
For the past few decades, the discussion about climate change has plagued the United States, leaving every last human within the country knowledgeable of the potential effect that mankind might have on the Earth’s climate. When it comes to the climate change debate, there is hardly any middle ground. Due to the opinionated nature of the United States, it is almost required that one must conjure up an opinion to either believe or disbelieve in mankind as a major factor to climate change. In fact, it is already known that the Earth undergoes many episodes of natural global warming and cooling, but the arising question is whether mankind is speeding up the process. If so, is it detrimental? Do we battle against it now, or later? The arising questions are alarming to some, causing climate change to be escalated from a discussion to a debate and then to an argument. This argument over whether the country should battle against global warming, is continuing to develop and evolve into what will eventually be the greatest dividing factor, both socially and politically, amongst the people of the United States, because of our failure to coexist and avoid violence.

On the other hand, some might actually deny this claim, and argue that climate change does not even impact the risk of conflict at all. Not to mention that they sometimes believe that the argument over climate change can be good for politics for the way it separates the political parties and drives many people’s vote choices. In this way, the juicy drama from U.S. presidential debates and campaigns on the climate change topic brings attention from those who have not exactly obtained an opinion on the matter. On the other hand, those who are passionate about this topic beg for climate change issues to be thoroughly investigated between political individuals to hopefully lead to a resolution of their liking. Perhaps it is good that the people who feel endangered to the climate are speaking up because of the way it sparks interest around the topic. For instance, if the issue of climate change had never been investigated, then the world would not have obtained as much knowledge as it has today. Therefore, it is most likely that the argument itself has inspired and will inspire more scientists to test and find results to answer for the climate’s behavior. 

From these results, it is easy to convey that the climate of the Earth is warming. Although there is no evidence that completely proves that man-kind is the primary cause, there is a scientific majority consensus that the climate is real, anthropogenic, and offers economic, health, and geopolitical consequences. In urbanized areas, there are high amounts of carbon emission that pollute the atmosphere daily. From tests in South Asia, outdoor pollution has been deemed a “major contributing factor” to causing illnesses such as pneumonia and pulmonary hypertension in young children (Doyle 1). The Earth’s atmosphere as a whole is approaching outdoor pollution similar to that of current South Asia. As Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel put it, “rising global temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, climbing sea levels and more extreme weather events will intensify the challenges of global instability, hunger, poverty, and conflict” (Westervelt 1). To clarify, the exotic weather conditions that result from global warming are affecting human needs of water, food, and energy, which causes an outbreak of violence, specifically in impoverished countries.

 In order to help battle against anthropogenic climate change, people would have to donate their finances to sustain the economy. According to public opinion polls reported by the Wall Street Journal, a majority of Americans are “unwilling to pay an additional $1 per month in their electricity bill to combat climate change,” which is nowhere near the whopping $20 that “the average household faces damages of” (Ori 1). According to the research of Megan Mullin, a writer for Duke Magazine, the reason for this response is because the public’s perceptions of climate are “shaped by personal experiences” with their local weather instead of weather of other regions (1). To put it differently, people are only going to feel intimidated by the threats of climate change if it has had negative influences within their life, which results in why the willingness to pay for climate change damages was comparatively low. Despite these results, the consequences of carbon emissions and climate change are harming to the way we live, which is making global warming much more difficult to overcome. 

With this in mind, why are we having the conversation about climate change in a way that is unproductive and quite irritating? It is clear that the effects of climate change must be discussed, because they simply cannot be left suppressed because climate change and terrorism “rank among the most serious,” catastrophic risks (Sunstein 505). It is the current direction of the discussion that is concerning because of its much more detrimental impacts on the United States, and arguably the globe. In response, most instigators of the climate change argument are probably saying to themselves, “If we stop arguing for carbon emissions to be taken care of, will the issue ever be resolved?” Over the course of American history, there have been instances of non-violent protests being effective in achieving their goals. A prime example being what Martin Luther King Jr. was able to accomplish during the Civil Rights Movement with the Montgomery Bus Boycott. If a message is conveyed with enough passion and perseverance, it will be received loud and clear. A key concept to why people are so urgent to resolve climate change, is the idea of people living in fear for their children’s livelihoods because “Americans believe that the most serious risks associated with climate change will occur in the long term and in other less developed nations” (Sunstein 507). The potentiality of the Earth rapidly approaching dangerous conditions for future human life is often a touchy subject that influences a sense of panic among most debaters. It is important for all Americans to note that the tone of a discussion can certainly have a dramatic effect on its outcome. In other words, if panic sparks a sense of aggression within the tone of one’s voice, then the discussion could spiral out of control, whereas if one’s tone remains calm, the discussion is able to maintain control. The climate change discussion is being damaged due to America’s inability to block out the sense of panic that derives from the idea of global warming. 

When it boils down to it, it is the aggressive debates that has influenced this divide between Americans. As mentioned earlier, national attention surrounding political debates is growing thanks to the influence of twenty-four-hour news broadcasting networks. With how advanced the media has become today, there is a “never-ending flow of news,” reporting on whatever topics seem to draw the eyes of the public (Revkin 1). From the article “On Balance, Hype, Climate and the Media,” the author claims that “climate change is the poster child of twenty-first-century environmental issues,” which is a similar representation of how the media treats climate change. With media fighting to generate profits and attract readers and watchers, climate change is now being reported as either less or more active and violent than it actually is, ultimately creating a national bias amongst news watchers. As a result, causing an uproar from both believers and non-believers in anthropogenic climate change. 

Similarly, a bias within the education system is also causing tempers to flare from those who tend to deny the idea of global warming. Environmental science classes are being implemented into schools across the country now more than ever, and they are introducing the “controversial issue” of climate change (Reardon 688). In Sara Reardon’s article Climate Change Sparks Battles in Classroom, she references to an informal survey that found climate change to be the second most likely topic in “triggering” protests from both school administrators and parents (688). This issue is making educating much more difficult for teachers because of the hate they receive from teaching climate change as a scientific fact. Studies show that when students become knowledgeable of the climate change science, their opinion is significantly affected. As a result, parents are angered over the “forcing” of opposing political beliefs upon their children. Politics’ effect on geoscience courses is becoming a popular occurrence around the country (688). 

In the United States, it is believed that someone’s viewpoint on the concern of global warming is commonly associated with what political party they tend to vote with. For instance, liberals and Democrats are thought to be more likely to report beliefs consistent with the scientific consensus and express personal concern about global warming than conservatives and Republicans are thought to. This theory was studied and proven by Aaron M. McCright and Riley E. Dunlap through their interest in the examination political polarization over climate change amongst the American public represented within the nationally representative Gallup Polls between 2001 and 2010. As time passes by, political views on climate change are negatively affecting the way that people interact socially by essentially making everyone despise one another. Some heated debates on global warming can sometimes go a long way in developing a political candidate’s fan club and earning them style points for the upcoming election. 

However, escalated televised arguments mostly come across arrogant and childish, which is beginning to shape how the American public argues. A prime example of nationally broadcasted climate change debates gone wrong is the Fox News debate, Tucker Carlson vs. Bill Nye that occurred on February 27, 2017. This argument displayed the perfect representation of the liberal vs conservative rivalry that has been severely parting the country for the past decades. In the debate, Tucker Carlson, an American political news correspondent for Fox News, represents the Republican conservative and Bill Nye, an American science educator, television presenter, and mechanical engineer, represents the Democratic liberal as the two attempt a discussion about the warming of the globe and if man-kind is the primary determinant for the speed of the climate’s rise. The discussion begins to spiral down quickly as the two debaters cut each other off, raise tempers, and call each other names. As two professionals, Carlson and Nye were so unproductive in addressing the topic, that they rose question to whether or not the discussion should have taken place at all. It is quite ironic that the “United” States of America is the one country that is dealing with the most division. The question is, when will we be united again?

The United States is currently experiencing what might be some of the most crucial political issues of its lifetime thanks to the emergence of questions surrounding terrorism, gay rights, transgender rights, women’s rights, religious freedom rights, gun control, immigrant deportation, In-State Tuition, healthcare rights, and of course, climate change. All of these issues seem to revolve around one similar characteristic, which is that they all have the potential to turn us against one another. With Republicans and Democrats taking two different point of views on nearly every issue, there is a miniscule window of opportunity for all Americans to coexist and live in perfect harmony with one another. In the States, there has always been some sort of discrepancy over how the government should be run since the origination of the American colonies. In fact, George Washington himself states in his Farewell Address how he disagrees with the use of political parties because of the negative impacts they can have among the people. From all of the dividing factors that were mentioned before, we have had protests, riots, and overall civil violence that has slowly been destroying the foundation of this country. The idea of this country being united as one nation is withering away with each social conflict that it experiences. 

So why do we have to let conflict arise around the topic of climate change, when there is already so many immigration issues, social issues, domestic policy issues, and foreign policy issues that are being discussed and argued day in and day out? With such frequent protests and riots happening, doesn’t their voice begin to lose its luster? As it has been seen, racial tensions and police brutality has had a certain effect on our country that has left scars that cannot be healed. From the Trayvon Martin case to the violent Ferguson, Missouri riots, there have been controversial racial acts that have shed light on the problems that still exist within the U.S. At the increasing rate of arguments over climate change, it is not before long until climate change leaves unhealable scars too. The racial tensions of today can be fixed just as those that existed during the Civil Rights Movement were fixed. 

On the other hand, a point often overlooked when it comes to the resolution of global warming is that we cannot reverse the damage that has already been done, especially the rising of sea levels and melting of ice caps. Due to the possible further implications of the environment, people have now started viewing the risks of climate change as catastrophic, if not more, than the risks of terrorism. If the temperature were to rise similar to how it is currently, then one could argue that the long term effects of global warming would be as catastrophic as terrorism, but currently in the United States, there is not as much experience of abnormal weather events as there are in developing nations. Because of the United States’ personal experiences with climate change, there is not as strong of a claim for our government to work towards helping the climate compared to other countries of more extreme experiences. 

In conclusion, the argument of climate change produces new threats to our national unity, while failing to even address the issue of climate change anyway. Threats, name-calling, nationally broadcasted altercations, and riots must not continue in order to make the global warming discussion less confrontational and overall, much more productive. I am not saying that I have researched and obtained the perfect recipe for fixing the problems that arise from the discussion. Instead, I am just suggesting that the negative aspects of the discussion are increasing the divide specifically between Republicans and Democrats, and should be terminated before it escalates into another catastrophe within our country. The United States’ political issue of climate change has negatively impacted its education system and broadcast networks because of the way they revolve around the bias opinions of climate change, and persuade the general public. As a supposedly “United” country, why do we bicker, and potentially hate each other, simply because of our political views. It is understandable how when a great amount of people live together and determine the outcome of our country’s senate, house of representatives, and president, there are going to be many who disagree. It is the way that people are disagreeing that brings on the conflict within the United States of America. As the discussion begins to escalate more and more, then the climate change issue will continue to grow and create a massive social and political divide between all Americans. With this in mind, all Americans, Democratic or Republican, black or white, religious or non-religious, can help to eliminate the dividing factors by putting their political views aside, and uniting as one nation to be good stewards, and help take care of nature in their own preferred ways and give everyone the upmost respect that they deserve. 
