Overcoming Educational, Economic & Political Impediments: The Key to Introducing Meaningful Climate Reform

by Jessy Dong, Laura Gaylord, Tomas Rivera, Daniel J. Romano, Vaanya Salwan & Samantha Sonnett

Teen Think Tank Project | Change Agent Academy |Summer Session \ Climate Justice Research Cohort | August 25th, 2022

INTRODUCTION

On June 23, 1988, Dr. James Hansen of NASA announced to the United States that the atmosphere was warming due to the actions of humanity (Brulle, 2018). This day, the world began to comprehend that if their behavior did not change, their species would not survive. Almost 35 years later, the population faces the same problem, and many similar obstacles stand in their way. Society is combatting setbacks in all areas of existence: educational, economic, and political. These impediments are standing in the way of a healed ecosystem. By diving into their ideological standpoints, one can better perceive the catastrophe known as “climate change.”

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Every decade since 1880, the global temperature has risen .14 degrees Fahrenheit. Since 1993, the sea level has increased .14 inches per year. Seven hundred fifty billion tons of ice is melted yearly, causing many animals to lose their habitats. The changes are real, and the longer they are ignored the worse they become.

Today, as environmental issues have become more prominent and unable to be ignored, governments across the globe are finally taking action and trying to find ways to solve them. One example of this collective action is the Paris Climate Agreement, which “sets out a global framework to avoid dangerous climate change by limiting global warming to well below 2°C and pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5°C” (Denchak, 2021). In the beginning, most countries in this agreement could maintain this goal. However, as time has passed, many countries have not been able to maintain this goal, and as a collective, the global community has failed to keep the widespread issue of climate change under control. Many countries that are not as developed as others fail to achieve this goal due to insufficient money or supplies to improve their energy source. In addition, undeveloped countries are usually where the use of energy, like fossil fuels, contributes to climate change. In those areas, not much can be changed, and thus it affects the entire world and leads to many countries failing to achieve the goal they all agreed on.

All in all, we as the people of earth need to stand together to fight against this “everlasting” battle that is said to be against the climate when in reality, it’s against ourselves. There are three main impediments that, if we can conquer, the upper hand will be ours in this climate war.

EDUCATIONAL IMPEDIMENT

There are 7.7 billion people on Earth with different locations, statuses, and cultures, yet, everyone shares one home. The citizens of the United States need to understand the impact they are having on the world’s climate and that together, they must reduce their carbon footprint to work towards a carbon-neutral world. However, it is difficult for Americans to work towards an important goal when the news media and their government are in denial of its existence and are feeding them misinformation.

The Detrimental Effects of the “Fake News” Fallacy

Over the past several decades, many individuals have spread misinformation regarding climate change and global warming, including corporate executives, government officials, and even Presidents. To start with the most prevalent, President Donald Trump continuously took steps to derail climate change reform through his misguided policy decisions, including removing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, passing various anti-climate change legislation and ultimate governmental ignorance toward the apparent signs of climate change. Nevertheless, arguably the most drastic and lasting effect of his anti-environment regime was the widespread dispersal of misinformation and fake news fed to the public regarding the state of our climate.

On multiple occasions, Trump has disregarded the importance of the changing climate. For example, on CBS’s 60 minutes, when asked about the climate, Trump is quoted saying, “I do not know that it is man-made” and that the warming trend “could very well go back.” (CBS 2018). Americans who listen to this rhetoric may be less desired to take action, as their own President does not believe in climate change.

To make matters worse, he regularly Tweeted misinformation without fact-checking or providing evidence. In one such instance, he Tweeted that “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” which, according to the New York Times, was re-tweeted more than 104,000 times and ‘liked’ nearly 66,000 times.” Then, when the Northeast faced a cold front in November of 2018, Trump tweeted, “Whatever happened to Global Warming?” Again, calling into question the truth regarding the changing climate, spurring doubt, and de-rationalizing those who fight for climate change.

President Donald Trump’s incorrect rhetoric on the environment was not merely a misguided viewpoint but a calculated strategy to curry favor amongst voters. He realized that to boost his polls; he needed to address the issue of climate change. So Trump fed the public with false information. On July 8, 2019, while trying to boast about his environmental record, he stated that America surpasses many other countries in eliminating greenhouse emissions. In addition, he claimed that “every single one of the signatories to the Paris Climate Accord lags behind America in overall emissions reductions;” according to (Nugent 2019) from Time Magazine, various reports proved that emissions were rising. The millions of Americans who have listened to his statements are misguided into believing that the U.S is eliminating greenhouse emissions and that they do not have to work for a cleaner environment collectively.

With a misinformed public, achieving the goal of lowering greenhouse emissions is much more difficult. In working towards a more environmentally friendly Earth, every person has to play their part. However, when the leader of one of the world’s most powerful nations claims that no work needs to be done and that the climate change issue is under control, it negatively affects the world. In reality, there is still much work to be done.

Bi-Partisan Misinformation

Donald Trump, through his divisive narrative, the wanton spread of misinformation, and failure to publicly support pro-environmental policy, has diminished the importance of striving for carbon neutrality in America. However, Trump is not the sole proprietor of misinformation in government. Other high-ranking government officials are spreading misinformation or downplaying the importance of fossil fuels relating to climate change.

Steve Koonin, the Under Secretary of Science in the Obama Administration, has authored publications questioning the validity of climate change, thus creating misinformation and spreading controversy about whether it is accurate. He used his connection to Obama to boost his legacy and name, trying to paint himself as a reliable source of information; however, Koonin’s book “Unsettled” (published on April 27, 2021) argues against the evident effects of climate change and stirs up uncertainty as to whether the effects are real. In reality, scientific findings regarding the impact of climate change have been stronger than ever and have been growing stronger for decades.

Institutional Misinformation

The issue of government officials sowing the seeds of doubt concerning climate change is not limited to a handful of rogue executive branch members. The Center for American Progress cites that “according to a new analysis from the Center for American Progress, 139 officials in the 117th Congress [elected on November 3, 2020], including 109 representatives and 30 senators, refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change.” (Drennen, 2021). These climate change deniers use their status as elected officials to make public statements impeding the progress of halting climate change and denying the scientific fact that the globe is warming because of human activity through this spread of misinformation. The fact that this drastic number of the American congress does not support climate change is disheartening.

It is not surprising to hear that “these same climate-denying members have received $61 million in lifetime contributions from the coal, oil, and gas industries.” (Drennen, 2021) In making money through the sale and usage of fossil fuels, these companies will invest in misinforming Americans about the effects of their products on the environment.

Most misinformation about climate change is spread through social media, news media, and members of the American government. To effectively combat climate change, the American public must be able to see through these lies and grasp the actual issues the climate is facing to realize that change is necessary. However, that is only a singular battle in this war to combat an ever-warming climate.

ECONOMIC IMPEDIMENT

A better-informed society is undoubtedly necessary for creating a culture that embraces climate reform. However, “knowing” is only half the battle. As a society, we need policies to support a move to a more eco-friendly and sustainable economy. Unfortunately, the economic systems currently in place throughout the world and America are causing an impediment to change.

Partisan Divide

Seeing the aftermath of the 2016 election, it has become evident that America is divided: the Right and the Left. Conservative and Liberal. Republicans and Democrats. There is a vast divide preventing meaningful reform in America. While we have always had governmental parties fighting for power, our current partisan divide has made it very difficult for individuals of differing political ideologies to coexist, whether in Washington, D.C., or Anytown, USA.

It may come as no surprise to many that a solution to growing problems related to climate change is being held up by the chasm found within the different economic philosophies of the two controlling political parties. One approach that has been introduced to combat the use of greenhouse gasses has been the introduction of a carbon tax. A carbon tax is the implementation of an upcharge on harmful emissions, which urges people and businesses not to use them. The possible adverse effects of these taxes on welfare would primarily target low-income households. Many lower-class Americans are dependent on energy-intensive industries for necessities and employment. The manufacturing of food, paper, and many metals uses high energy levels, and putting a further tax on their production would cause them to raise the prices of their products and lower the salary of their workers, causing a downfall in the income of many Americans.

The IMF, or International Monetary Fund, is an economically focused organization that works to encourage monetary cooperation and growth for our country. The IMF stated that carbon pricing, which encourages companies not to use fossil fuels, is “crucial to reducing the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” (Parry, 2021) If carbon pricing can be correctly implemented, it can benefit our environment. However, no states have a carbon tax policy, and our climate is getting closer every day to an incurable disaster.

Even though it is evident that, if done right, this policy could benefit the entire Earth, they are still hamstrung by the political divide. While financial policies could have an unfavorable impact on the economy, on the fact of actual welfare, it would mainly affect low-income households, which most Republican politicians are not. They are focused only on the narrative that approving these policies would associate them with the left, and the governmental polarization in America has only encouraged that further. Ted Cruz, a Republican senator in Texas, called climate experts in Biden’s administration “zealots” because of their interest in the Green New Deal (Worland, 2022).

However, politicians seem to ignore that the economic problems created by furthering climate change would be far more detrimental than a carbon tax. Environmental damage is causing higher temperatures and rising sea levels (known to further the damage created by hurricanes). Recovery from these dangerous natural disasters is costly. In 2017, Hurricane Harvey cost Texas $125 billion in damages, and in 2012 Hurricane Sandy caused $71 billion in damages (Cho, 2019). In 2018, the wildfires in California cost the state $400 billion and $85 billion in 2017 (Roach, 2019). These natural disasters were worsened by global heating and cost the government billions of dollars. The possible “economic downfall” caused by policies that stop climate change does not compare to the money spent relieving these catastrophes.

Climate change will adversely affect our economic community, and without change, these problems will only continue to evolve with growing concern for our planet. Political polarization could be the defining factor in humanity’s survival on this planet, and the only way that solutions can be found is if politicians begin to put aside personal biases and focus on the well-being of Earth. While, if not done correctly, fighting climate change could lead to negativity in the economy, these policies do not outweigh the effects of environmental mistreatment. The people and government must work together to stop denying the issue right before them and save the beloved planet. There is one Earth, one goldilocks planet, and humanity cannot give up on it.

Is the Free Market the Answer?

Finding and implementing realistic measures to limit industrial pollution and promote sustainability is a grand undertaking. It would require large-scale buy-in from all sectors of the marketplace. Democrats and Republicans would need to put aside ideological differences, consumers may need to change buying habits and adjust to new market conditions, and the fossil fuel companies would need to make long-term adjustments and incur short-term sacrifices to support a movement towards a green economy. Still, this type of collective action for the greater good is not unprecedented.

The U.S. has historically demonstrated the ability to achieve a common goal for the country and the world. In fact, as a country, we have done it quite often. For example, the New Deal helped lift our country out of the Great Depression. Times of war have seen our society willingly ration food and gasoline. The creation of the United Nations relied on unity and cooperation to help the world recover from the effects of WWII. Therefore, the United States can use the powers of the free market to combat the adverse effects of industrial pollution on our climate and focus on creating a culture of sustainability. After all, the free market economy is not inherently good or bad for the economy; it is the government and consumers that drive it towards or away from sustainable growth.

Using a variety of policies and structures to shift the inertia of the free market in a direction that fosters sustainability, we may have the most powerful weapon for combating climate change at our disposal. The U.S. is unique in that it holds the power to change its composition when the world requires it and to set an example for other great nations. By exploiting the free market in the fight against climate change, the U.S. can lead the world into a new age of sustainable development.

Supply and Demand:

The first step in using the economy to advance sustainability involves using the principles of our capitalistic system: supply and demand. By limiting the supply of fossil fuels in the economy and using various pricing incentives to limit the demand for those fossil fuels, the market will shift towards renewable energy for transportation and living needs (Mann, 2021). All the system needs is a little push from local or federal policy. After that, the power of the free market will naturally drive research and development and lower the costs of sustainability for the consumer.

Strategies for limiting the supply of fossil fuels have been very successful in recent years. The Dakota Access Pipeline and the subsequent Standing Rock movement are excellent examples of how measures to limit the supply of fossil fuels are already well on their way to changing our economy. Moreover, additional measures on the part of the government can be implemented to limit further the supply of crude oil: such as banning fracking off the coast of U.S. territories, which would also serve as a means of protecting the animal habitats that stand to be damaged should an oil spill occur.

Controlling the demand side of fossil fuels is a little more complicated and abstract but equally necessary for the rapid decarbonization of our economy. One way to control demand is through carbon pricing, the act of taxing fossil fuel companies for the pollution that their products create. For example, to meet the necessary reductions in demand for non-renewable energies outlined by the Internal Monetary Fund, the U.S. would need to reach a tax of seventy-five dollars for every metric ton of carbon released into the atmosphere (IMF, 2022). In theory, taxing companies would raise the prices of fossil fuels high enough to diminish the consumer demand for them.

Additionally, any revenue raised by a carbon tax could be distributed back to the American people based on financial needs. This model has proved highly effective at diminishing carbon fuel use and saving consumers money in Australia and Canada (Mann, 2021). To the same effect, creating rebates and subsidies for constructing and purchasing electric vehicles (EVs) would also drive the demand for green energy transportation.

The Green Economy:

In light of current catastrophes such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the global economic recession, and climate change, the concept of a “Green Economy” has become more relevant than ever. The idea behind the green economy is to balance sustainable development and economic growth to ensure rapid decarbonization and capital development within the global economy. Creating a sustainable economic model is desirable for obvious reasons, but what is often less talked about is the necessity for long-term financial growth within sustainable models (Nadia 2011). Simply put, a sustainable economy would allow humans to remain on this earth. Unfortunately, long-term habitability is not feasible with our current non-sustainable economic model (we have done far too much damage to the global ecosystem as is).

The idea of marrying economic growth and sustainable development is hardly novel. In 2008, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) proposed its Green Economy Initiative: defined as “the process of reconfiguring businesses and infrastructure to deliver better returns on natural, human and economic capital investments, while at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions, extracting and using less natural resources, creating less waste and reducing social disparities.” (UNEP, 2010, p.5), (Nadia, 2011). The Green Economy Concept is most notably present in Alexandra Ocasio Cortez’ Green New Deal, as well as UNEP’s Global Green New Deal, which uses the concept of the Green Economy on a national and global scale, respectively. Both measures rely on global coordination for large-scale stimulus packages and constructing a foundation for long-term sustainable economic growth -rooted in the principles of supply and demand and large-scale investment.

It would be almost impossible to guarantee conservative buy-in for the switch to the Green Economy with the caveat that capital growth remains stagnated for several years during the transition; this is where the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Green Growth Strategy synergizes with Green Economy. The Green Growth Strategy is “a way to pursue economic growth and development while preventing environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, and unsustainable natural resource use” (OECD, 2010, p.9). Adopting this strategy would involve divesting fossil fuel sectors and investing in new smart grid technologies, green transportation systems, and electronic health and education (Nadia, 2011). By incorporating economic growth and substantial investment opportunities with the change to a Green Economy, the solution to the climate crisis becomes much more well-rounded in its economic approach.

Feed-in Tariffs (FITs) provide a tangible example of how a government can promote economic growth and sustainable development in one legislature. FITs, one of the most straightforward yet revolutionary policy approaches to manipulating the free market, have proven exceptionally efficient within several international circumstances, including China’s use of tariffs for offshore wind farming. These tariffs give a government guaranteed price for investments in green energy; solar panels, for example, would return a set amount to the consumer for each kilowatt hour of electricity their solar panels returned to the grid monthly (The U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2013). This buy-back mechanism makes green energy technologies much more accessible to consumers and corporations, serving as a driving force for sustainable development and economic growth. Additionally, governments can subsidize the green energy returned to the grid for people in lower income classes, effectively increasing capital while lowering the rate of poverty (Rockstrom, 2010).

Polycentric Governance:

The tragedy of the commons is a simple concept. If many groups of people draw upon a single resource (as if they were the only ones using it), then that resource will deplete at such a rate that it will substantially harm all groups dependent on it (Spiliakos, 2019). This idea applies directly to the climate crisis we are in now, with one crucial footnote: the gross use of fossil fuels has an exponential effect. This is because it depletes the supply of many other resources simultaneously.

Massive heat waves and floods caused by the effects of burning fossil fuels on our climate have caused food shortages in many areas of the world. In addition, extreme storms like tornadoes and hurricanes caused by climate change have led to billions of dollars worth of damages across the U.S. This is not up for debate. However, it is also not an insurmountable problem. Elinor Ostrom, the Nobel Laureate of Economics in 2009 for her work in solving the tragedy of the commons, provides empirically proven strategies to address the tragedy of the commons.

Through her work, Ostrom proposes the idea of “Polycentric Governance,” the academic term for “local self-governance.” Ostrom and her colleagues before her have found that rules need to fit the socioecological context in which they are implemented. Polycentric systems provide a better fit for humanity in complex ecological situations by allowing for complexity and uniqueness within each small system. Small, complex, and nuanced governance systems allow human systems to better mirror the environment they operate in. Large “top-down” solutions, or panaceas, on the other hand, prove to be harmful when addressing complex issues. The issues with panaceas are especially evident when examining the extreme lack of success major world powers have had at controlling the climate crisis with large, uniform, governmental measures (Ostrom, 2009). Just think of Brazil’s inability to regulate deforestation in the Amazon or efforts to regulate commercial fishing in international waters

In studying Polycentric systems within police forces, Ostrom did not find a single instance in which large, centralized police departments outperformed smaller police forces serving similar neighborhoods. The effectiveness of smaller systems of self-governance can be attributed to several factors. The first is communication. When out of contact, humans have proven experimentally to make self-centered decisions and, in turn, over-harvest recourses. However, when humans can communicate, they have proven to govern resources much better and exhibit relatively high levels of cooperation.

For example, one-on-one communication in small hunter-gatherer communities is key to reaching a collective agreement and being more thoughtful about others’ opinions (Ostrom, 2009). Additionally, if small communities are allowed to design their sanctioning systems, they generally outperform government-instituted systems, which are more costly (Ostrom, 2009). This phenomenon is evident in irrigation systems that Ostrom studied in Nepal: farmers that were allowed to build their irrigation systems (despite being relatively primitive) had more success than the farmers that used irrigation systems that were designed by engineers and implemented by the government -which cost millions of dollars-.

Local incorporated communities can exercise their right to change contracts with larger producers or economies, should those producers not be satisfactory. Districts within larger metropolitan cities, on the other hand, have no choice. Incorporated and distinct communities have the political power to move up and down within a complex system. These advantages become extremely important when considering the spread of solar and other sustainable energy resources such as offshore wind farms and water turbines.

Research, Research, Research:

After developing green infrastructure to ensure that the economy can grow in a way that helps the planet, the public needs access to technologies that are much more advanced than they are now. (i.e., solar panel windows, improved battery capacity, smaller and more efficient solar cells), as well as a massive cost reduction for the whole lot of green technology (Cohen, 2022). Fortunately, all that is needed for this jump to the next level with sustainable technologies is government-funded research.

Many technologies today used in mass quantities for very cheap came out of government-funded research programs (think GPS and the internet). If the government declared a need for green technology improvement a significant concern, the Department of Justice would be more than qualified to tackle the problem, with the pentagon being the most employed building in the world and receiving the lion’s share of government funding.

A Holistic Approach

It is essential to keep in mind that solving climate change with an economic approach does not involve choosing just one of the above ideas; all of these strategies should be used in conjunction with one another. The economic approach finds its strength in the widespread nature of the global economy. Therefore, we must create a diverse and comprehensive solution to succeed in transitioning to sustainable infrastructure. The principles of supply and demand, the Green Economy (including the national and global Green New Deals and the Green Growth Strategy), and Polycentric Governance Systems provide building blocks for this comprehensive policy framework.

POLITICAL IMPEDIMENT

Modern-day society is no stranger to global issues. Two such issues are currently causing significant issues for societies worldwide: climate change and a pandemic. Climate change is a well-known issue worldwide and can often be compared to COVID-19. These crises are both similar in the way that members of society perpetuate the effects of each. COVID-19 is an infectious disease that requires social distancing as the primary method for containment. Climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions, which result from humans burning fossil fuels. While both issues can be addressed by individuals making adjustments to their personal and consumer behaviors (practicing social distancing and wearing masks in the case of COVID and reducing one’s carbon footprint), citizens of the world are not in the best position to address either problem. Concerning global crises, governmental entities are in the best position to solve problems, but they often fail.

A Modern Pandemic

A very recent and devasting example of the government failing to control a global crisis is the COVID pandemic. While several countries failed to implement effective containment and mitigation strategies, the United States government’s handling of the early days of the pandemic was an excellent example of a government failing to implement effective action and long-lasting policies to respond to a global crisis. President Donald Trump downplayed the virus in the United States, severely impacting many Americans’ thoughts and actions. When asked about the increase in the cases of the virus, Trump responded with how he “view[s] it as a badge of honor” (Summers, 2020). He regarded positive testing as a representation of how great the country’s testing is due to the increase of people testing positive. Furthermore, Trump encouraged opening businesses and schools despite increasing daily numbers.

America had the tools and resources to address the pandemic, but politicians failed to utilize those resources to curb the spread of COVID-19. For example, Anthony Fauci, the Chief Medical Advisor to the President of the United States, warned that the failure to utilize testing, social distancing, and mitigation techniques (like masks and vaccines) would cause further virus spread. Despite such warnings, governmental officials, including President Trump, continued to disregard his warnings. As the pandemic continued to get worse, many other policymakers were still in denial as they “[ignored] the advice of public health experts and [acted] only after high human and economic costs were incurred” (Celasun, 2021). Therefore, battling the pandemic took a lot more energy and resources than it would have if the government had successfully implemented the steps that the scientific experts suggested. The issue of global warming predates the issue caused by the pandemic by nearly 50 years, but the government’s inability to effectively address the problem is very similar.

Global Warming

Climate change became a prominent political issue in the 1980s, but as early as the 1970s, the government started to recognize the importance of recognizing the effects of global warming. For example, President Jimmy Carter called for “20 percent of the country’s energy to come from solar power by 2000” (McKibben, 2021). James Gustave Speth, an American environmental lawyer, who constantly warned people about climate change since the beginning of its appearance, worked with President Carter on ways to prevent the possibility of a climate crisis from happening. However, after President Ronald Reagan was elected, all plans were stopped. Despite this, there was a growing public awareness and localized actions to address climate change. Still, any activity that was spurred by the individual motivation to curb the issues was not having a significant impact on slowing the trend of climate as global temperatures continue to rise.

A History of Administrative Failure

The government’s actions in both of these cases show that while they were in the best position to effect change and alter the course of a global crisis, they failed. Even after all of the warnings about the climate and the pandemic, the government delayed its actions so long that its eventual policies were relatively inefficient and ineffective.

Specifically, climate experts in the climate field warned policymakers about the increase in climate temperature and the effects it would have on our planet. However, actual policies trying to prevent climate change were not made until many years after their warnings (McKibben, 2021). As years passed, the effects of climate change already began to take shape, and when actual policies were made, this issue had already gotten out of control.

Likewise, during the pandemic, the president was in denial of the entire situation, despite the warnings made by medical advisors. Only after the pandemic had killed tens of thousands of Americans before politicians, including the president, started to be more cautious and accept that the pandemic was happening worldwide. The government’s actions and beliefs influence the people, as they can mislead some to not believe in it. In addition, for both crises, the government’s denial made them more difficult for others to fix, as they waited for the effects of the situations to show themselves, which increased the harm done before taking action.

With its tremendous resources and exceptional power, the government was in a position to curb the adverse effects of climate change and the pandemic, but both cases did not. The fact remains the same whether this can be blamed on partisan politics, political ideologies, administrative inefficiencies, or general incompetence. The government was in the best position to quell these global issues but did not do so effectively.

All Hope Is Not Lost

While the realities surrounding the pandemic and climate crisis seem dire, there is evidence that a renewed faith in our governmental institutions may be warranted. The pandemic, which seemed like an impossible crisis to fix, has quickly and effectively come under some semblance of control at the direction of the government. Specifically, through the collaboration of governmental and scientific efforts, we received a vaccine in nine short months, nine months breaking the expectations that most scientists could reach. According to John Hopkins University, a vaccine for a virus typically takes 5 to 10 years to be made, and the vaccine for the virus was predicted to be made between 12 to 18 months (Celasun, 2021). This shows how scientific effort and support from the government can perform the unexpected.
This faith in governmental action can also be warranted regarding climate change. New technologies to provide cleaner energy could be invented. There could also be lowered the cost of using these inventions to gain more people willing to use them. This can only happen if the government puts all its effort and determination into it.

However, the only way the politicians will become more serious about their efforts to cure global warming is if the citizens show that the climate crisis is an issue they deem worthy of the government’s attention. Luckily for us, the public is undoubtedly making it known that they consider global warming a topic worthy of the government’s attention. As one can see from the IMF global poll below, nearly half the population is more worried about climate change than they were, giving a chance to the government to acknowledge climate change to the people properly.

If policymakers take this chance and enact reforms regarding climate change, it would lead to more success due to the heightened public awareness regarding the dangers of climate change. Now that more people understand the severity of climate change, it would be easier for the government to lead the people to join them in their policies and ways to solve climate change.

The government plays a significant role in ending significant crises, as they are the prominent leaders and influencers for the people. Involving them could create new solutions for climate change since the development and adoption of green technologies will come only with government support for basic research and infrastructure. Yes, solving the climate crisis or the pandemic crisis might not seem achievable; however, with the government giving 100% effort into stopping these crises, preventing these world crises might not seem as hard as it had initially seemed. In his presentation to the Teen Think Tank Project research cohort, Steven Cohen said, “Climate change is not a religion, it’s a fact,” for the climate crisis, but this phrase can also be used to describe the pandemic. Once everyone realizes and acknowledges how these crises are happening in the world today due to the government’s acknowledgment and actions, we will be one step closer to solving these crises.

The Need for Unified Action

These crises still do not seem like much action is happening to solve them correctly. However, through our efforts, many things can happen. Our activities don’t require the government to take the first step, as their actions haven’t correctly provided long-term solutions. Instead, we can force the government to take proper action through some of our actions. Whether protesting, spreading awareness, or doing our part in protecting this world can still be a step forward despite being a minor step. Each step forward will soon add up and eventually provide a possible change that might not seem likely now but can be achieved.

Many organizations, like the Extinction Rebellion, hold protests for others to join the fight for climate change. Involving oneself in these events can help the organization bring a change. These protests also catch the government’s attention, which might be affected and lead it to form long-term solutions when seeing the number of people involved and wanting a change. In addition, we can spread awareness through events we hold ourselves or by educating people around us; it can also create a difference. Also, once everyone does their part in the world to help protect it, this issue will be partly solved.

Despite its historical inefficiencies, the government has been making progress. The Environmental Protection Agency took action by issuing a Final Rule, with goals to phase down the USA’s production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) by 85% over the next fifteen years, as mandated by the AIM act. Due to HFCs (specifically HFC-23) (Weisbrod 2021) being the main contributor to global warming, a global phasedown is expected to avoid up to 0.5 degrees Celsius of global warming by 2100 (Climate Change Regulatory Actions and Initiatives). The EPA has also been targeting certain companies, such as the chemical manufacturer Chemours. Chemours voluntarily pledged to eliminate 99% or more of its emissions of HFC-23 from its Louisville Works chemical plant by the end of 2022. Still, they didn’t follow up on its offer, causing the EPA to step in and pressure the company (Weisbrod 202I). In addition, The Clean Air Act, which from 1970 to 2020 has redacted the combined emissions of the six most common pollutants by 78% and airborne lead pollution, a widespread health concern before the EPA phased out lead in motor vehicle gasoline under the Clean Air Act, now meets national air quality standard in most areas of the country (https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/progress-cleaning-air-and-improving-peoples-health).

Everyone undoubtedly needs to do their part to reduce their carbon footprint (i.e., installing renewable energy and cutting consumption/waste); however, we still need the government’s support. The government controls many industries, which are the leading cause of greenhouse gas emissions. Even if we try to do our part, it can only fix so little. The primary solution involves the government when the main contributors to climate change are industries. We should use our abilities, like protesting or other possible methods, to gain the government’s attention, to let the government finally acknowledge that the issue must be solved by starting with the main contributors.

CONCLUSION

The issues are prominent, and climate change has become more relevant now than ever. Time is ticking, and we must combat the harsh tolls our environment is taking. Through our exploration of the educational, economic, and political impediments preventing meaningful climate reform, we better understand what we must do to overcome these obstacles and create meaningful reform.

First, we must put a premium on education regarding this topic. Not only educating ourselves but making it clear that misinformation and diversionary tactics will not be tolerated. We must put pressure on corporations and politicians to do away with misinformation and “fake news” that causes people to be doubtful about the actual effects of climate change.

Secondly, we must put pressure on the government to acknowledge the problem and take action. As seen through the climate crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, the government has also had the potential to put a stop to these issues but has repeatedly failed to take action. Until the public deems an issue worthy of the government’s attention and forces the government to take action, there will not be a solution to the current climate crisis. Protests, civic action, and political pressure are all tools that society has to make it clear to politicians that we do not stand for policies that are contrary to environmental protection.

Perhaps most importantly, we must understand that addressing the issue through economic measures is perhaps our greatest tool in combating climate change. Implementing carbon taxes, reliance on the free market economy, and an investment in a green economy can help propel us to a more sustainable society that reduces the dependence on fossil fuels and reduces the emission of greenhouse gasses. As we have seen, perhaps our most effective way to introduce the economic forces necessary to create a more sustainable economy is by introducing polycentric governance systems.

There are no one-size-fits-all panaceas to global issues. Each country, region, state, city, and neighborhood have its socio-economic issues. Each locale has a unique landscape that it must navigate, including climate issues. By developing global perspectives and standards and allowing local economies and societies to handle the implementation of such standards, we empower individuals and entities to implement better the small, complex, and nuanced governance systems needed to create real change. Relying on many localized efforts to affect the larger environmental landscape will not only gain momentum more quickly but will have a compounding effect on our society regarding climate reform.

To see real and meaningful climate reform, we must address and eliminate misinformation in our networks. We need to hold our local, state, and federal representatives accountable for their actions regarding the environment. We must invest in green resources and economies on a local level where we can increase efficiency and maximize the impact. We must think about our actions’ impact on the global community, but we must make intelligent decisions and enact effective policy on a local scale to truly make an impact. It all starts with us; together, we can save our world.

References

Ahmed, O., Peterson, M., Kokum, L., Gelzinis, G., Zeno, S., Gibbs, H., Buchanan, M. J., & Higgins, T. (2021, November 12). Climate deniers in the 117th Congress. Center for American Progress. Retrieved August 23, 2022, from https://www.americanprogress.org/article/climate-deniers-117th-congress/

Astor, M. (2022, May 31). Trump Policies Sent U.S. Tumbling in a Climate Ranking. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/31/climate/united-states-climate-ranking-trump.html?searchResultPosition=1

Brulle, R. (2018, June 19). 30 years ago global warming became front-page news — and both Republicans and Democrats took it seriously. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/30-years-ago-global-warming-became-front-page-news-and-both-republicans-and-democrats-took-it-seriously-97658#:%7E:text=June%2023%2C%201988%20marked%20the,and%20Natural%20Resources%20Committee%2C%20Dr.

Burke, M. (2019, April 3). Trump claims wind turbine ‘noise causes cancer.’ The Hill. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/437096-trump-claims-noise-from-windmills-causes-cancer/

Cardenas, S. (2021, January 7). When will global warming become irreversible? World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/01/global-warming-threshold-reached-by-2027/.

CBS Interactive. (2018, October 15). Trump says climate change not a “hoax” but questions if it’s “manmade”. CBS News. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-says-climate-change-not-a-hoax-but-questions-if-its-manmade/

Celasun, O. C., Jaumotte, F. J., & Spilimbergo, A. S. (2021, July 9). What COVID-19 Can Teach Us About Mitigating Climate Change. IMF Blog. https://blogs.imf.org/2021/07/09/what-covid-19-can-teach-us-about-mitigating-climate-change/.

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. (2021, June 25). Market-Based State Policy. https://www.c2es.org/content/market-based-state-policy/

Chateau, J., Jaumotte, F., & Schwerhoff, G. (2022, May 19). Why Countries Must Cooperate on Carbon Prices. IMF Blog. https://blogs.imf.org/2022/05/19/why-countries-must-cooperate-on-carbon-prices-2/#:%7E:text=The%20ICPF%20proposal%20sets%20price,%2475%20for%20high%2Dincome%20countries

Cho, R. (2019, June 20). How Climate Change Impacts the Economy. State of the Planet. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/06/20/climate-change-economy-impacts/

Climate Change Regulatory Actions and Initiatives. (2022, June 28). US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/climate-change/climate-change-regulatory-actions-and-initiatives#:%7E:text=On%20September%2023%2C%202021%2C%20EPA,of%20global%20warming%20by%202100.

Cohen, S. (2022, July 11). The Pace of the Transition to an Environmentally Sustainable Economy. State of the Planet. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/07/11/the-pace-of-the-transition-to-an-environmentally-sustainable-economy/

Denchak, M. (2021, February 19). Paris Climate Agreement: Everything You Need to Know. NRDC. https://www.nrdc.org/stories/paris-climate-agreement-everything-you-need-know

Dennis, B., & Mooney, C. (2018, November 23). Major Trump administration climate report says damage is ‘intensifying across the country.’ The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/23/major-trump-administration-climate-report-says-damages-are-intensifying-across-country/

Feed-in tariff: A policy tool encouraging deployment of renewable electricity technologies. (2013, May 30). Energy Information Administration. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=11471

Felice, F., & Vatiero, M. (2022, May 26). Elinor Ostrom and the Solution to the Tragedy of the Commons | AEI. American Enterprise Institute — AEI. https://www.aei.org/articles/elinor-ostrom-and-the-solution-to-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/

Joyella, M. (2022, March 21). On Fox, Donald Trump Calls Climate Change A ‘Hoax’: ‘In The 1920’s They Were Talking About Global Freezing.’ Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2022/03/21/on-fox-donald-trump-calls-climate-change-a-hoax-in-the-1920s-they-were-talking-about-global-freezing/?sh=78de1bb73787

Kenton, W. (2020, December 5). Inside Cap and Trade. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cap-and-trade.asp#toc-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-cap-and-trade

Lindsey, R., Dahlman, L., & Blunden, J. (2022, June 28). Climate Change: Global Temperature. NOAA Climate.Gov. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

Mann, M. E. (2021). The New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back Our Planet. PublicAffairs.

McKibben, B. M. (2021, September 15). They Knew: How the U.S. Government Helped Cause the Climate Crisis. Yale E360. https://e360.yale.edu/features/they-knew-how-the-u-s-government-helped-cause-the-climate-crisis

Nugent, C. (2020, February 11). Report: Global CO2 emissions plateaued in 2019. Time. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from https://time.com/5782089/iea-emissions-energy-climate-change/

OECD. (2010, May). Interim Report of the Green Growth Strategy: Implementing our commitment for a sustainable future. https://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/45312720.pdf

Osaka, S. (2021, April 23). Both parties used to love the carbon tax. So why are they giving up on it? Grist. https://grist.org/politics/who-killed-the-carbon-tax-republicans-or-democrats/

Parry, I. (2021, September). Five Things to Know about Carbon Pricing. IMF. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2021/09/five-things-to-know-about-carbon-pricing-parry

Progress Cleaning the Air and Improving People’s Health. (2022, March 9). US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/progress-cleaning-air-and-improving-peoples-health

Roach, J. (2019, December 11). The 2019 California wildfires caused less damage than the last two devastating seasons. AccuWeather. https://www.accuweather.com/en/business/the-2019-california-wildfires-caused-less-damage-than-the-last-two-devastating-seasons/643455#:%7E:text=AccuWeather%20predicted%20earlier%20this%20year,the%202019%20California%20wildfire%20season

Spiliakos, A. (2019, February 6). Tragedy of the commons: What it is and 5 Examples. Business Insights Blog. Retrieved August 24, 2022, from https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/tragedy-of-the-commons-impact-on-sustainability-issues

State Carbon Taxes: Overview. (n.d.). Carbon Tax Center. https://www.carbontax.org/u-s-states/state-carbon-taxes-overview/.

Summers, J. S. (2020, October 2). Timeline: How Trump Has Downplayed the Coronavirus Pandemic. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/latest-updates-trump-covid-19-results/2020/10/02/919432383/how-trump-has-downplayed-the-coronavirus-pandemic.

Weisbrod, K. (2021, May 11). The EPA Proposes a Ban on HFC-23, the Most Potent Greenhouse Gas Among Hydrofluorocarbons, by October 2022. Inside Climate News. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/11052021/the-epa-proposes-a-ban-on-hfc-23-the-most-potent-greenhouse-gas-among-hydrofluorocarbons-by-october-2022/

What is a carbon tax? (n.d.). Tax Policy Center. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-carbon-tax

Wong, E. (2016, November 18). Trump Has Called Climate Change a Chinese Hoax. Beijing Says It Is Anything But. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/world/asia/china-trump-climate-change.html

Worland, J. (2019, July 9). Donald Trump Called Climate Change a Hoax. Now He’s Awkwardly Boasting About Fighting It. Time. https://time.com/5622374/donald-trump-climate-change-hoax-event/

Worland, J. (2022, July 7). Everything You’re Hearing About Gas Prices Is Wrong. Time. https://time.com/6194505/gas-prices-biden-republicans/

The World Counts. (n.d.). The World Counts. https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/global-warming/the-melting-ice-caps