When I first learned about political ideologies, I wondered how was it that out of all the wide range of social issues, a few groups could be drawn out and politicians could be characterized as liberal or conservative. For example, I never understood how the group that believed in gun control falls into the same group that believed in a woman's right to choose. Out of all the wide range of political issues, it would seem very complex to be able to characterize people.
Yet the polarization of American politics is evident. If an individual feels very strongly about a certain issue and wants to gain the power to enact change on that issue, he or she has to align with ideologies on other issues that he or she may not necessarily agree with. Where, for example, is the mainstream political party for someone who believes in gay marriage and supports wealthy oil barons? It is clear that politics today forces people into a black-and-white dichotomy with little room for in between or discussions for solutions.
This is exactly the case with the climate change debate. When Al Gore visited ASU, this polarization reared its ugly head in two groups: those who supported all the claims that he made and those who were against him because they felt his scientific viewpoints were politically tainted. Rarely did I hear a discussion in between -- somewhere along the lines of "Yes, I think climate change is problematic, but Gore may be exaggerating the catastrophes that could occur." This is disconcerting because black-and-white ideological clashes never lead to consensus and meaningful solutions.
Climate change itself is a very complex issue. Potential renewable energy solutions always have a dark side about which environmentalists try to keep quiet. Ethanol, for example, is becoming extremely popular in the Midwest and particularly Iowa. Last week's Economist reported that Iowa has 28 ethanol refineries and produces 1.9 billion gallons of ethanol a year. Yet, while advocates are quick to point out that ethanol is clean burning, they often fail to mention that the process required to create the ethanol creates almost as much emissions as gasoline. Grassroots advocates are also eager to plan awareness days where people are asked to not drive their cars for a day. Getting people to not buy gas for a day only postpones their purchasing of gas by a day and gives many conservatives reason to call them "silly hippies." A lack of understanding of the complicated nature of climate change leads to a meaningless debate for both sides.
The solution is not to give up coal or oil and revert to an agrarian society. It is also not to completely ignore those who constantly show valid and truthful scientific results of an impending climate problem. The right way to deal with the climate change is to throw out the "yes" or "no" perception. Participants must be willing to have open and frank discussions about the potential severity of future problems and meaningful solutions that could avert harm.
Don't get me wrong; I firmly believe that there are valid anthropogenic causes to climate change. After all, how can humans emit 8 billion tons of carbon a year into the atmosphere and not expect any consequences? The problem is that those who believe this is happening are framing the debate like a "no girls allowed" club. One is either in or out. As reasonable human beings, we must strive past the polarization. Only then will robust solutions that include reduced consumption of energy as well as a diverse array of renewable technologies be created.
Reach the columnist at uven.chong@asu.edu
