The Global Warming Paradise

Here's a segment from Fox News that may be interesting...

Demonstrated in this Fox News segment  is the single biggest misconception about climate change, or "global warming"

The term global warming has long been used to describe the average global temperature increase over the last century by scientists worldwide. However, because of it's terminology, confusion has run rampant throughout the media and the general public as to it's meaning. Many, (including Fox News apparently) are now under the impression that global warming always means warmer winters and less snow. Some go as far as believing that they will soon be able to go to the beach in the dead of winter. In some cases, like in the preceding video, any snowfall is perfect grounds for disproving global warming all-together. Such beliefs are tragically inaccurate and are simply a result of a lack of understanding of the concept.

I, as well as the scientific community now choose to use the term climate change rather than global warming to describe the increase  of average global temperature. This is to avoid confusing people with their previous notions of global warming as a tropical paradise. The real truth of global climate change is tragically different than is commonly believed. True, some places will receive less snow per year, but in return will be experiencing more, potentially devastating, climatic abnormalities. Chicago for instance, may have record low snowfall totals, but in the same year may experience their longest and hottest dry-spell. Global climate change can be better described by more extreme weather for places that never had such extremes. Massive snowstorms are not out of the question, as are not massive hurricanes like Sandy which devastated the east coast.

To put it simply, if people don't know that climate change exists, or if humans are the cause of it, they are unlikely to take measures to slow the process down. Fox News, and other news agencies, play a big roll in this misunderstanding. The difference between the general public, which is largely informed by the media, and scientists, educated on climate change, is evidenced by the graph below.

Figure 1. Response to the question, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" The general public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll (see http://www.gallup.com/poll/1615/Environment.aspx) (Masters).

The graph above has been compiled from a survey of 3146 climate scientists and a 2008 Gallup poll (Masters). It clearly shows that scientists, that work in the field and have seen the evidence, overwhelmingly agree that climate change is  mostly caused by human activities. The general public however, does not have this sort of agreement. According to the graph, around 40% of the public don't believe that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures" (Masters). Less than 60% are in agreement with it, unlike 97% of actively publishing climatologists. People simply don't understand climate change enough to make educated decisions. It is very likely that the media is to blame.

Works cited

Masters, Jeff, Dr. "Opinion Polls on Climate Change." Web log post. Wunderground.com. N.p., n.d. Web.

           11 Feb. 2013.

Climate Change: The Elephant in the Room

As if monster storms, brutal heat, and decade long droughts were not enough, one would think losing our cities to the ocean would make people think twice about global climate change. Still, they would be hard pressed to find anyone today, particularly in the United States, who have a concrete opinion on the matter. Global climate change, more commonly referred to as global warming, has been building momentum for over a century, due to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions as result of human activities. The potential consequences, as estimated from an overwhelming amount of evidence, are immense. Still, the people and government of the United States, continue to promote activities that are detrimental to the environment all the while discouraging those that are not. We continue to see little in the ways of environmental progress in our society even as the effects of global climate change become more apparent. This slow environmental progress raises a question, why is there so much pushback from Americans on an issue that just may be the biggest challenge of our future? The reason for the lack of response to climate change is a result of special interests’ dedication to maintaining the current economic status quo.

When we consider the most profitable businesses in the world, there are always a handful that consistently make the top ten of the Fortune 500 list. Among the most notable in 2012 were Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips (CNNMoney). All of these companies have one aspect in common; they all rely on fossil fuels to make a profit. Fossil fuels, which include oil, natural gas, coal, and their by-products, are the dominant source for energy in the United States and the world. In 2011 alone, “nonrenewable fossil fuels made up more than four-fifths of U.S. energy consumption” (U.S. Energy Information Administration). Fossil fuels are notoriously dirty fuels from an environmental perspective as they release a significant amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when they are burned (Kaczmarek). Carbon dioxide is considered the lead contributor to global warming as it traps heat in the atmosphere and thus warms the planet (Kaczmarek). Oil companies like Exxon Mobil rely solely on oil to make their profit. Environmental progress logically means reducing fossil fuel consumption, a situation which is less than ideal for companies so dedicated to profiting off of them. This, as it turns out, has become one of the biggest hindrances for environmental progress.

We would be naïve to believe that a company like Exxon Mobil, the most profitable corporation in the world, has little say in United States politics. According to The Center for Responsive Politics, fossil fuel companies invested over $138,000,000 in lobbying efforts in the United States government in 2012 (“Lobbying Spending Database”). Among the bills they lobbied for was an amendment to the Clean Air Act to “prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change” (“Lobbying Spending Database”). This amendment would essentially eliminate the chance of the EPA regulating CO₂ emissions to curb its effects on climate change. It would be a clear win for the fossil fuel lobby, as they would not be forced to reduce their environmental impact. Reducing their environmental impact would require significant investment in green technologies which would, in turn, affect their profits negatively. Such lobbying is all too common in Washington, and it is ultimately preventing bills related to climate change from getting passed. The effects of the private sector on mitigating climate change are not limited to government, but on the people of the United States as well.

Educating the public on an issue is one of the most important methods to gain support for a cause. Much like electing a political figure, people need knowledge to make an educated decision on an issue; otherwise they will not be able to establish a concrete opinion. As far as climate change goes, Americans have always been ill-informed. According to a Yale University study, only one in ten Americans believe they are “very well informed about climate change;” of those test subjects, only fifty percent “understand that global warming is caused mostly by human activities” (Leiserowitz). The fact that global warming is caused by human activities is no longer debated in the scientific community as it is believed by a large percentage of Americans. Based on Yale University’s study, too many Americans are kept out of the loop with regard to climate change. This misunderstanding and lack of knowledge are the results of very poor coverage on climate change by the media.

News networks like CBS, FOX, and CNN have the ability to connect with and inform an incredible amount of people. As a result, much of our knowledge about current events and issues is derived from such sources. According to a Media Matters For America research study, climate change continues to see little coverage in the media, despite scientist’s rising concerns (Fitzsimmons). Jill Fitzsimmons explains the decline in coverage with Sunday news programs like Meet The Press and This Week,

Since 2009, climate coverage on the Sunday shows has declined

every year. In 2012, the Sunday shows spent less than 8 minutes on

climate change, down from 9 minutes in 2011, 21 minutes in 2010,

and over an hour in 2009. The vast majority of coverage - 89 percent

- was driven by politics, and none was driven by scientific findings

(Fitzsimmons).

Despite 2012 being the hottest year on record, with the worst United States drought, Hurricane Sandy, and the most sea ice melt in history, news coverage of climate change was the lowest it had been in four years. United States news networks clearly chose not to include climate change in their programs. They also made the choice to interview, not scientists who understand the subject, but republican politicians who typically have an anti-climate change belief (Fitzsimmons). The reason for this censorship is the television network’s affiliation with certain companies.

Television networks make a profit by selling commercial and sponsorship spaces throughout their programming. It is then in their best interest, from a business standpoint, to censor news stories and topics that may work against the interest of their advertisers. For example, if a grocery store sponsored a news segment, it would be very unlikely that the network would choose to include any stories about food poisoning as it might deter people from buying certain foods. The same goes for companies with anti–climate change interests. Automobiles are considered one of the biggest problems with regard to climate change due to their emissions and fossil fuel use. A news story, sponsored by a car company, simply would not include any information regarding climate change because it would portray it in a bad light. Automotive advertising has been, for the last three years, the highest advertising expenditure out of all consumer product categories and is rising (Kantar Media). It only makes sense that a news network would not “bite the hand that feeds them.” The result, however, only hurts the viewers, as they can be misled or uninformed about an important issue. Without knowledge about climate change, the public is not able to develop an opinion and push for reform.

            Some people and businesses believe that the reason for such lack of knowledge about climate change is simply because it is a lesser problem than other current issues. People in the United States are caring more about more immediate issues like the economy and job creation. Climate change at this time is not on the minds of Americans and, in some cases, is completely ignored or mocked. They do not believe that an already weak economy should be risked on attempting to mitigate the effects of climate change. In truth, enacting new regulations, and pushing for environmental reform will be difficult given the state of the economy. However, it is imperative that progress be made to protect future generations. Americans that consider today’s economy a higher priority to addressing climate change fail to understand the potential consequences it might have on the economy itself in the future. If scientific predictions are correct, on the effects of climate change, the agricultural industry will struggle, gas prices will rise uncontrollably, and coastlines and major cities will be overtaken by rising oceans. It is likely that if the skeptics knew the true effects of global climate change on the future, they would consider it a higher priority. The cause for their skepticism just may be a lack of understanding on the subject.

            The goal of big companies is to make a profit, and sometimes a profit requires unsustainable practices. Companies like Exxon Mobil make their money from selling fossil fuels, which are considered major contributors to global climate change. They invest in lobbying efforts in the government to prevent environmental reforms from changing their ways. Having anti-climate change agendas translates into the media, where immense advertising expenditures keep important information out of the minds of the general public. Such censorship leads to an ill-informed society, where a catastrophe as devastating as climate change can be kept hidden away. It leads to skepticism and ultimately a country unprepared for the future. Scientists are peering into our future now and they are revealing potentially devastating consequences of our actions today. The writing is on the wall, and the initiative must be made to change for the better.

Works Cited

"Ad Spending." TVB.org. Television Bureau of Advertising, n.d. Web. 06 Feb. 2013.

Fitzsimmons, Jill. Media Matters For America. Rep. N.p., 8 Jan. 2013. Web. 6 Feb. 2013.

Bernstein, Lenny, et al. An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Rep. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Nov. 2007. Web. 4 Feb. 2013.

"Fortune 500 2012: Fortune 1000 Companies 1-100." CNNMoney. Cable News Network, 21 May 2012. Web. 04 Feb. 2013.

Kaczmarek, Stephen. "The Carbon Economy." Bridgewater State University, Bridgewater, MA. 4 Dec. 2012. Lecture.

Leiserowitz, Anthony, Nicholas Smith, and Jennifer R. Marlon. Americans’ Knowledge of Climate Change. Yale.edu. N.p., 12 Oct. 2010. Web. 03 Feb. 2013.

"Lobbying Spending Database H.R.910, 2010." Opensecrets RSS. The Center for Responsive Politics, n.d. Web. 03 Feb. 2013.

"U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis." Energy Perspectives: Fossil Fuels Dominate U.S. Energy Consumption. N.p., 14 Dec. 2012. Web. 04 Feb. 2013.

The Secret Behind the Misconceptions

Before developing my thesis for my first essay, I needed a topic that intrigued me, something that I could learn about and at the same time write a book about. That for me was clearly climate change, as it is, in my opinion, the biggest problem us humans will face in the next century. Of course, climate change as a topic is incredibly broad, as it entails so much politics, economics, and science. To add some specificity, I looked for something that bothered me most about climate change. It was the way so few people truly understand the subject.

 My inspiration came from a five minute conversation with the store manager at my work. After mentioning that I was in school as a geography major with hopes of studying climate, he piped up saying that “global warming is fake.” Of course, my next move was to refute that statement. I told him about carbon dioxide emissions and how it correlates to global temperature, out of control fossil fuel burning, and how rising populations will continue to demand more and more resources. Expecting more push-back  I was surprised to hear his response. In his words, “we’ll have to do something about it, but the problem is that no one can agree on a solution.” Here he was, an educated professional, starting with an anti-climate change belief and coming to a conclusion, after a two minute conversation, that there might be some truth in it. This led me to believe that he really has no concrete opinion on the matter. It made me think about how many other people I know are in the same situation. Upon more research, I found that this pattern is all too common. 
                According to a Yale University study, only one in ten Americans feel that they are “very well informed about climate change.” Along with this, only fifty percent of the subjects in the study believed humans were the cause. The fact that climate change is caused by humans is no longer debated by the scientific community. This has been the case for half a decade, yet so many members of the public, my store's manager included, still wonder if it is true. There is a factor in our society that inhibits knowledge about climate change, and I set out to figure it out. 

After setting up a causal chain, I realized that the underlying cause of such a lack of knowledge could very well be, special interests. More specifically, businesses like Exxon Mobil and BP who profit solely off of fossil fuels, a huge contributor to global climate change. They have more power than we can ever imagine in media, government, and in their customers. It only makes sense to me, that companies so dedicated to discredit climate change as a myth would be one of the biggest causes to the lack of knowledge in the general public about it. Upon further investigation, I found this to make more and more sense.

Works cited

Leiserowitz, Anthony, Nicholas Smith, and Jennifer R. Marlon. Americans’ Knowledge of Climate Change. Yale.edu. N.p., 12 Oct. 2010. Web. 03 Feb. 2013. 

Assignment 3 Response

1. The "wife beater" clothing style has been increasing in popularity and brings up questions as to the inspiration of it.

2. According to smith the "wife beater," bears a disturbing name of domestic abuse, is often misunderstood by those who wear it, and dilutes the real effects of domestic abuse.

3. Smith includes the dictionary definition of wife-beater to demonstrate to the reader the real meaning of the word by the English language. In the writer's perspective, the name bears a much deeper meaning in that it represents domestic violence. Since it is currently being popularized, it is seeming to her that the meaning is being diluted.

4. Smith brings up that it is common for young people to simply ignore the meaning behind the name of  "wife beaters." She quickly attributes this ignorance to the fact that "children of abusers often learn the behavior from their elders." This insinuates that the reason it is becoming popular, is because the wearers just may be the next abusers. Her refutation therefore would create much controversy.

5. A picture would help strengthen the authors claim as it would give the reader a visual on not only what the clothing style looks like, but how it has been recently popularized.