In 1896, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius reportedly became the first person to quantify the relationship between carbon dioxide and global warming. More than 100 years later, carbon dioxide remains one of the most prominent forms of emissions from industry. Although attempts have been made to regulate greenhouse gasses, substantial change has been slow to arrive. In today’s issue, we will delve into the politics of climate change and the most prominent impediments to political action.
Political Polarization & Public Opinion
As seen in many issues, party alignment can definitely play a role in how an individual will perceive a problem, and the issue of climate change is no different. A Pew Research Center survey highlights the association between party and perception, finding that although there has been a net increase in concern about climate change, the increase is largely seen among Democrats. Specifically, about nine-in-ten Democrats and leaning Democrats view climate change as a major threat to the US, while roughly three-in-ten Republicans share the same view.
The reason behind the polarization can be partially explained by a 2014 study from Duke University, in which researchers investigated what they call ‘solution aversion’. Essentially, they found that Republicans were more inclined to accept the existence of climate change if the proposed policy solution emphasized the free market rather than regulatory action. For Democrats, there was no difference in belief regardless of the proposed policy solution. These findings suggest that individuals are more likely to deny the existence of a problem if the solution undermines their beliefs. As the issue of climate change is increasingly politicized, political ideology will play a larger role in how policymakers and constituents alike will approach the problem.
Lobbying
From 2000 to 2016, more than $2 billion was spent on lobbying climate change legislation, according to an analysis from Climatic Change. The same source goes on to explain that the fossil fuel industry, transportation companies, and utilities outspent environment groups and renewable companies by about 10-to-1.
Deep pockets often translate to broad political influence, and the proof of concept is best seen with the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The climate legislation would have set forth provisions regarding the transition to clean energy, reducing pollution, and much more. However, although it passed in the House, it was never brought to the floor of the Senate. A Nature Climate Change study found that lobbying against the bill reduced the probability of passage from 55% to 42%, representing a social cost of $60 billion.
The transition from fossil fuels to clean energy requires the transformation of a multi-trillion-dollar industry, which poses its own unique costs and challenges. However, for companies that are oriented around maximizing profits, the status quo of cheap oil remains too appealing to break away from. And in their efforts to avoid change, Big Oil has used its economic might to defeat policies that would move the nation to a cleaner future.