Climate change is not just a scientist’s problem anymore, but rather 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 policies and climate taxes within the last decade, including the Paris Climate Agreement, the issue is recognized internationally. It is now a large political and social argument. But no breakthrough has taken place for several reasons. Scientists and public figures who are concerned about the issue should learn to efficiently communicate their ideas in a fair and unbiased way. If all Americans, regardless of political ideology, agreed it was a threat, then many things would change. Throughout history, when citizens of 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, so that law makers will create new laws and regulations that can solve an issue. This starts with new methods and ways for scientists to provide the information to the public, along with it becoming a less politically polarizing issue. 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, of citizens and doubtful politicians. This will raise public awareness which politicians, of both parties, will have to cohere to to keep their place in office and continue pleasing the public.  

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. There is a lot more behind the climate issue than just politics. Although a big part of the debate, scientists and citizens play a collosal role in the fight. Science is the root of the issue, and the main source of information. 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. Many normal Americans don’t know very scientific words or numbers, therefore the informatin goes right over their heads. In a study conducted by Alexa Spence and Nick Pidgeon, participants were provided with information regarding the effects 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 impacts, 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. Additionally, “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. In other words, 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 willing to do things to fix it. If they are thinking “the world is going to end due to climate change” they’re going to think it is too late, and the things they could do to make a change won’t have do a lot to help solve the issue. In a related article by Sussan Hassol, she discusses how scientists can fix this problem of miscommunication that she attributes to the fact that many of the words scientists use do not make sense to normal people. Thus, she says, they need to use words everyone would understand as well as use metaphors to help people get a concrete idea about what is happening in the environment; for instace, “When people ask how it possible to predict climate 50 years from now when we cannot even predict the weather 2 weeks from now…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. 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 the scientists. If enough people are raising awareness about this issue, government officials will notice and eventually listen to them. Throughout history, the government has listented to the puoblic’s voice and opinion through 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.com John Carey, raised the question “Why are we being such idiots about climate change?” 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 singles out close-minded citizens and politicians, who can’t seem to think climate change is a serious problem that needs attention. He invokes the Kyoto Protocol, which cut greenhouse gas emissions in 37 countries, and the decision of 9 northeastern states and California to place 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 (of the issue) 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. Instead, this needs to be viewed as an every party issue. Not just for one side to fight for, and the other to fight against. 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 with the recent presidential election, it has become more polarized than ever. The only chance for reaching a common agreement on the issue is if it becomes a general, non-bipartisan issue. It is clear to scientists and democratic politicians that this is a tough subject for the other side to be open-minded to. Many people already have their mind made up, whether they believe this is a serious matter or not. Even if they, themselves, believe it is an issue, they may vote against to satisfy their politial agenda. As Matthew C. Nisbet and John E. Kotcher remind us how opinionated and strongly party affiliated leaders have a strong influence on the public. “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…” Media today is so overwhelming, with thousands of messages available at the tip of your fingertip. Therefore, media sources who are not enforcing the climate matter and don’t believe in the issue, are available to anyone. Citizens who don’t belive or care about cliamte change can reinforce their own opinions by watching these channels. Americans have even admitted to knowing that climate change is real, but have not done anything to fix it. In an article by Robinson Meyer, he discusses polls taken on Americans discussing their views and opinions on climate change with polls. These polls by Pew Research Center state that eighty-nine and eighty-three percent of Americans support building more solar and wind plants,” but the author argues “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.” This quote accurately points out one of the biggest and most influential problems with the climate issue. This may be because it is not directly affecting these citizens at the current moment, so it doesn’t seem like an as of important threat. If these people feel the problem won’t hurt them, they are not going to make it their top priority. For people to actually want to make a change, they must realize it is affecting others, even if it maybe is not affecting them as much. 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 and that “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 to capitalize on this raised public interest- by implementing more laws and policies. This comes back to scientists communicating the issue to its audience effectively so that politicians could see that a change is necessary, and implement that change. After all, the government was created for the people. In his Gettysburg address, Abraham Lincoln had this to say about a representative democracy: “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth” (Gettysburg Address). This quote is relevant 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, clearly, because they are laws. The government is the biggest stakeholder of all in this climate fight meaning 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, by Alexander C. Kaufman, Trump’s recent political decisions regarding climate issue. They consider the Trump administration’s decision to reportedly pull out of the Paris Agreement, an “international accmsord designed to push the planet out of the fossil fuel era” (Kaufman). Acts like this show how easy it is for politicians to work for, and against, climate change.  Effective public support seems to only come from enough people, like these kids, fired up enough to make action that will make a change.  

With the many complications behind climate progress, politicians and scientists need to efficiently communicate the problem to citizens, raise public awareness, and aim to make this a nonbipartisan issue. A lot of the problem begins with the bipartisan issue. This can be worked on 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 colossal steps and many truly dedicated people need to involved to fix this problem. 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 who 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. 
