In my previous two civic issue blogs, I covered the reasons for the United State’s deep divide on climate policy and which countries have taken the biggest strides to combat climate change. This week I’ll be focusing solely on the US and how they are making changes, both on the governmental and state levels.   

On June 1, 2017, Donald Trump announced that the United States would be withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement. Though most of you probably already have a pretty strong understanding of what the agreement entails, I will give a quick overview. “The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change;” currently, 196 nations are signatories. “Its goal is to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels” and exponentially cut back on the levels of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere; the goal is carbon neutrality. Every five years each nation has to submit a plan of action on how they will cut back on their emissions. The agreement is not overly complicated, but there is clearly a lot riding on its success. So, back to my original point: when Donald Trump announced the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement in 2017, not even twenty-four hours later, the governors of California, New York, and Washington, Gavin Newsom, Andrew Cuomo, and Jay Inslee, respectively, launched the United States Climate Alliance. The Alliance is “a bipartisan coalition of governors (and subsequently states) committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement,” comprised of twenty-five members: twenty-four states and Puerto Rico. Members of the Alliance actually make up fifty-five percent of the US population and are releasing about forty percent of the greenhouse gas emissions, which is why having statewide standards can play such a large role in the overall efficacy of nationwide climate initiatives. Since its creation in 2017, the Alliance has already taken multiple actions against climate change, with states passing their own legislation across a few different sectors. California set a goal to reach carbon neutrality by 2045, as well as requiring all newly sold cars and passenger trucks to be zero-emission vehicles by 2035. “Hawaii’s legislature also passed a bill that provides rebates to people who install a new electric vehicle charging system or upgrade any existing systems.” There have also been regulations proposed in a few different states, namely Virginia, Connecticut, Maryland, New York, Washington, and Vermont, in an attempt to attack different pollutants which aren’t always at the forefront of the climate debate: black carbon, methane and hydrofluorocarbons. Black carbon is one of the main components in soot, and one of the reasons it is such a threat to global warming is because of its high absorption of solar energy. “When suspended in the atmosphere, black carbon… [converts]… incoming solar radiation to heat. It also influences cloud formation and impacts regional circulation and rainfall patterns.”   

Even though President Biden rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement on his first day in office, the US Climate Alliance is still in effect and its successes have not gone unnoticed. According to the Alliance’s annual report, state members are not only reducing their emissions but also growing their economies at a faster pace than non-Alliance states, which is a clear indication that climate policy, activism, and leadership are directly related to economic growth. As members of the Climate Alliance, each state has another responsibility that is going to help the country in the long run because while the country is being held to a standard within the Paris Agreement, each individual state must hold up its end of the bargain also.

Renewable energy has started to become an important part of the United States climate initiative (there is obviously still a strong dependence on coal and other fossil fuels, but a movement in the right direction is still visible). States in the alliance are at the forefront of the push for green energy. Nevada recently passed legislation, which will increase the amount of electricity that comes from renewable sources to fifty percent by 2030 (currently it’s about twenty-eight percent). And by 2050, Minnesota proposed to have one hundred percent clean energy to power the electricity sector (currently it’s twenty-five percent). Renewable energy has become the United States’ fastest-growing energy source over the last twenty years, the percentage of national usage and dependency has increased over one hundred percent since 2000. Hydropower (usually from dams), wind (wind farms can be built both onshore and offshore; offshore wind farms are the ideal location because of land and a constant energy source), solar, biomass (materials from once-living organisms, burned for fuel), and geothermal (thermal energy stored in the ground) make up the majority of energy generation. The percentage of energy generated from renewables is only going to continue to rise. In 2017, seventeen percent of our electricity was generated from renewable sources; hydropower (around 7 percent) and wind power (around 6.6 percent) were and continue to be the biggest contributors for electricity. Though by 2050, solar energy is predicted to generate almost forty-eight percent of the total renewable energy in the US, making it the fastest growing renewable source. I probably don’t need to convince many people about the benefits of renewable energy sources. In the short run, switching to these different energy forms can obviously be a bit costly: the plants and storage facilities need to be built and operated. But this is also going to generate jobs to improve and boost the economy and the obvious: reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere. In the long run, using renewable energy sources is going to save money and diminish dependence on international energy sources like oil. The United States still has a long way to go with climate policy, as do most countries, so we are not alone, but it is important that steps are being taken in the right direction.       

Nations across the world have passed varying policies within their countries to progress the fight against climate change. As we move closer towards the point of no return for climate action, it is clear that some countries are advancing their efforts more than others. In 2019, New Zealand passed its Zero-Carbon Act, which places the country of five million people on the trajectory “to being carbon neutral by 2050.” The bill also “enshrines the country’s commitment to the Paris [Climate] Agreement into law” (ecowarrierprincess.net) and under the Climate Change Commission, requires emission budget revisions every five years. New Zealand’s electricity sources are already eighty-percent renewable, with hydropower, geothermal, and wind being the main contributors, but the target is to be one hundred percent renewable by 2035. Costa Rica is at the forefront of renewable energy sources. Around ninety-seven percent of the country’s total electricity usage came from clean energy in 2018, with seventy-two percent hydropower, sixteen percent wind power, nine percent geothermal, and less than one percent for both biomass and solar. Introduced in 2019, Costa Rica’s National Decarbonisation Plan 2018-2050 doesn’t just commit to having net zero emissions by 2050 but outlines the strategies for “electrifying the public transport system… [improving] farming practices,” waste management, and different agricultural sectors. Arguably one of the country’s biggest climate accomplishments is its reforestation efforts which have essentially reversed deforestation in Costa Rica. 

A couple of years ago, Italy became one of the first, if not the first, country to require schools to teach about climate change and sustainability. Especially within the transportation sector, Italy is putting a large focus on renewable energy and reducing black carbon emissions.     

But if there’s one country that’s leading the climate fight policy-wise, it would be Denmark. Rated as one of the “top five most environmentally friendly countries in the world” (ecowarrierprincess.net), one of their biggest goals as frontrunners is to “increase global climate ambition” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark). In the last few decades, the country has made climate policy a priority and the laws passed are a definite reflection of that fact. Denmark was one of the first to start switching from coal to wind power and biofuels. Wind power accounts for almost half of the country’s electricity supply and Vestas, a Danish-based company, is actually the largest supplier of wind turbines in the world. Denmark aims to be a resource and example for other nations to follow in their footsteps and implement similar climate action policies. With its Global Climate Action Strategy: A Green and Sustainable World, the Danish government hopes to “increase global climate ambition, [like I previously said]… reduce global greenhouse gas emissions… strengthen [the] focus on adaptation and sustainable development… shift financial flows to green, climate-friendly investments… and cooperate with the private sector on green solutions.” But a lot of what I just mentioned seems like empty words, so what is Denmark actually doing to follow through with them? Like countless other countries within the Paris Climate Agreement, Denmark’s Climate Act targets the goal of carbon neutrality by 2050, but unlike some nations, it is written into law, as opposed to just making a commitment. Almost two years ago, a climate law was passed, “committing to reach seventy percent below its 1990 emissions” by 2030. An important aspect of the climate law and what differentiates Denmark from other countries is the fact that “every five years, the government must set a legally binding emissions target across sectors of the economy including energy, housing, industry, transportation, agriculture, and forestry. Parliament holds the minister for climate and energy accountable and can force that person out of office if insufficient progress is made,” which makes reaching the emissions’ goal an extreme incentive (US News & World Report). Offshore wind farms generate an incredible amount of energy and are a strategic alternative to onshore farms because they take up much less space. Denmark plans to build an artificial island to be used as an offshore wind farm; the project has the possibility to supply Denmark with all of its needed energy, with the surplus being sold to contiguous countries. The total cost is estimated to be between $29.5 and 44.2 billion.    

While there have obviously been countless advancements with climate policy in the last few years, some of the countries around the world that have made the biggest strides still have long ways to go. Green policies catching up to the proposed goals is still a very real problem. While Costa Rica’s electricity statistics are incredibly impressive, electricity is just a small percentage of its total energy use; the country still relies heavily on fossil fuels to power the remaining energy needs, especially within transportation and heating. Costa Rica’s lack of solar power usage puts them at a bit of a disadvantage, and utilizing that resource could make huge differences within their different energy sectors. New Zealand, one of the world’s loudest climate activist voices, seems to propose more framework than policy. While the goal of “zero net emissions of all greenhouse gases” by 2050 is an ambitious and important target, the act discludes methane gas emissions from agriculture and waste from the total count, which make up nearly forty percent of all emissions within the country. And sixty percent of all energy is still powered by fossil fuels, especially crude oil. 

But despite some of the flawed strategies, it’s important to recognize that the steps are being taken, maybe not as quickly as they should be, but nonetheless. Let’s hope that the countries which are lacking in climate change policy can use Denmark, New Zealand, Costa Rica, and others as an example and start to catch up with the ones that are leading the fight.

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.