In his speech at the United Nations Climate Summit in May of 2017, former President Barack Obama said, “During the course of my presidency, I made climate change a top priority, because I believe that for all the challenges that we face, this is the one that will define the contours of this century, more dramatically perhaps than any other.”
America’s view on climate change is one that has been in ever-changing flux for a while and has impacted everyone on often a political level and sometimes a personal level. Perhaps just as important is American’s view on the causes of climate change and how we, as citizens and human beings, can curb its effects on the planet.
A 2016 Pew Research study showed “roughly half of adults say climate change is mostly due to human activity; roughly three-in-ten say it is due to natural causes and another fifth say there is no solid evidence of warming.”
A later and more recent Pew Research Study dated May 16, 2017 stated, “83 percent of Americans say increasing use of renewable energy sources is a top or important priority for the country’s energy policies.”
These two studies show the views of Americans taking on a very cause-and-effect attitude. In essence, we, as Americans, or at the very least, a large part of our population, can see there is a problem and believe we have the solution and should take steps to enact it. So how does the issue of controlling climate change become messy?
The same way many other issues become messy, when economics became involved, which is where we begin to face a problem.
If climate change is such an important issue to Americans, how much of a role should economics play in deciding how important the environment we share is?
Sadly there is no clear, right answer to this, but on one hand we have 195 countries that participated in the Paris Accords which put a strong emphasis on “recognizing that climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet and thus requires the widest possible cooperation by all countries, and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response, with a view to accelerating the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions.”
This is an example of countries coming together and coming to agreements on how to best solve the problems climate change has on a wide scale. The event has been labeled historical; however, the Trump administration has made the decision to begin taking steps to back away for economic reasons.
The use of economic issues impacting environmental issues is not restricted to one party, despite the stark contrast in the actions of the Obama administration versus the Trump administration.
The same Pew Research Study from May 16, 2017 also stated, “54 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say that consumer cost considerations should be a top priority for energy policies, as do 44 percent of Republicans and Republican leaners. And about half or more of both party groups say reducing foreign energy dependence should be a top priority.”
The views of both parties while often in conflict are almost in agreement on how important the economic impact on energy policies should be.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
The Trump administration’s decision to pull out of the Paris Accord, while not clearly bipartisanly supported, is simply rooted in economics. The largest problem in this is the fact that while it is rooted in economics the decision does little to solve either problem.
Short term, we see more money being poured into the coal industry, but we are still facing the problem that the industry is a dying one. Solar power and many other environmentally safe options are more effective in the long term, because as technology changes, so do we.
With these changes, we generally do see an increase in the job market which often solves the economic impact of these changes; however, with the current dependency on fossil fuels we are coming to a much rockier transition. What can affect the world positively on an environmental scale may not show the same result on an economic one. This isn’t to say solar industries cannot provide just as many jobs, but on the contrary, like with any emerging industries, it is sure to provide many. But whether these jobs will require the same skill set as the jobs set in fossil fuels is not a guarantee. Aside from the jobs on an economic scale, large oil companies and their impact on the country will continue to influence America’s decision to climate change.
A large portion of Americans undoubtedly agree with at least some of Obama’s statement. Climate change may define the contours of this century, more dramatically perhaps than any other, but America’s role in climate change will continue to be an uncertain one now as we, as a nation, decide whether we can continue to prioritize economic issues over environmental ones.
Nichole Harwood is a news reporter at the Daily Lobo. She can be contacted at news@dailylobo.com or on Twitter @Nolidoli1. The views presented in this column are her own.
