Trying to debate whether climate change is a prevalent issue to discuss is like trying to decide whether the famous social media dress is white and yellow or blue and black… it will be a never-ending conversation. The debate of climate change between Republicans and Democrats has been going on for over two hundred years. Looking back at elections in the 60’s, Republicans, like Nixon, worked with the Democratic Congress to sign several of the United States most important environmental legislation into law in the late 1960’s to early 1970’s (Jacques). The 2008 Republican platform accounts human activity for the increasing amount of carbon in the atmosphere, and supports technological market-based solutions “that will decrease emissions and mitigate the impact of climate change” (Dotson). The United States is responsible for sixteen percent of global carbon pollution on an annual basis, and about ninety-seven percent of climate scientist accept the idea of global warming. So, why does the 2016 Presidential Republican nominees deny any idea or plan of action for global warming? Candidates like Donald Trump call global warming a “hoax”, while Secretary of State and Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton believes climate change “is one of the most urgent threats of our time, and we have no choice but to rise and meet it.” (Dotson). Conservatives deny any idea of global warming because they believe there is not enough information to see the outcomes of global warming, its more economically beneficial and aids industries to ignore efforts the efforts to go “green”, and the world is too big for the U.S to be responsible for cleaning the earth.

During the 2016 Presidential election, the discussion about global warming was merely a conversation. Republicans deny any support to the issue and anxiously push forward to the next topic of discussion. Candidates, like the famous Mr. Trump, does not believe humans are the main cause the global warming. He argues that it is simply “weather”, and “[until] somebody can prove to [him], [he’ll] believes there’s weather. [He] believes there’s change” (Henry). The idea that there is indeed a temperature rise is almost universally accepted, and Republicans do support the idea that there is an increase in temperatures, but deny that it is man caused and the outcomes of the weather change are unpredictable. Democrats debate that temperatures rising can mean less snow and ice coverage across the world, which will result in less heat reflects into the atmosphere and create additional warming. The Republicans debate plants grow faster in warmer temperatures and it will also create more airborne CO2, which can reduce atmospheric carbon and slow down expected warming (Meyer). Looking at the difference in the debate about the future outcome highlights the Republican side of the debate is pretty reasonable. They deny climate change because there simply isn’t enough information to prove the future cause or outcome from global warming, which can pull more government money to create laws and different energy sources. Conservatives argue that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere today is at 390ppm. Even if increasing that amount of CO2 to 800ppm will increase the temperature by one degree, a degree is hardly any harm to the environment and its stability. To add on to the Republican side of the debate, conservatives also mention in 1910-1940 the world experienced a very similar climate change well before modern society began to emit CO2 into the air, and that within the last 10-15 year’s, temperatures are noticeable leveling off (Meyer). There is so much data and research about global warming, the U.S. cannot be one hundred percent the earth is changing only because of our emissions or that the earth is slowly dying. Earth has been around for billions of years, and has gone through heat waves and ice ages…all from non-human interaction. Republicans, in some degree, are right about their facts and statements about climate change and why they believe they should not support actions for global warming. Ted Cruz questioned the democrat’s computer models on global warming during the 2016 Presidential election, and said “that in the last 17 years, satellite data shows there’s been no warming whatsoever” (Henry). Doctor Ben Carson made a statement at San Francisco Chronicle: “there is no overwhelming science that the things that are going on are man-caused and not nature caused” (Henry). Lastly, Paul Ryan believes the weather has to do for most of the environmental issues. He goes on to say that “the planet is 4.5 billion years old. We’ve been through geologic age after geologic age. We’ve had times when the temperatures been warmer, we’ve had times when the temperatures been colder. We’ve had times when the carbon in the atmosphere’s been higher. So, I think we need to look before we leap” (Henry). Republicans only reject the idea of global warming because the future possibilities are unsure, and the information presented on global warming is not enough to say that humans are the leading cause of climate change. They have the right to question, and exam all the data, and when the facts appear to show hardly enough evidence about future possibilities then the Republicans side of the debate seems very true and logical. 

Republican senators in past years like, John McCain, Lamar Alexander, Susan Collins, Lindsey O. Graham and Jeff Flake all tried to introduce climate bills. However, in the recent Presidential election, Republican nominees presented no plan or legislation on pollution control. During the 2008 Presidential election, the Republican support in oil and coal production increase did not change in the recent election, but the 2008 nominees backed their support by discussing plans to lower the nation’s oil dependency, reduce emissions and look for alternative sources other than oil. The 2016 nominees did not mention any solution to reducing pollution from power plants. The Republican platform is backed by multiple industries like the “immensely profitable and politically influential fossil fuel industry” (Nuccitelli). By denying any idea that global warming is an urgent issue allows the Republicans to keep the fossil fuel industry satisfied, and in their belief, betters the economy. The fossil fuels industry makes a US subsidy of seven hundred billion dollars each year (Whitehouse).  With such a large annual US subsidy, the industry allowed to spend large amounts on politics. In fact, about hundreds of millions of dollars are put into each federal election cycle from the fossil fuel industry (Whitehouse). A big bank means “anyone who is allowed to spend unlimited political money necessarily can threaten to spend unlimited political money. This atmosphere of big bucks squashes any Republican effort to reduce emissions and support climate change” (Whitehouse). Fossil fuel industry influences do not just come from the amount of money they bring into the economy, but newly elected President, Donald Trump, is filling his administration with Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, an ardent acolyte of the fossil fuel industry and ExxonMobil Chief Executive Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State. With two highly known fossil fuel advocates, bills supporting climate change or making change to industry emissions will never reach the possibility of becoming a law. It is also not a secret that the Koch brothers have major ties in the Republican party. This might have to do with that fact that the brothers have the second largest privately held company in the United States. When it comes down to the Republicans, their main worry is money, money, and money. 

Twenty-sixteen Presidential nominee, John Kasich, was one of the few Republicans to believe in climate change, and advocates other possible ways to protect the environment without changing any industries: “It’s so critical for us to be energy independent” (McCright). However, Kasich is from the state of Ohio which is one of the largest fossil fuel producing states in America. So, while he advocates for the US to change energy sources, Kasich also mentions, “we’re getting there because of fracking and we ought to explore – because, see, energy independence gives us leverage and flexibility, and secondly, if you want to bring jobs back to the United States of America in industry, low prices make the difference” (McCright). So, while Kasich may be one of the few conservatives to believe in climate change, the influence from the fossil fuel industry keeps Republicans and Kasich doing their best to keep legislation from restricting the industry in any way.

Not only does the fossil fuel industry have a large influence on the conservative platform, the fossil fuel industry, and many other industries like coal, supports the U.S.’s need for energy. The Obama Administration implemented, the Clean Power Plan in 2015. The act’s purpose is to reduce carbon emissions from power plants that contribute most to global warming through market-based approaches. The 2016 Republican Presidential nominees all planned to get rid of the Clean Power Plan because it will not benefit the economy. Marco Rubio said the plan will “have devastating impact on affordable energy in exchange for little to no environmental benefit” (Henry). Like most Republicans, Rubio argues that the economy should not be put under pressure when trying to help the environment, and that making “America a harder place to create jobs to pursue policies that will do absolutely nothing, nothing to change our climate, to change our weather” (Henry).  Another nominee, Mike Huckabee said, “climate change is maybe the wrong question: good stable energy prices and making America an exporter of energy, not just for economic reasons but quite frankly to disrupt the balance of power with Russia, Iran, and the Saudis. This is a game changer and America needs to be using the resources it has” (Henry). The republicans believe that allowing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide will harm the economy and the energy sources that the country depends on. For industries, like the fossil-fuel industry, to go “green” will cost millions of dollars and take years to fully become “green”. Conservatives already support any idea that contributes to the government spending less money on outside issues that pull away from military and free-market money. So, if going “green” means the country becoming even more in debt and pulling more money from tax payers and other sources, then conservatives will already agree that it is not a useful plan. 

In 2015, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change created the Paris agreement that is a treaty signed by one hundred and ninety-four members to reduce carbon emissions starting in 2020. One hundred and thirty-four countries have ratified the agreement, and the UN is still waiting for the United States to take part on the treaty. However, the United States will not be signing the treaty because the newly American Republican government believes “the issue of climate change is global, it must become truly a global concern as well. All developed and developing economies, particularly India and China, can make significant contributions in dealing with the matter. It would be unrealistic and counterproductive to expect the U.S. to carry burdens which are more appropriately shared by all” (Dotson). Another reason why the United States Republican party chooses to ignore the issues of global warming is that they believe the U.S. alone cannot change the weather changing when other countries are also releasing poor emissions into the atmosphere. Marco Rubio believes that the US should notbe putting effort into helping the environment when other countries are not willing to do so as well. He also questions the Paris climate deal in saying it’s “ridiculous” and questions whether big polluters like China will be able to meet the treaties regulations (McCright). Rubio is not the only nominee to also attack the Paris agreement. Carly Fiorina jokes about the Paris agreement by attacking China for being a member to sign the agreement. She believes China is highly unlikely to follow through with the commitments. China is a high carbon emitting country, just like the U.S., and they have put hardly any effort to change their high polluting industries. Other countries are equally creditable for climate change, and if not the entire world is willing to make an effort, then neither should the United States. Another nominee from the 2016 Presidential election, Chris Christie, said, “we shouldn’t be destroying our economy to chase some wild left-wing idea that somehow us by ourselves is going to fix the climate” (McCright). Christie’s statement also highlights the idea that creating laws to reduce emissions would worsen our economy and give little benefits to the earth because the United States alone cannot fix an entire planet full of about seven billion people and one hundred and ninety-six countries. This belief is very similar to the idea that the U.S. cannot be the world’s peace makers. It is not a secret that many Americans believe the U.S. should be less involved in outside conflicts, so how is it any different when it comes to Climate Change? 

Thought the Republicans during the 2016 election choose to deny global warming, in recent polls, data shows many Americans support climate change. In August of 2015, results from a survey “found that conservative Republicans [voters] support accelerating growth of clean energy, and fifty-four percent accept that human contributing to climate change and support putting a price on carbon pollution” (Nuccitelli).  Though this survey may support the idea that some part of the Republican party supports climate change, conservative political chair holders have put zero effort to help with the issue of climate change. To add on, others have pointed out that the Republican party stands alone in denying climate change, going against what the survey says. A supporter of global warming, Jonathan Chait said, “In any other democracy in the world, a Jeb Bush would be an isolated loon, operating outside the major parties, perhaps carrying on at conferences with fellow cranks, but having no prospects of seeing his vision carried out in government. But the United States is different. Here in America, ideas like Bush’s fit comfortably within one of the two major political parties. Indeed, the greatest barrier to Bush claiming his party’s nomination is the quite possibly justified sense that he is too sober and moderate to suit the GOP.” People have tried using this fact to show that the Republican party is ill-minded in the issue, however, looking back at the research concluded, the Republican party does not ignore the fact that the weather is changing. They deny the fact that the weather is changing only due to man-made reasons and that there is not enough data to show the future outcome global warming may cause. In fact, there is data showing bad and good effects from the earths temperatures rising. Republicans debate a very different side of the issue. They choose to ignore the fact that the world is in dire need of the U.S help because facts about future disasters are not all there, it hurts the economy and energy industries, and it is simply too large of an issue for the U.S. alone to change the weather changing. Another poll shows that many American conservative voters in the 2016 Presidential election supports the idea of climate change. During the debates, the discussion about global warming and actions that need to be taken were ignored by almost all the Republican candidates. “That might have dulled the partisanship around global warming, he suggests, and made it easier for some conservatives to shift their views “because they’re not hearing a constant barrage of ‘This is a liberal hoax’” (Lehmann). Conservatives reach farther into the debate to discuss about if people are one hundred percent about the data and if the weather will affect humans in the future. 

As times are changing, so are politics. Republicans have traveled further on the scale to the right than ever before. Denying climate change is a very controversial and heated debate. After searching deeper into the Republicans reasons for supporting the idea that global warming is an urgent issue, the findings were unexpected and very reasonable. The Republican party argues that there is not enough evidence and prove to show that only man-made actions are causing global warming and the effect of global warming has multiple possibilities, industries and the economy benefit better if the issue is ignored, and the U.S. is not in charge of controlling climate and pollution from other countries.
