Introduction
There are many views on climate change around the world. Some people believe climate change poses a serious threat to the world whilst others believe the claim relating to climate change and society is merely a myth with no logical basis. There are competing interests and views of climate change because public policy is influenced by climate change and this has various levels of impacts on the activities of interest groups in the United States and around the world.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the framework within which political debates on climate change occurs in the United States. To this end, the climate change debate will be examined within the context of the views presented by the Republicans and the Democrats. This will provide the impetus for defining what has evolved as the most appropriate and the “politically correct” means of discussing climate change in the United States and beyond.
Fundamental Framework for Climate Change Debate
The main source of authority in today’s public discussions is based on scientific facts and evidence. Therefore, in most debates that are given credence in political matters, there is the need to cite scientific facts and figures to defend one’s point of view in every situation. This means that scientific publications are used as the main basis for justifying claims on the basis of climate change.
Climate change is taken seriously today because most scientific sources agree that evidence tend to show that climate change is real and it could potentially get worse if human beings do not move to avert circumstances and situations that causes to climate change. The need and urgency to act to avert climate change is initiated and sustained by public opinion about the details and the circumstances relating to climate change. Therefore, many lobby groups and interest groups cite scientific publications and aid it with polls from members of the public. This gives credence to the fact that global warming is important and must be discussed. Such views provide the basis for the formulation of policies relating to climate change.
Traditionally, Republicans view climate change as a threat that is largely unproven because they focus on an empirical view that climate change does not seem to have a direct set of stakeholders who can directly enforce proceedings relating to climate change. This is because they maintain a tradition that requires that anything that is done is based on something and someone who benefits from it directly. Therefore, the Republicans have been out to veto against any policy meant to make concessions and cuts on emissions and productivity. This is because they claim we cannot know what actually happens with our energy consumption. Hence, there will be no basis to state whether they are wrong or not.
On the other hand, the Democrats are seen as a group of people who support actions believed to reduce global warming. This is because they tend to accept that cutting down on emissions will help to protect plant life and natural resources and ensure that global warming is controlled and prevented from destroying our world. This is because the Democrats are people who support popular action that are aimed at making the world a better place to live in. This has culminated in various liberal ideas and views that are aimed at ensuring that the society becomes a better place.
It can be argued that the Republican Party and its conservative structures have been one that supports the control of resources, entrepreneurship and the control of natural resources. Therefore, they tend to lobby with the hope of controlling their business interests without much sensitivity to other stakeholder needs. This is because stakeholder needs and desires imply that there will be less profits for the stockholder and political correctness will be based on a subjective and a non-rewarding way of doing business. This does not bring any benefits to the business owners.
However, liberals and democrats are always willing to create a framework within which the wider society and the world-at large get the best of everything and the interest of all stakeholders, including those who cannot lobby for their best interest is protected. Thus, the Democrats, tend to promote these idealistic views and seek to get the society to work towards a plan that will limit global warming and protect lives and properties.
This kind of liberal and conservative struggle exists in almost every part of the world. In almost every country, there are groups that represent the “citizens” and groups that represent the “people”. The former relates to the rich business owners who traditionally control assets and are at the head of social polity. The latter is made up of members of the society with limited assets, including workers who seek to promote a model whereby the interests of all people are protected. Therefore, in the UK, there is the Conservative Party that represents the elite, whilst there is Labour that represents a social-democratic model of maintaining a form of welfarist society that includes issues including global warming and similar issues.
Towards an Objective View
Politics comes with groupthink. This is because people tend to vote in blocs and do things in a mass manner rather than in an individual way. Therefore, leaving issues like climate change to politics is likely to have dangerous and serious consequences. This is because if it is allowed to persist without much of a compelling framework, some people might take positions based on their sentiments, rather than the reality. This is because it is common for people to either support one of the two political traditions not based on the matter at hand, but rather on the basis of who support what and the kind of animosities and hatreds they hold for each other.
Therefore, in the face of compelling evidence about climate change, there was a general move towards the creation and maintenance of a climate change policy and system that was to guide and streamline the conduct of politicians. This was to raise the debate above merely a Republican-Democrat conflict. This was to create some important sensitivities and create minimum standards and minimum expectations for all politicians and stakeholders.
Changes after 2007 – SPM
In 2007, the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) was put in place to provide a comprehensive framework for intergovernmental discussions on climate change. This was to create a vocabulary and a standard form of theories and concepts that were to ensure accuracy, balance, clarity of message and the relevance of every matter that was being discussed in a political platform in the United States. The main end was to bring together stakeholder group ideas and views and formulate a framework for the creation and maintenance of discourse and debates on climate change and its related matters. This was to streamline evidence from physical sciences, the impact and mitigation activities that have been established to have a scientific basis and could be used as a means for discussions.
Therefore, on the basis of these words and definitions, there could be the identification of important terms and concepts that could lay the foundation for debates. Thus, instead of the previous systems, there could be the identification of acceptable and unacceptable systems and practices that could occur in debates relating to climate change amongst Republicans and Democrats.
This is to create an objective framework and a consensual system through which all debaters can state things and identify what must be done and how best to achieve results. However, in most cases, the politicians and holders of power and authority tend to define how these words are used. And this is to create some kind of objectivity and the recognition of some minimum practices and processes.
Kyoto Protocol in Recent Times
The Kyoto Protocol is the strongest international tool that was based on the consensus of nations that sought to promote some kind of effort by local authorities to prevent and control climate change. The United States participated in most of the discussions. However, the United States is not actively bound and in reality, there are many countries that are overtly refusing to use the measures and greenhouse targets. This includes countries like India and China which are major polluters. Therefore, it is difficult for any of the sides to insist on using the carbon emission levels defined by the Kyoto Protocol in serious debates.
There are predictions that indicate that China and India have overtaken the United States in carbon emissions. This makes it difficult for the Democrat lobby to successfully compel the United States to be more sensitive in climate change matters. This is because there is no definite and certain method and framework through which the United States’ carbon emission levels to be measured and ascertained enough to create a proper framework for debates. Therefore, the fundamental definitions of the SPM are difficult to be given a clear and definitive meaning in debates relating to climate change in political platforms in the United States.
The failure of the international community to get an agreement relating to the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol in 2013 in Durban added up to the skeptical views presented by the Republicans. Therefore, it is very difficult to get a straightforward and an objective framework for the achievement of results relating to climate change.
Presidential Debates
In spite of the changes and attempts to streamline the debates on climate change, the area where climate change debates are most strictly felt is in the area of presidential debates. In the most recent debate, climate change was evaluated in the context of the economics and impact of things and affairs in relation to the ordinary American.
Romney argued and insisted on the fact that climate change cannot be proven and a large number of Americans work in fossil-fuel based jobs and entities and taking a tough stance on climate change and fuel emissions will cause job losses. This implies that the Republicans view the issue of climate change in terms of the kind of gains and losses the United States will make and how this will affect the ordinary Americans. This shows that although they tend to accept the new universal frameworks on climate change, they still tend to base their decisions on the ends that will be achieved from the implementations to be made from actions that are taken on the basis of climate change factors and issues.
On the other hand, the Democratic Party led by Barack Obama did not make climate change an issue in the frontline because the American people did not really care about the policy plans for climate change. However, Obama announced that there would be emission cuts. This shows that the Democrats support cuts and reductions in emissions. Therefore, the main undertones and views relating to climate change tend to be entrenched in the political traditions that each of the two leading American parties follow.
Conclusion
Climate change is fundamentally an issue that is viewed in the context of political traditions. In the past, members of politically elitist and conservative parties condemned climate change and denied its existence in totality. This is because the sought to portray a view that climate change was a claim that was not backed by an identifiable stakeholder who could back it. On the other hand, populist parties and parties that supported social democracy and welfarist ideas sought to view climate change as an important means of preventing rich and powerful business owners from exploiting the wider society and future generations. This tradition exists in most jurisdictions and in the United States, the Republicans play the conservative role whilst the Democrats are the social and welfare-based political entity.
In the world today though, the IPCC has defined the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). This is a system of terms and theories that are formulated and put forward by professionals and independent researchers with the view of creating a framework of ideas for political debate. This is construed to prevent denial and some fundamental claims against climate change. This is to promote a constructive approach for debating and carrying out discussions on climate change.
Although the SPM and other policies tend to promote objectivity, most political debates in the United States and around the world tend to be done in the framework of their political traditions. However, in today’s world, the main basis is on economic gains and economic benefits that each class of stakeholders will get. The Republicans still hold on to their view that climate change is not in the best interest of the people and use economic dynamics like job loss to prove it. On the other hand, the Democrats continue to support it and use emerging evidence to prove and buttress it. Events like the failure to accept and implement the Kyoto Protocol amongst others makes it difficult to substantiate any claims that climate change checks and carbon emissions are in America’s best interest when other nations like China and India continue to pollute for their economic ends.
Bibliography
IPCC. (13 de June de 2007). Summary for Policymakers. Fonte: IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
Lopez, A. A. (2013, January 4). The Global Warming Debate. Retrieved from University of Wisconsin Website: http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aalopez/aos101/wk7.html
Lovejoy, S. (17 de April de 2014). Scaling fluctuation analysis and statistical hypothesis testing of anthropogenic warming. Climate Dynamics, pp. 421-438.
Mascaro, L. (2 de January de 2010). GOP still cool on global warming. Las Vegas Sun, pp. 1-5.
Miroff, B., Seidelman, R., Swanstrom, T., & De Luca, D. (2014). The Democratic Debate: American Politics in an Age of Change. Mason, OH: Cengage.
