Without the Public, Progress is Impossible

The article “Why is it so hard to stop climate change?” is a disappointing summary of the issues preventing environmental progress. Not only is the information limited but also the support for each of the author’s points leaves the reader wanting more. Carrington claims that it is “politics and economics,” “low-carbon energy,” and “fossil fuels” that are the reasons behind climate change, as well as its persistence. I certainly do not disagree with his argument. It is difficult for 194 countries to agree on greenhouse gas emissions when they all lie at different points on the development spectrum. Yes, renewable energy has been all but scoffed at and its potential has not even come close to being reached. Sure, oil is practically in our blood and will be difficult to wean ourselves off of. But one thing Carrington fails to address is the people.

He writes this article as if climate change weren’t a contentious issue, as though hundreds of thousands, particularly U.S. citizens, did not dispel this phenomenon, labeling it as a “hoax.” The mere fact that in order to be a true Republican nowadays you have to dispel climate change and mark it as liberal jargon is illustrative of what this issue is up against. Not to mention environmental responsibility on all realms is thought to be below the Right. In order to actually stop climate change, the vast majority of people, no not everyone, needs to actually believe in it. Their belief can then spur the actions of policymakers, as their only aims are reelection, and this is done by appeasing the people. The science is there, climate change is happening and complacency will lead to disaster. The only thing that is not there are the people, so long as those in politics and the media continue to badger this issue as if it were still debatable, America may miss out on its opportunity to be a leading figure in the effort to end climate change and becoming a key player in a new energy era. Even if one was vehemently against this issue because they considered it too liberal, they should instead focus on the market opportunities that come with it, the foreign policy advancements, and the respect.