Climate change is not just a scientist’s problem anymore, it is one of the main controversies involved in politics today. Progress has been made in the past years with climate policies and much public attention. With these policies and climate taxes within the last decade, not only environmentalists and scientists are paying attention anymore. It is now a large political and social argument. But still nothing is getting fixed, and there are many reasons for that. Scientists and public figures whom are concerned about the issue should learn to efficiently communicate their ideas with a fair and unbiased view. If Americans, as a whole with no bipartisan division, agreed it was a threat, then many things would change. Throughout history, when both parties agreed on an issue, politicians listened. This is because politicians won’t be elected, or re-elected, if they do not give the people what they want. That is why Americans first need to understand the issue, feel the need to make a change, and force politicians to follow, therefore law makers will create new laws and regulations on the topic. This starts with new methods and ways for scientists to provide the information to the public, along with it becoming a less politically polar issue and a more general, and nonpolar debate. If both sides of the political world are not working to fix the problem, it seems it may be basically impossible to get much or anything done. With the complexity of climate change, progress seems most likely when politicians and scientists efficiently communicate the problem to their target audience, therefore, raising public awareness which politicians will be forced to follow for their own political success/gain. 

When people think about climate change, I imagine their topic of debate has a lot to do with bipartisan division. I thought the same way until I began my research on the topic. Researchers have found, they think, that one of the major problems with why nothing is getting done comes down to scientists and how they communicate their ideas to their intended audience. The way scientists present data and knowledge to us can be a big factor in how we comprehend and decide a position on that information. In an article titled “Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations”, by Alexa Spence and Nick Pidgeon, the authors conducted a study. The participants in the study were provided with information regarding the impacts of climate change presented both in terms of gains or losses, and in terms of local or distant impacts. When it came to local or distant, individuals who were presented with information relating to their local area rated the information as being more personally relevant, than those presented with information relating to a distant area. Also, “reported fear related emotions were significantly higher within loss framed conditions than within gain framed conditions” (Pidgeon and Spence). The results of the study showed that gain frames, when people were shown what can be gained from mitigating climate change, were superior to loss frames, when shown what can be lost from not mitigating climate change, in increasing positive attitudes towards mitigating climate change. Therefore, showing people the positives of ending climate rather than showing the negatives of not changing, helped create positive reactions about mitigating it. Therefore, the researchers concluded that the way the questions are worded changes the way the topic is perceived by the participants. If climate change is presented in a less scary and frightening light, then people would be more positive about doing things to fix it. In a similar article, “Improving How Scientists Communicate About Climate Change”, by Sussan Hassol, the author discusses how scientists can fix this miscommunication. She says how many of the words scientists use do not make sense to normal people. Therefore, they need to use words everyone would understand. She also mentions that they should use metaphors to help people get a real idea about what is happening in the climate, an example would be “When people ask how it possible to predict climate 50 years from now when we cannot even predict the weather 2 weeks from now, they are obviously confusing weather and climate. You might compare this with what happens when you turn on the burner under a pot of water; while you cannot predict the time or place of any particular bubble, you can say with certainty that the water will be boiling in about 10 minutes”. Hassol says that if scientists rephrase or reframe these questions in ways that people can understand, they will be able to easier comprehend the issues associated with climate change. As assured through research, scientists clearly and productively communicating climate change to the public may be the first step in fixing the climate problem. 

The next step in the fight, would be for enough people to understand the issues and side with them. If enough people are fighting for this issue, government officials will notice and eventually conform to their wants. This is what needs to be done if anything is going to change regarding climate change. If enough people are fighting for it, it will get the attention of the government. Similar patterns of the government working for the public have been other historical laws like the 15th amendment was passed allowed men of any race or color to vote, and then the 19th amendment when women were allowed the right to vote. These votes were inspired and implemented thanks to the actions and fight of activists. We could see a similar pattern if enough people were involved in the fight for climate policy. A writer on Ted, John Carey, wrote an article titled “Why are we being such idiots about climate change?” talking about what he thinks the problem of why climate change isn’t being solved. He points out that the problem may be that since it is not an immediate crisis affecting us right now, it isn’t getting as much legal action as it needs to be. Carey says, “Given the difficulty of getting the human brain or our political system to tackle anything beyond immediate crises, it’s encouraging that we’ve actually managed to take up arms in this fight” (Carey). Carey points out the problem of close-minded citizens and politicians, who can’t seem to think climate change is a serious problem that needs attention. Throughout his article he mentions things such as the Kyoto Protocol, which cut greenhouse gas emissions in 37 countries, and when 9 northeastern states and California placed binding limits on carbon emissions. But that is not enough to fix the whole problem, he states. Carey blames it on “the fierce partisanship of Washington, where anything President Obama proposes is fought by his opponents…Part lies in a decades-long, well-financed and purposely deceitful effort by the fossil fuel industry and conservative groups to sow doubt, spread misinformation and paint climate change as a liberal plot to raise taxes and expand Big Government” (Carey). Again, a lot of the issue comes from the fact that many people and political figures do not want to be open to the fight for climate change. If these politicians, and their followers, were able to realize the issue of climate change without bipartisan division, the problem would be on its way to a solution. 

Climate change, as mentioned before, is a largely political issue. In today’s politics especially and with the recent presidential election, it has become more polar than ever. The only chance there is a common agreement on the issue is if it becomes a general, non-bipartisan issue. With the polarity of politics right now, it seems almost impossible. It is clear to scientists and democratic politicians that this is a tough subject for the other side to be open-minded to.  In Matthew C. Nisbet and John E. Kotcher’s article titled “A Two-Step Flow of Influence? Opinion-Leader Campaigns on Climate Change” the authors discuss how opinionated and strongly party affiliated leaders have such a strong influence on the public. They discuss how much these leaders and the media has an influence on the public’s opinion on the issue, saying “The great paradox of today’s media world is that the American public has greater access to quality information about climate change than at any time in history…one major reason is the problem of choice: Citizens select media content not only based on the ideology and partisanship but also based on their preference…they are also increasingly distrustful of both news and advertising” A large majority of the problem roots from close-minded citizens and their political leaders. Media today is so overwhelming, with thousands of messages available at the tip of your fingertip. Therefore, media sources whom are not enforcing the climate matter and whom don’t believe in the issue, are available to anyone. Citizens can reinforce their own opinions by watching these channels, thereby reinforcing their idea that climate change is not an urgent issue. Americans have even admitted to knowing that climate change is real, but have not done anything to fix it. In an article titled “What Americans Really Think About Climate Change” by Robinson Meyer, Meyer discusses polls taken on Americans discussing their views and opinions on climate change with polls. A public opinion poll done by Pew Research Center say that eighty-nine and eighty-three percent of Americans support building more solar and wind plants,” but then goes on to say, “The Earth is dying. The science is clear. It’s so easy and obvious. So why can’t politicians understand that?” (Meyer). This is because, as Meyer goes on to explain, it is a solely political issue. These people believe in climate change, but still vote against it because of their party affiliation. “Americans may change their vote because of economic fear, or defense policy, or to protect their property or social privilege. But they do not vote because the ice caps are melting. This is the heart of the climate issue.” Meyers words perfectly paraphrase one of the biggest and most influential problems with the climate issue. This may be because it is not directly affecting them at the current moment, so it doesn’t seem like an as of important threat. But if even enough people cared, could anything even be done about the problem? In Doug Most’s article, “The trick to getting politicians to listen is simple”, he claims that getting enough people to fight won’t do the trick. There are other ways to effectively influence your politicians. Denise Garlick, a state representative, says social media isn’t what influences her, “what she reacts to, what really stuck in her gut, is conversation” (Most). Most then went on to say “Talk, don’t tweet. Call, don’t post. Join, don’t ignore. Picking up your phone and sharing your story with your representative, introducing yourself at a public meeting and speaking out…all of those dwarf the impact any Facebook post, e-mail, or tweet will have.” So maybe we are not spreading the word as effectively as possible, and should stay off the media and spread more word of mouth content. The tactics scientists need to use to efficiently get the message across would hopefully solve this problem. These people will be educated on the subject, and therefore have the ability to tell their friends, family and peers, and maybe their elected officials. This is why the communication issue is a huge piece in the climate puzzle. 

The last step to improving climate change, would be with this raised public interest, more laws and policies will be implemented. This comes back to scientists communicating the issue to its audience effectively. If this did happen, politicians would see that a change is necessary, and implement that change. In government class, we are taught that the government was created for the people. We learned about Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address, speaking on the representative democracy he said; “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth” (Wikipedia). This quote relates because if the government is in fact for the people, by the people then laws would be implemented with enough public force and support for them. Therefore, if people wanted climate policies and for things to change, the government should implement these changes “for the people”. These politicians would not be elected, or re-elected, if they did not do things that the public liked and supported. Once these laws were put into place, people would follow them because they are laws and because people like to follow whatever the rest of the public is doing. The government is the biggest stakeholder of all in this climate fight, therefore they would bring about the most influential change. It is clear how big of a role government plays in this fight, considering our President today has the complete power to pull us out of any and all climate agreements. In an article talking about kids who are fighting for climate change, they discuss Trump’s recent political decisions regarding the issue. They discuss how the Trump administration is reportedly pulling out from the Paris Agreement, an “international accord designed to push the planet out of the fossil fuel era” (CNN). Acts like this show how easy it is for politicians to work for, and against, climate change.  This public support seems most likely from enough education to the people on the Earth and it’s rising temperatures. 

With the complexity of climate change, progress seems most likely when politicians and scientists efficiently communicate the problem to their target audience, therefore, raising public awareness which politicians will be forced to follow for their own political success/gain. The problem begins with the bipartisan issue. This can be targeted with the help of scientists, learning a new and efficient way to communicate the issue in the most influential way possible. These scientists would learn to influence so many Americans, there is no other choice but for politicians and stakeholders to do something about the climate issue. Many steps and people would have to be involved and truly dedicated to fixing the problem if anything is going to change. The media has such a large presence in everyone’s lives today, companies who are a part of the fight can also use their influence to make a change. In the future to make effective progress, scientists should be put in a different light and not labeled as Democratic. This can be done by allowing them to speak on any form of news channels, including both sides of the poltical parties. Stakeholders and public figures who have a large fan base, and whom are fighting for climate policies, should use their platform in a productive way. For example, Leonardo DiCapprio, who talks about it at award ceremonies and when giving public speeches. People who have others looking up to them, can make a huge difference and definitely change minds to join the climate fight. Scientists, politicians and passionate citizens are our only hope left in the uphill fight that is climate change. 
