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.