Wrangling over Warming

In the days of Walter Cronkite and the like; the American public would manually turn their channel-changing knob and receive what are colloquially referred to as "facts."  People would then take these agreed upon "facts" and formulate opinions based on them; oftentimes disagreeing with one another.  In other words, Americans auguring is nothing new; but the distinction between then and now lies in what we argue over.  Opinions are subjective and ripe for disagreement; but we now live in a country where actual facts are debated, as if the term even allowed for such a thing.  Aside from the universally-held view that Osama Bin Laden was at least somewhat of a jerk, is there nothing Americans can agree on in this hyper-polarized climate?

Speaking of climate, this is an area that provides one of the better examples of this phenomenon.  Global warming, or climate change as it is now often called; consists of something called the "greenhouse effect."  This effect is actually quite natural, though not in the levels we find it occurring today.  The burning of fossil-fuels emits carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, in turn warming the planet over a period of many decades.  97% of scientists believe climate change is both real and man-made (USA Today).  This is about as close to a consensus as is humanly possible today, as one would likely find difficulty garnering that percentage of people to agree it's October.  Despite this, only 30% of self-described conservatives believe global warming is affecting the planet (Associated Press).  No doubt taking a cue from those numbers, this view is even reflected in several high-profile politicians currently seeking the Republican presidential nomination.

So how can a universally accepted belief among actual experts translate into skepticism of it among a substantial portion of the populous?  The answer lies in the financial and political clout of what we'll call "old energy."  Today in the United States, fossil fuels account for 84% of our total energy consumption (United States Department of Energy).  New technologies, or green energy may be less harmful to the planet, but they're very harmful to the bottom line's of those who've made a fortune in old energies like fossil fuels.  Thanks to their lobbying and hundreds of millions in campaign contributions over the last 20 years, the oil industry has succeeded in killing every attempt at meaningful climate change legislation.  Given that the United States consumes a whopping quarter of the world's energy, this is an unfortunate development for the planet's current storm, drought and flood-ravaged denizens - let alone future earth inhabitants.

Conservatives argue that alternative and renewable energies are too expensive to meet the needs of the nation.  They say regardless of its potentially devastating effects, implementing regulations on carbon emissions would be too steep a price for the country to pay economically (interesting considering "cap and trade" has always been a Republican idea).  Some conservatives do favor non-traditional energy sources, so long as they aren't too green (fracking, anyone?).  Many also favor the expansion of existing energy sources such as increased domestic exploration for off-shore oil drilling.  They contend that increased domestic production will decrease our dependance on foreign sources of oil.

Of course, the only true way to lessen our dependance on foreign oil is to lessen our dependance on oil, period.  Thus, the government should invest in renewable energies so they can compete with the established titans.  Only then will our nation's actions match the level of crisis the planet faces.  Like everything else in America, money and politics will probably get in the way; but if there's one issue that everyone has a stake in, one issue that should unite literally all 100% of us - shouldn't it be the future of our world?