Modern reporting on climate change has become overly politicized. How can journalists better inform the public on the effects of climate change without including politics? I believe that journalists including their own political views in their articles on climate change, especially if their goal is to advance public literacy in the topic, is highly irresponsible. The United States is currently very divided politically, and by having a bias on either side of the political spectrum you are alienating half of your audience. While many of the nation’s largest publications (e.g Washington Post, New York Times) are left-leaning and have a liberal audience, they still have a responsibility to report on scientific findings in the most informative way possible. Journalists seeking to throw in attacks (sometimes personal) on politicians who do not agree with them to advance a political agenda, defeats what should be the purpose of that article. If journalists compose unbiased articles and avoid politicization, then the general public will see more of a need for action on climate change. 

Environmental protection was essentially a non-partisan issue in the United States up until the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 by the Nixon administration. At that point, the U.S. federal government began clashing with the private sector over a multitude of regulations that limited their profits. Politicians, and their political parties, started to pick sides. Ironically, the Republican party that had once help found the EPA was soon denouncing those very regulations in the 1980’s under Ronald Reagan’s administration. While many acknowledged the better state of the environment around the country, the new regulations were affecting industries with powerful voices in Washington. Lobbyists, and in turn politicians, began to question the need for these rules. President Reagan needed to override his cabinet in his decision to sign the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer in 1989. This treaty has gone on to become known as the most successful international agreement on climate change. If Reagan had been concerned about another presidential run, perhaps he would have been more willing to make concessions. And while Republican leadership had shown a moderate stance on climate change in the 80’s and 90’s, that has changed with the turn of the century. 

With partisan politics playing an increasingly large role in modern U.S. politics, climate change has become just another thing to disagree on. Climate change deniers have no doubt played a role. While over 97% of peer-reviewed papers on climate change agree that climate change is happening and is caused by human activity, only 16% of Americans realize the consensus is that high (Cook). Media outlets have continued to air and publish the opinions of climate change skeptics and deniers, contributing to the lack of public action. Deniers/skeptics have often been funded by giant energy corporations such as ExxonMobil (who only stopped funding of these groups and individuals in 2008). While the Obama administration had taken a hard stance to stop the effects on climate change and increase public awareness, this past year’s presidential election made it clear that the American public still does not see it as a major issue. The only candidate to effectively market climate change as one of the top priorities for the nation was Senator Bernie Sanders. The Republican and Democratic nominees, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, would have the media focusing on political insults/scandals and foreign policy more than any other issues. As a result of now President Trump once claiming the climate change was a Chinese hoax, and the new EPA administrator Scott Pruitt rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change, the media on both sides has in a way become radicalized. Journalists on both sides of the climate change debate are frantically throwing insults each other’s way while essentially going nowhere. A quick Google search for “climate change” will quickly find you endless articles that are political in nature.

Putting aforementioned political distractions aside, when the media does report on climate change it sadly still adheres to the journalistic norm of neutrality. Climate change skeptics are given equal weight in order to present a balanced argument. This ignores the fact that journalists are not usually well versed in analyzing scientific data. While this neutrality has tapered off in recent years due to the increasingly partisan media, perhaps it has only gotten worse. The ability to obtain news from sources that reinforce pre-existing political beliefs only furthers polarization. 

Despite its negative impacts, there are people who believe there is value in the politicization of climate change. Proponents argue that this fosters democratic debate and results in compromise (Pepermans). While this may be true, increasing partisanship in the United States would suggest that debate often slows down the legislative process to a halt. Many politicians represent populations that are either skeptical about the effects of climate change or have been negatively impacted by new environmental legislation. These representatives in Washington have had enough in numbers to become a nuisance to those trying to pass new legislation. The media has also been voicing their concerns, leading to more debate about how much we need to act on climate change. Today it is getting more difficult to find an outright climate change denier in the media. Results of a recent study “show that the [climate] debate has changed: fundamental forms of climate change skepticism (such as denial of anthropogenic causes) have been abandoned in the coverage, being replaced by more subtle forms (such as the goal to avoid binding regulations)” (Schmid-Petri 1). These climate change skeptic’s goal, whether they be journalists, lobbyists, politicians, etc., is not to convince the public that climate change is not happening, but rather to call into question the necessity of new laws, treaties, and regulations that may harm certain industries and/or individual freedoms. This rhetoric delays the creation and implementation of these efforts to bring climate change to a halt. Some argue this is necessary. Without opposition to government regulation of climate change, the federal government would be free to enact laws and regulations that harm the economy and go against the ideals of limited government and free markets. While I agree that the need for reason and or caution is necessary when it comes to creating these laws and regulations, I disagree that the opposition should be accomplished by calling major scientific studies into question. Those who do so are simply afraid to divulge their true intentions. 

A universal agreement that climate change is a major issue that needs legislative action is something that many ideologically conservative citizens view as a threat to these ideals. Republicans understand that they will not garner support among their base if they champion action on climate change, something that many associate with Barrack Obama’s administration and the Democratic party. In fact, Republicans have used the skepticism of climate change to attract voters. The rise of the Tea Party faction and the subsequent right-ward shift of the Republican platform led to, “a 2011 to 2012 House of Representatives expected to be hostile to climate science and steadfastly opposed to climate policies” (McCright 179). This reactive shift can be attributed to many factors, with media being a key player. As much as scientists and climate change activists stress the issue of climate change, an opposition will always remain. Perhaps it is inevitable in the United States’ two party system. With the rise in partisanship, to some it seems like there is always two different solutions to one issue. Or maybe it has to do with a vigorous defense of the industrialist/capitalist system present in the United States. The idea of sacrificing personal gain for the good of the people has been repeatedly challenged by conservatives in government who view actions like these as slippery slope towards socialism. The current state of the nation is summed up in this study stating, “a growing percentage of the American public—and not just self-interested industrial/conservative elites—denies the scientific evidence documenting anthropogenic climate change and thus the need for ameliorative action. This diffusion of anti-reflexivity throughout society results in a declining portion of the populace willing to acknowledge negative consequence of industrial capitalism. The culture wars have thus new dimension, with serious implications for long-term societal resilience” (180). In short, citizens are denying that certain industries in the United States are in even in part responsible for severe environmental implications across the globe. And in turn, as their beliefs are represented in government via elected officials, the push for more action on climate change has led to a stalemate.

Because of American mass media’s obsession with Donald Trump during his campaign, His words carried a lot of weight throughout the country. His propositions on climate change were met with a fierce and negative reaction from journalists. Despite this, many American’s distrust of the media led them to disregard the opinion of prominent newscasters, many of whom are known to have a liberal bias. Yet as President Trump moves to dismantle environmental regulations and withdraw from the Paris Agreement, there seems to be vast confusion among even the Republican party. Halper writes, “His own secretary of State appears to see little upside in the president following through on the signature campaign vow to scrap it. His ambassador to the United Nations is hedging. And titans of industries that Trump promised would be unleashed to create new jobs once freed from the agreement’s constraints are openly hostile to Trump’s plan to put it through the shredder”. If the President of the United States, the country’s two main political parties, the media, the citizens, and the private sector are all not on the same page, then how will we ever get there? With the media seeming more divided and as polarized than ever, maybe we never will. A good idea for improving the public’s literacy on the topic, and maybe preventing the latter from happening, is through education. Cooper writes, “Science education efforts must be strategic and must expand courageously to provide the public with the critical thinking and media literacy skills that will help people recognize the barrage of media messages constructed to mislead, confuse, or predispose individuals to apathy or denial when engaging in dialogues about climate change” (235). Carrying out this idea would result in the public fixing the problem themselves. Unfortunately, many remained misinformed by todays media, unable to draw conclusions for themselves. 

 Divergence of opinions, both ideological and political, has impacted the way journalists report on the issue. Finding articles on climate change that do not mention politics are few and far between today. Opinion pieces in many news outlets specifically go out of their way to attack or discredit those who disagree with them. An example of an article such as this comes from Polly Toynbee, a columnist for The Guardian. With the title of the article being, “Climate change will affect all of us. So why the lack of urgency?”, you would think that she would try to appeal to everyone. Instead, she opens her article on climate change by stating, “Tomorrow the world shutters as Donald Trump becomes US president”. This immediately angers the millions of supporters of Trump, who perhaps now will not bother to read the rest of the article given that they were just insulted. If the goal of the article is to call for action on climate change, why shun a group of people who may be the ones that need convincing? This has become something far too common nowadays. Because of articles like these, more and more people are beginning to get news from sources that confirm their pre-existing beliefs. To illustrate how bad its become, almost half of the US media’s information on climate change tipping points have come from opinion commentaries from syndicated columnists (Cooper 233). The presence of these articles contributes to misconceptions and confusion. Despite this, 88% of Americans remain convinced by climate change evidence (232). While some develop or change their opinion on the issue after looking at scientific facts, others remain skeptical after only getting their news from those who cast doubt on the evidence. An example of an article that would be effective against those who still need convincing comes from John Carey, a freelance science writer and editor. “Global Warming and the Science of Extreme Weather” goes to great lengths to convince the reader of climate change’s impact on severe weather. In contrast to the previous article, Carey leads off by citing a study showing that droughts, heat waves, and rainstorms have been more common in recent years. He goes on to interview multiple experts in the field of climate to convince the reader. Not once is politics mentioned in the article. This article can be far more convincing by appealing to the entire population, not just one political ideology. Relaying facts that experts have gathered a consensus on, like Carey in his article, should be a priority of journalists across the globe. Studies have shown that citizens depend on mass media to be the continual discourse between experts and themselves (Antilla 243). This journalism avoids politicization and remains the most effective way to convince an audience. And the power of the media should not be underestimated as “not only do news outlets ‘define pressing issues’ and ‘influence public policy,’ but news articles written on existing risks ‘can lead to dramatic changes in behavior’” (243). Wielding that power to inform the public of scientific risks can only be accomplished by unbiased reporting. 

Truth and accountability in the media and government are being called on by the American public. In an era when just about anybody can go online and write about any issue, no matter how far from the truth they might be, it is important to search for facts among those who are qualified to be speaking on the issue. Climate change is one that has been abused. Informing the public about its hazards should take greater priority than the day to day squabbles of politics. With each passing day, mainstream media outlets become more and more polarizing, harming their credibility. Journalists and scientists need to increase their efforts to convince the public of the facts the have already been found. With many people now experiencing the effects of climate change first hand, now is not the time to meddle with the story. With energy corporations understanding the long-term threats climate change poses, even they have made a push for a greater investment in climate protection. The last frontier seems to be a large segment of the US population. With the media being the only ones with the tools and willingness to do so, it must push the issue. For now, we will continue to watch the media fail in effectiveness as the US continues to find itself lost in a circular debate. 
