The Politicization of Climate Change in the US

How science has been communicated or interpreted for political gain has taken different sides across the world. But perhaps in no other developed country has climate change discussions gone into such a polarized debate as it has in the US. According to data from a Gallup surveys being taken since 2001, the American public opinion is more divided than ever. Sociologists explain that this is mainly due to elite cues delivered by politicians and political analyst in the media. They have played the primary role in the growing polarization of the climate discussion, which has unsurprisingly followed the same pattern as political atmosphere in the US. Simply put, while Liberals and Democrats have a growing concern and belief of the visible effects of global warming, some Conservatives and Republicans go so far as to call it “a hoax”. Climate change skepticism has become part of the signature stances of Republicans such as less-taxes, abortion, anti-immigration, or guns.

Why have Conservatives and Republicans taken climate change in their political identity? Some reasons point to the degree of legislation that will inevitably change and thus look into mitigating the negative consequences of industrial capitalism. As the main pollutant industry and responsible for the global warming effect on the planet, fossil-fuel companies would be the most affected by this measure. This is why these companies, election after election, keep supporting Republican candidates and donating large amounts of money for their campaigns.

Climate adaptation requires a heavy degree of legislation to make an impact country-wide. However, with such a political polarization, plus the weight of the public opinion in policy-making, the result may inhibit the creation of effective climate legislation. Therefore, if the public is receiving different messages from elite cues, how can we buffer the effects of manipulated science to get the message of concern and action for climate adaptation through?

For Liberals and Democrats, education or new information means a more robust case of the effects of climate change, but for Conservatives and Republicans, there’s little impact on their skepticism. In such a scenario, the issue then focuses on how to communicate re-formatted risk-based data. The answer may lie in winning those small, local-level battles with the public opinion where its values, beliefs, and behaviors are slowly shaped and made aware of the negative consequences of keeping business as usual. Targeted marketing will replace more education on the subject. One that focuses on the potential economic benefits to people’s pocket through the adoption of climate-friendly technological improvements and green energies. It may be the best way out of a deteriorating future where extreme weather events are increasingly becoming the new normal.