight to combat the negative impacts of human civilization.
The social norms created by the government officials who promoted ecological consciousness in countries led to towns with its only mode of transportation as bikes, thousands of ecoducts, the banning of petrol cars by 2025 etc. All of these changes not in the same country, but in a grouping that is worth noting. These are all first world European countries which are making the switch to sustainable ways of life. The only way our world will survive however, is if there is a global change on this level. It seems impossible considering disinformation campaigns, war and poverty in developing nations, and the lack of urgency among the majority of the population.
