Climate Change Remains the Pivotal Issue in the 2024 Election
In preparation for the forthcoming 2024 presidential and congressional elections, both candidates and voters must clarify their priorities. Above all else, global warming stands as the paramount concern, a fact that merits no dispute. It is imperative that voters and candidates recognize the gravity of the situation and address it accordingly.
In August, the Pew Research Center convened 32 individuals skeptical of global warming to explore the foundations of their skepticism. The results revealed that many participants reacted skeptically to terms characterizing climate change as a crisis and an urgent threat. A recurring sentiment was that such terminology amounted to "overblown rhetoric." Some voiced their belief that climate change follows natural cycles. The key issue here is the emphasis on the word "belief." Global warming should be grounded in science, transcending the realms of belief or politics. Recognizing the necessity for action is not an ideology or political allegiance; it is a rational response to an existential threat, a consensus shared by climate scientists worldwide.
It is essential to comprehend that at its core, climate change is a matter of science, not politics. Although many news organizations have often presented it primarily as a political story, it is important to remember that political positions do not alter the laws of physics, irrespective of political convictions. Regrettably, global warming has been transformed into a divisive political issue. The fossil fuel industry and some Republican figures have expended considerable effort and resources to politicize global warming. This stratagem succeeded in creating polarization, with some Republicans still hesitant to accept climate science or endorse government intervention to address the issue.
The journey towards politicizing the climate crisis commenced with two crucial moments in history. First, on June 23, 1988, the U.S. government's chief climate scientist, James Hansen, testified before a Senate committee, asserting that climate change was undeniably real and already underway. The second turning point occurred around 2001, when communications consultant Frank Luntz recommended to Republicans that they sow doubt among voters regarding their trust in climate science and scientists. At the time, Republicans were at risk of being labeled as anti-environment. Luntz's counsel was to avoid using the term "global warming" and instead use "climate change" as it sounded less alarming. He advised Republicans to make the lack of scientific certainty a central theme in the debate. Armed with Luntz's memo, Republicans collaborated with the fossil fuel lobby to disparage climate science and scientists.
Another malevolent episode transpired in November 2009 when a group of anonymous climate deniers hacked the email server used by climate researchers at a British university. These hackers released thousands of emails, alleging a conspiracy among climate scientists to manipulate climate data and suppress critics. This incident triggered official investigations and considerable media coverage. FactCheck.org confirmed that the deniers had distorted the content of the emails. Nevertheless, the damage was done, undermining public trust in global warming and climate scientists.
Given the long history of challenges in securing public acceptance of warnings about a man-made catastrophe, we must not let another election pass without an unmistakable voter mandate for officials at all levels of government to treat global warming as the crisis it genuinely is. Although the majority of Americans now view global warming as a significant threat, this awareness has not permeated uniformly. Only 23 percent of Republicans share this view.
It is noteworthy that Frank Luntz, who had previously recommended using alternative terminology for climate change, admitted in July 2019 that his guidance was no longer accurate and provided a new list of more positive words for communicating about global warming.
The time has come to take a clear stance and demand a resounding mandate from voters in every election. While the Biden administration and a narrow congressional majority deserve praise for passing legislation such as the Inflation Reduction Act with its innovative incentives for clean energy, the costs and damages of fossil fuels far outweigh these achievements. It is crucial to understand that these costs are not adequately represented in market prices. In 2022, Americans collectively supported the fossil fuel industry through direct and indirect subsidies amounting to a staggering $757 billion, dwarfing support for clean and renewable energy. To put it into perspective, every American contributed nearly $2,230 in 2022 to bolster an industry responsible for immense damage to homes, health, ecosystems, biodiversity, and overall quality of life. These subsidies do not account for associated issues like the looming "climate insurance bubble," where 39 million underinsured properties face high risks of natural disasters, leading to concerns about a foreclosure crisis due to unaffordable insurance rates and declining property values.
A responsible nation would not allow such practices to persist. Rational voters would not condone them. Political candidates must not evade this critical matter. While numerous vital issues demand our attention, global warming represents an accelerating crisis that we must urgently mitigate. Many other concerns will pale in significance in a world ravaged by the consequences of unchecked global warming. The upcoming election on November 5, 2024, is a pivotal moment to address this matter.
William Becker serves as the executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project (PCAP), a nonpartisan initiative founded in 2007. The PCAP collaborates with national thought leaders to develop recommendations for both the White House and Congress on climate and energy policies.
- #ClimateCrisis, #2024Election, #GlobalWarming, #FossilFuels, #EnvironmentalAction
