Politics, Economics and the Media (Cassidy)
Why is this a political issue
According to The Carsey Institute in the University of New Hampshire, climate change has become one of the most politically charged issues. Lawrence Hamilton, the professor of Sociology at the University of New Hampshire, polled over 560 New Hampshire residents. He found that the people who didn’t believe in climate change were 83% Democrats and 36% non-Tea Party Republicans. Only 23% of Tea Party Republicans believe that climate change is real. Republicans are extremely skeptical of climate change, wanting more data before they decide. According to the article, 60% of traditional Republicans believe in scientific studies on climate change, while only 28% of Tea Party Republican believe in these studies. The study states that only 36% acknowledge climate change, and 23% of those don’t trust scientists on climate change. Another poll Hamilton conducted states that people who listen to New Hampshire’s public radio have higher trust in scientific studies and greater acceptance of climate change. The result of his polls are showing that people who don’t listen to scientific news every day, tend to not care as much about climate change. Political figureheads are leaning their views against climate change, which has led many people to not believe in climate change.
What is the philosophy of both major parties
In Paris, the 21st Conference of the Parties event includes representatives of every country gathering together and discussing major international climate. This event was organized by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Their central goal is to have a universal agreement on global climate and to keep global warming below 2℃ per year. Many people fear that this will not help. We are going to face many harmful things in the future, which will make it hard to moderate climate change. Because philosophical issues about climate change are increasing, we aren’t going to have non-human species, future generations, and the global poor. Justin here had gathered folks to talk about the news coverage on COP 21 so that he can have more discussions on it. A few philosophers are John Broome, Ben Hale, Marcus Hedahl, Avram Hiller, and etc.
Are their other parties that focus on other stances or take it to the extreme
According to a July Quinnipiac poll, it’s saying there is only 6% of registered voters who think climate change should be the most important issue. But the presidential election of 2016 will determine if he or she should issue this as a problem. A talk in Paris had said that 150 countries have committed to reduce their greenhouse emissions after 2020. The article is also saying that this year’s climate change is critical, because the new research. It shows that we are at a 1.5C and if we increase to 2C, it can trigger the global temperature and cause the Antarctic ice to collapse. If that happens the sea level will rise to about 10 meters for over a hundred years. The University of Texas poll believes that if we continue to have more believers, they think it will affect the election. As the article was talking about climate change, Sheril Kirshenbaum stated that it may happen. When the University of Texas poll asked Sheril Kirshenbaum if it will affect the election, she replied, “If candidates are paying close attention to where the American public is on issues like climate change, it certainly may.” (Sheril 1) I believe her statement, because she is right. If people pay more attention to our issues, they would probably have more beliefs. Other than that statement, according to the article, it says that Primary voters Republicans and Democrats, tend to be more focused on their parties than the center. While reading this article, it says that the Republican primary campaign pays little and says little about the environment. While on the Democrat side, they talk and pay attention to more on climate change and environmental stuff. Then, there’s a science professor at Columbia University who said that both the parties seems to be split about climate change. After talking about the parties being split, Robert Erickson states, “The parties seem very split on climate change right now. It would take a surge in public support for recognizing and dealing with the problem to motivate the GOP candidates to shift.” (Robert 1) Soon, they start talking about the real climate change, like where they’ve seen climate change happening. When they were talking about the Republican is going to acknowledge climate change, Cohen states, “I think what’s changing their view is that the science over the last 20 years has become very, very clear. Also you see events like Hurricane Sandy, the flooding in South Carolina, the forest fires in the West and the drought in California. These are all objective conditions that clearly have been exacerbated by climate change.” (Cohen 1) The only Republican left, Donald Trump states that he doesn’t believe in climate change and that people aren’t causing it and weather is just weathering. As of right now, climate change is the very lowest one on his list that he will address. Also, in 2012, he claims that “China” created a ‘hoax’ on global warming to have the US uncompetitive. But he supports regulating air pollution. 2 of our Democrats, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have the same saying about climate change. But have different solutions. Hillary wants to place solar panels across the country by 2020 and have the solar panels produce 33% of the US electricity by 2027. Bernie on the other hand, wants to legislate to tax carbon and methane emissions. He is also securing the greenhouse gas emission-reduction grants. He was also voted for national goal of 25% of electricity from renewables by 2025.
Lobbyists for businesses that would be impacted by reducing/eliminating fossil fuels
Some lobbyists for business that would be impacted would be, Alpha Natural Resources. According to this article, “War on Coal,” it says that the Alpha Natural Resources coals have been shrinking. They even had to eliminate 1,200 jobs!
How does climate change impact trade, businesses, clean energy
It affects trades because there’s multiple ways that trade is being impacted. One of them is by the government that has policies on measures and economic incentives. According to the ‘World Trade Organization's,’ it says that there was a scientific review on trade and climate change and how they’re linked together. They were both on the policies of international and national level to address climate change. On the international policy, they were described as efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to effects of climate change. While in the national policy, it is being used all over the country. Which is to increase energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
It affects businesses because some companies have to upgrade polluting facilities, by installing an emission control system. So they won’t release greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. Also, there is a legislation on pollution reduction which is considered by the Congress. Which would only allow companies to release an amount of greenhouse gases into the air. If companies over do it, they would have to buy credits for it. Other businesses have to change prices, weather patterns and demands. Which is bad, because they’re going to INCREASE, not DECREASE.
It affects clean energy because the Energy and Climate Partnership and Obama, are trying to develop low-emissions. They also have other partnerships that are supporting this and they are trying to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy, cleaner fossil fuels, increase energy infrastructure, reduce energy poverty, reduce deforestation and adapt to climate change.
Economic costs of super storms (emergency relief, rebuilding, loss of production, etc…)
The total cost of the Sandy Super Storm was up to $50 billion, which is now the world’s mostly costed and caused disaster. For the insurance industry, it puts a total of $30 billion to $50 billion and the initial estimated loss was $10 to $20 billion.
How do different media outlets handle this issue (partisan news organizations)
New York Times is handling this by using a drone to film Greenland’s melting ice. So others can have a peek at the climate in Greenland. They also checked Greenland out to see if the sea level will increase if Greenland keeps melting.
The Wall Street is handling this by using an interactive map that shows how much nitrogen dioxide is across the country and how bad the pollution is in the air. He collected this data by using a geolocated data collected by the European Environment Agency who monitors air quality in Europe.
Bloomberg Business is handling this by creating a visual data to analyze global warming throughout time. They have a graph showing the average ocean level from 1880 to 2005. The graph can also show human activities or natural activities. Maybe sometimes both.
Are they reporting facts or pandering to their customers?
New York Times is reporting and giving out facts to their customers because they kind of have a little bit of both.
The Wall Street is reporting facts to their customers because they really don’t give any facts. They basically record data and report if anything goes on.
Bloomberg Business is also doing a little bit of both.
This relates to the Lakota culture because on the National Geographic website, it says that the bison extinction is harming the Native American’s plains. Which also tells you that Native American’s run lots of plains all over this world and we’re just destroying it. Another thing that relates to the Lakota culture is the mixed-blood of the Oglala tribe. The Oglala tribe government was moving to crush the political activism.