It’s selfish to care about climate change

Has been updated: 1 an hour ago Release: 1 an hour ago

Climate change is a deeply polarized issue. But why is this the case? Other historically noteworthy forms of politically contested science, such as the theory of evolution, have caused divisions because of their association with religious or moral beliefs.

I believe that climate change is polarizing because there is disagreement between political parties about the moral imperative of preventing climate change. Americans can reap many benefits as a by-product of preventing climate change. So, caring about climate change does not make certain people or political parties more noble than others, it just makes them more selfish.

The reason for the polarization has to do with “solution avoidance”. The term was coined by Campell and Kay in their work to determine the relationship between ideology and motivated disbelief, “based on whether the solution fits a particular current belief structure. , downplaying or outright denying the issue”. Our two political parties are divided on why climate change must be resolved. Republicans and Democrats are so involved in their own party politics that they overlook their arguments about the relative importance of preventing climate change and see the enormous benefits that solutions will bring to humanity. can’t notice

To increase bipartisanship in this field, we must change what is perceived as the outcome of problem solving. Simply accelerating the transition to renewable energy will bring immense benefits to the average American. Coalition of Concerned Scientists Says Requiring the nation to produce 25% of all electricity from renewable sources by 2025 would create 300,000 jobs and $263 billion in new equipment in the United States. We found that it generated investment and generated $12 billion in new local tax revenue.

Don’t worry about the environmental and global warming benefits of clean energy. Energy efficiency improvements are helping homes and businesses reduce their energy bills. The EPA’s Energy Star program subsidizes consumers who replace their older appliances with more efficient ones or make other more sustainable changes to their homes. These changes alone have saved Americans an estimated $16 billion in energy bills. So you can ignore the fact that Energy Star certified buildings reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere by an average of 35%.

If economic prosperity isn’t the solution you’re looking for, try public health benefits. By creating emissions standards, we can reduce levels of mercury and other heavy metals, or particulate matter that pollutes the air. It will also slow global warming, perhaps as a by-product of our efforts to improve public health. Avoided skin cancer and prevented 330,000 skin cancer deaths. It also protects the ozone layer and prevents powerful hydrofluorocarbons from contributing to global warming, but it doesn’t have to be at the forefront of the debate.

Preventing climate change doesn’t have to be a polarizing political issue if we just replace environmental concerns with appeals to more human interests such as economic prosperity and public health. Questions about the legitimacy and relevance of climate change can be thrown out the window when we reframe these issues in selfish ways. This approach has been successful in Republican counties across the country.

The University of the Dakota surveyed more than 200 municipalities in 10 predominantly Republican states and found that more than half had initiatives to reduce their contribution to global warming. However, these policies were rarely positioned as climate change programs and were instead branded as economic development, resource management or public health initiatives.

The conservative Texas town of Sweetwater produces enough wind energy to power more than 500,000 homes, but scientists think they’ve reached a consensus that global warming is happening. only 40% of residents In addition, his 80% of America’s wind farms are in Republican-voting congressional districts, the areas reported to have the lowest levels of acceptance of climate science in America.

It is not necessary to collectively agree on the importance of climate change in order to take action to prevent it. You don’t have to worry about the environment. We just need to be selfish.

Madeline TroxellRaised in Anchorage and a student at Brigham Young University, is interested in the intersection of environmental science, government policy, scientific discovery and action.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a wide range of views.To submit your work for consideration, please email Commentary (at) adn.comSubmissions of less than 200 words will be letter@adn.com Also Click here to send from any web browserPlease read our complete guidelines for letters and comments Here.