Climate change is one of the most partisan arguments that we face in this country. On the public stage especially, climate activism and environmental justice played an enormous role in Joe Biden’s campaign for president. On the other side of the spectrum, out of the many things Donald Trump did to downplay the threat, one of the most prominent was leaving the Paris Climate Agreement in 2017. Fixing the issues we face with climate change has unfortunately become inherently Democratic. But one of the biggest questions as to why the parties are so divided on the issue, is truly, why? Both sides claim they want what is best for the country, but go to two different extremes when the facts are laid out in front of them. The tendency for (most) Republicans to downplay and (most) Democrats to be more progressive on the matter obviously isn’t new. I was listening to NPR on the radio a couple of days ago and ironically they started talking about George W. Bush’s lack of momentum in moving towards a greener America. He didn’t act on or continue with many of Bill Clinton’s initiatives made in the early nineties. This was, in large part, due to the fact that Bush made his money in Texas oil, obviously not the most eco-friendly of businesses. That was fifteen to twenty years ago, and here we are in 2021 having the same exact debate.

I obviously don’t need to emphasize the fact that how people make their money influence how they see different world issues. Pew Research Center did a survey around 2016 that brought to light the deeply divided perceptions of climate change and how “political fissures on climate issues extend far beyond beliefs about whether climate change is occurring and whether humans are playing a role… These divisions reach across every dimension of the climate debate, down to people’s basic trust in the motivations that drive climate scientists to conduct their research” (Pew Research).  Well it’s clear that Democrats and Republicans have very differing views on the matter, it’s important to note that the most extreme divides fall on the “ends of the political spectrums” (very liberal and very conservative). 

I don’t want to count out the fact that some Republicans do believe in climate change and understand that the threat is imminent, but usually just not to the degree that Democrats believe that large-scale “environmental catastrophes are potentially headed our way” (Pew Research). 

One of the most prominent reasons for people’s hesitancy in believing about global warming, pollution, shrinking glaciers, etc, is because it doesn’t directly affect them. Hence, why economic standing can sometimes be an important role in someone’s belief. And especially location, if a person is living in the south, rising temperatures of a few degrees aren’t going to mean a whole lot. Or maybe people don’t want to believe it, because if they do then everything they’ve worked for will drastically change, that could be considered the economic aspect of the climate debate. As was the case with George W. Bush, attempting to combat or even publicly admitting climate change during his presidency could have brought his oil empire, or whatever you want to call it, crashing down. You can credit NPR for this example, but I definitely thought it was an interesting one that gave a lot of insight into the more business-centered Republican mindset.

Another aspect of the debate is that a person’s understanding of climate change is, in large part, influenced by their belief and trust in the intention of scientists. Understanding climate change is each individual believing and putting trust, or not, in what scientists and experts are putting on the table. Here are some statistics from the Pew Research survey that I mentioned previously: 

• “Seven-in-ten liberal Democrats (70%) trust climate scientists a lot to give full and accurate information about the causes of climate change, compared with just 15% of conservative Republicans.
• Some 54% of liberal Democrats say climate scientists understand the causes of climate change very well. This compares with only 11% among conservative Republicans and 19% among moderate/liberal Republicans.
• On the flip side, conservative Republicans are more inclined to say climate research findings are influenced by scientists’ desire to advance their careers (57%) or their own political leanings (54%) most of the time. Small minorities of liberal Democrats say either influence occurs most of the time (16% and 11%, respectively).”

It’s clear that climate change creates a larger divide in political beliefs and the reasons for it can kind of boil down to trust and circumstance, but a huge factor in the continued hesitancy is what some think it might do to the economy, both personally and nationally. Any way you look at it, there will be economic effects, which is what a lot of Republicans seem to be worried about. The natural disasters that will continue to occur are only going to worsen and will end up costing a huge sum of money. On the flip side, transitioning to more eco-friendly energy, cars, and almost everything, are going to cost money and probably a lot of it, but once things are up and running, the benefits will outweigh the literal and figurative costs. Earlier I touched on the fact that people are scared of losing everything they’ve worked for. One of the key factors of economics is that people are never intentionally going to do something that is going to make them worse off, which for people in some cases, giving into the realities of climate change might well do. 

The debate on climate change has become so ingrained in US politics that it completely defines the parties. In politics everyone needs to have their opinions or else what’s the point of separate parties. But climate change is a human issue, not a political one, that affects every person across the globe, either directly or indirectly.