Meredith Miller - Politics in the Environment

Throughout the 2016 Presidential Campaign and Donald Trump’s presidency, climate change has been a prominent political talking point. The Trump administration has proposed slashing the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by 25%, eliminating some 3,000 jobs. The GOP have characterized the agency as non-productive, with only negative effects such as burdening businesses with regulations. In the eyes of the American people, the environment ranks low on the list of priorities the government should address. However, with the rise of millennials into politics,it seems the environment has some on its side.



In the 1960s, the environment was a bipartisan issue, and a Republican president created the EPA in 1970 in response to public pressure. However, the period since the EPA was created has been defined by debate and disagreement over the environment. It has become increasingly more political than at any other time. This “politicization” of the environment is extremely prominent with Congress and the presidency. Being ‘green’ is equated to being ‘liberal,’ and ‘conservatives’ are expected to not care for the well being of the world. The future of the environment appears more convoluted than ever before. Climate Change has the potential to bring serious negative consequences for all of humanity, so we must face the question of how to protect the environment without hurting the economy.



Economically, our political representatives have enforced various forms of cap and trade to address a range of environmental issues, ranging from implementation in fisheries management, application to reduce levels of lead in gasoline, and to cut emissions of poisonous sulfur dioxide. Once again, in the past this market-oriented approach was historically bipartisan, supported by environmentalists and economists alike, but in today’s politics, Democrats and Republicans can not seem to discuss the environment at all (Wagner).


The EPA exists to protect people and the environment from significant health risks, sponsors and conduct research, and develop and enforces environmental regulations, but with current political tension, will it remain?


What do you envision ending the debates regarding climate change?
Why has climate change become such a partisan issue?
Do your political beliefs shape your view on the environment, or vice versa?
In the future, what do you believe could be a bipartisan solution to protect the environment?

References:
http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/politics-global-warming-october-2017/7/
Wagner, G. (2011). But will the planet notice? : how smart economics can save the world (1st ed.). New York: Hill and Wang.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-68930-2_21


Comments

Anonymous said…
Climate change has become a partisan issue because Republicans, who tend to be more pro-business, receive donations from the fossil fuel industry to block government regulation. On the other side of the aisle, Democrats, who tend to be more environmentally-friendly cannot get environmental regulations on businesses passed without the support of Republicans. The result is a policy gridlock that inhibits any chance of rectifying the damage already doe by climate change. In order to make a dent in the damage done by climate change, politicians must make an effort to reach across the aisle and compromise.
March 4, 2019 at 3:14 PM
Anonymous said…
With the current poltical climate, it seems bizarre that environmental protection used to be a bipartisan issue. It is interesting to observe as environmental policies are either protected or set back depending on the president (and his administration) in office. As this article pointed out, the increase in environmental activists and organizations can be traced back to the 1960s; however, attempts to rectify anthropogenic environmental harm have been occurring as early as Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency. Interestingly enough, Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican; as this article points out, in recent times, ‘conservatives’ have been depicted as lacking interest in the well being of the environment, while environmentalism itself has been linked to the goals of the ‘liberal’ party. These shifts in party ideologies — from a Republican president creating national parks in the 1900s, to the bipartisan take of the ‘60s, to the divide between Democrats and Republicans in 2019 — represent different schools of thought concerning environmental protections.
March 4, 2019 at 3:36 PM
Anonymous said…
In today’s age, climate change and environmental policy is one of the biggest partisan ideas America faces. Republicans, who favor business and less government control, tend to believe in less environmental regulations and many do not believe in climate change. Democrats, on the other hand, favor environmental policy and push a an agenda that relies heavily on fixing climate change. Since this issue has become so partisan, it has divided our country and has stopped any real environmental efforts to work. Without enough votes in Congress, strict environmental regulations won’t pass. With this gridlock, environmental-friendly lifestyles have yet to truly work its way into America.
March 4, 2019 at 6:43 PM
Anonymous said…
With rising environmental problems, topics like climate change have been in the hot seat in government. It’s interesting to see the differing points of view of the seemingly controversial subject. We are living in a very polarized age currently, but just because supporting the environment is associated with being “democratic” should not stop others to support what they believe in rather than what their party believes in. In order to ensure that future generations have a clean and prosperous environment to live in, we have to start fixing the consequences of our actions now. At the end of the day, we need nature. Without it, humans would not be able to live.
March 5, 2019 at 8:40 AM
Anonymous said…
Recently, the Green New Deal was proposed by democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a representative from New York. The goals of this deal are to have net zero greenhouse gas emissions and 100% renewable energy by the year 2030. In the process, it is hoped that 20 million jobs will be created in the sectors involving public transportation, sustainable agriculture, and conservation of ecosystems. Also, the goal is to redirect research funds from fossil fuels into renewable energy sources instead. Sadly, this debate regarding climate change is partisan and republicans are having a difficult time wrapping their heads around her proposed deal for the future. But, hopefully in the future, both parties will come to see the benefits of protecting the environment, and no longer will this be a partisan issue.
March 5, 2019 at 12:43 PM
Anonymous said…
It is sad to think that even such an objective issue as the environment should fall into the polarization of the US. To anyone studying this subject, it seems like simple science that should be handled like any issue of math and science, but the amount of variables and unknowns around this subject seem to cloud most people's judgement. Instead of finding newer and more ways to disagree, politics should be about finding the best way to run the nation. In the end, issues like this will fall, through the teeth of government barter and be lost as bartering chips or written off. Instead, take this away from big government and start smaller. By making active choices to decrease every sole person's ecological footprint we can work towards a better and more sustainable society.
March 5, 2019 at 5:45 PM
Anonymous said…
It’s bizarre to me that facts and figures could become debatable in the name of politics. Especially since politics is such a complex subject, I also feel like it is not so much that the lawmakers themselves refuse to believe that issues such as climate change are wreaking havoc on the environment so much so as they have to continue to appeal to their primary audiences’ stance (liberal or conservative). Unfortunately, it is probably going to take some form of an environmental catastrophe to convince politicians to agree on new policies regarding the environment. This is rather unfortunate, because there is science to prove that we have x many years before this or that resource gets depleted, habitats get destroyed, etc, but party politics has somehow become more important than facing fact.
March 5, 2019 at 9:32 PM
Anonymous said…
This topic is an interesting one. As someone who is conservative, it is frankly insulting to see people equate being “green” with being “not conservative”. (To address the elephant in the room, President Trump is the least conservative Republican president to hold office. I digress). However, it is true that the party, on average, does value government non-interference with the desired outcome being competitive business thriving. From the standpoint of wanting a smaller government, it takes a second to separate protecting the environment from governmental overreach. On the topic of the EPA, it has a rocky past of placing political agenda over legitimate scientific research (using computer estimates for air pollution, not actual air samples...). Lastly, I have seen my classmates mention the “Green New Deal” proposed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. If one actually takes the time to read the document, you’ll find that it goes from the outlandish (just stop cows from farting) to the directly socialist (providing job/economic security to those unable or unwillling to work). I am all for protecting the environment, as a Boy Scout, the enviroment is central to nearly everything we do and I have learned dozens of ways to protect what has been given to us. What the problem really is falls under the category of people disguising bad science and underlying motives under the guise of “Going Green”,
March 6, 2019 at 6:06 AM
Anonymous said…
I feel that over the past few years, environmental policy has become one of the things that I started caring for above all others. After all, I am planning on entering the field of environmental science in college. And while taking action is imperative, the political climate has reached a point where radical change is unfeasible unless we shake the whole political system as a whole. That being said, trying to force radical environmental action through the Green New Deal does little more than make a statement. It is too ambitious for its own good, to the point where members of both parties see it as an unrealistic absurdity. In a way, there truly is no “easy way out” of the situation we are in.
March 6, 2019 at 8:13 AM
Anonymous said…
Frankly, I personally see the debate over environmental policies in the US as quite a necessary subject when it comes to politics and government. The real problem of ending the debates may present some backfires and perhaps lead people to misjudge the importance of certain issues regarding environments in our country. We, as a collective group, have to constantly stay alert and careful, in terms of debates and policies over environmental issues.
March 6, 2019 at 8:54 AM
Anonymous said…
It’s really interesting that something as protecting the environment, the source of our food, air, and other vital resources necessary for survival, is something debated and often set aside as unimportant when it comes to the politics of it. The EPA is an important asset, because it conducts research projects and educates the public about the findings of these projects. When people become educated, by means of reliable sources such as the EPA, they can learn how to live more environmentally sustainable lives in small ways. Doing things like simply reusing, recycling, and car pooling are small ways that can improve the environment. These actions are things that both Democrats and Republicans can agree are positive and necessary.
March 7, 2019 at 9:29 AM
Anonymous said…
Personally, my political views do not share my views on the environment. In politics, two sides can be argued for many of the hot topic debate points. However, when it comes to the environment, there is only one correct answer. Science and research have proven the existence of climate change and that humans have a detrimental effect on the environment. So, regardless of political view, it would be ignorant and frankly stupid to not want to advocate for solutions to environmental problems. If the current trend continues, with Democrats and Republicans arguing over something that has only one correct solution, the worsening environment will only continue. It is imperative that both sides learn to collaborate amd acknowledge environmental issues before it is too late.
March 7, 2019 at 5:21 PM
Anonymous said…
This was an interesting read for me because, personally, I don’t take particular interest in or advocate strongly for a specific perspective in political issues. However, I feel like the climate change issue directly affects and relates to all humans in the same way, regardless of our individual political beliefs. I think that we need to put aside political interests and motivations and focus on doing what is best for the environment instead. In this case, I think that my view on the environmental shapes my political belief because the science and the facts that corroborate the existence of climate change encourages me to believe that stricter environmental regulations should be passed by the legislative branch.
March 14, 2019 at 12:37 AM
Anonymous said…
This was a unique blog post! I agree that environmental concerns, such as climate change, are controversial topics in politics. As you said, the concerns of our environment have been politicized into the interests of mostly liberals. Personally, I believe that efforts for environmental sustainability and protection are vital for all individuals, regardless of their political affiliation, so my political views are shaped by my environmental views. If this country is to appropriately address environmental issues, then we would need to find an economical solution to increasing the environment’s sustainability.
March 17, 2019 at 11:02 AM
Anonymous said…
Reading this post was very interesting because I am not a strong follower in politics. I am aware of the issues surrounding climate change, and I am also aware that the current precautions being taken to prevent climate change do not live up to the standards they really should be. Throughout the political field, many believe that solving use one problem will not benefit the world that greatly. The thing is, solving one problem can lead to the solving of many other problems and set the correct momentum for future change. From my own readings I have read about the Green New Deal that AOC has proposed. This deal may be a stretch, but at least she is trying to solve the deadly environmental crisis' that we deal with today.
March 17, 2019 at 1:46 PM
Anonymous said…
Your post was very interesting and informative. There has been a long debate about the actions needed by countries to prevent further harm done to our planet through climate change. Although many argue against climate change existing, many lawmakers are pushing for further actions to help prevent the depletion of the ozone layer. Many support a carbon tax to help prevent overproduction of carbon dioxide which enters our atmosphere and harms our ozone layer.
March 18, 2019 at 9:28 AM
Anonymous said…
This post raises an interesting issue of wether or not environmental views should be shaped by political beliefs. For me personally, my political beliefs have no influence on my environmental views. I understand that climate change is an ongoing issue that is altering the environment and human activities is constructing to the degradation of the environment as well. Although political beliefs can shape a persons beliefs about environmental policies, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s an issue that needs to be solved regardless and greater interference is needed by the government in order to help preserve the environment as well as action taken by individuals to reduce their environmental impact.
March 18, 2019 at 11:47 AM
Anonymous said…
As you stated, unfortunately, the partisan gridlock in Congress will make it very difficult to pass any meaningful environmental legislation. Political polarization—with extreme environmental views on both the right and the left—has made it nearly impossible to initiate a rational dialogue between both parties. A large portion of Republicans ignore climate change, while the further-left faction of the Democratic Party support the Green New Deal . . . both have their issues. Outside of the legislature, federal agencies are also becoming pawns, such as the EPA under President Trump.
March 18, 2019 at 3:16 PM
Anonymous said…
As we move forward in a political climate where the environment is an increasingly partisan issue, it is important to note that finding feasible solutions requires collaboration not only as a nation, but internationally. It is a financial stretch for the U.S. the implement a policy like the Green New Deal, but it is uninformed to act as though climate change is a myth. Those who are able to look at the issue from a centrist standpoint should one day be able to collaborate and find a solution that works for the U.S. Until then, we are left with politicians who have varying stances on how highly we should prioritize spending on an answer climate change. I think it is important to note that not all liberals want a high regulations like those proposed in the Green New Deal, and not all conservatives blatantly ignore the reality of climate change.
March 18, 2019 at 7:06 PM
Anonymous said…
While climate change has not been proven yet, the EPA is still a very important in maintaining cleaner air, clean water, and overall a cleaner environment. Who wouldn’t want that? To condemn the current administration for the unproven dangers is unfair. I am not well-educated enough in these politics, but I believe its necessary to understand both perspectives before fixing your opinion. Your blog is only a portion of the story. There are numerous unmentioned ramifications of imposing more legislation in the quest of “fixing climate change.”
March 18, 2019 at 7:38 PM
Anonymous said…
Unfortunately, Democrats and Republicans cant agree on the environment. While clearly everybody cares about the environment, these days, as stated in the blog, Republicans don’t even want to associate themselves with any environmental issues because they would be labeled with the democrats. How does this make any sense at all? What is wrong with helping the one place we live? Why aren’t people willing to risk their titles to help our one and only Earth.
March 19, 2019 at 6:22 AM
Anonymous said…
I understand why many people aren’t very focused on the environment and helping sustainability, although environmental issues must be addressed and its impossible for us to continue living prosperously as a human race without sustainable practices. I feel like the debates will only end when the situation becomes dire enough to address. Right now, the most fearful parts of climate change and other environmental are only the predictions of environmental scientists, but until those predictions come true, nobody will really realize the urgency of the environmental issues at hand. Climate change has recently became a debate more on for or against science in general, rather than simply whether climate change exists or not. These beliefs heavily influence people’s views on climate change.
March 19, 2019 at 7:06 AM
Anonymous said…
Climate change is a huge part of politics. For example, not only in the United States, even in France, climate change has become a leading issue. President Emmanuel Macron instituted a fuel tax on the country, and by creating a fuel tax, Macron is attempting to decrease the consumption of fossil fuels inside of his country. However, this has only sparked mass outrage since the poor in the country are not able to afford a transition towards renewable energy. Change in politics is needed in order to decrease carbon usage and help the earth; however, in the short term, a transition away from fossil fuels often hurts the poorest in society.
March 19, 2019 at 10:29 AM
Anonymous said…
It’s rather crazy to think that climate change is a partisan issue, especially since it affects everyone. I think that some of the biggest proponents of disregarding sustainable practices are large corporations. Most of them do not care about anything except making a profit, even at the expense of the environment. Such behaviour is exemplified in events such as the Dakota access pipeline, owned primarily by the company Energy Transfer, which threatened the possibility of water contamination, and Shell’s cause of two massive oil spills in the Bodo community of Nigeria, which exposed toxic substances to both the Niger River delta and the Bodo people, whose potential had been warned about before hand. Therefore, when it comes to environmental protection policies, these large, mostly energy, corporations protest due to the negative impact such laws would have on their, quite frankly irresponsible, business practices. Politics has always been influenced by big business, and if we want positive sustainable policies, we have to push back against them and the highly consumerist society they promote. We have to, by and large, put the safety and preservation of the environment before personal comfort and convenience.
March 19, 2019 at 7:04 PM
Anonymous said…
This was a great post! I expected the environment to have a role in the government due to the many changes that it is undergoing. I feel that a way to reduce the debates regarding climate change would be to better inform the public. The choices made by individuals are important, but the public needs to work together for the transformation that will make a real difference. As well as reporting the facts about what is happening now, news companies should investigate the causes and talk to the people in an effort to make the future better. Personally, my political views do not alter my view of the environment as I feel I can separate science from politics. Although they may be similar in some ways, climate change has been proven as a harmful thing and should be prevented regardless of what party you are in.
March 19, 2019 at 8:06 PM
Anonymous said…
This post was so interesting. The fact that enviroNmental protection is such controversial topic in politics shows how relevant it is to our current world. I agree with the EPA that steps need to be taken toward more sustainable practices even though climate change hasn't been completely proven yet. I believe both parties should set aside their partisan problems and prejudices and accept that they need to work together to solve this issue.
March 19, 2019 at 9:34 PM
Anonymous said…
I very much enjoyed this post! To talk about the controversial enviromental issues in government is something that we all should be more educated about. I personally feel that most are not properly educated on the true issues we are having and if we all knew about such things, we as a whole could make better decisions and actually start a change rather than be static while arguing. I hope that many can inform themselves about such topics to stop debates and actually do something instead.
March 20, 2019 at 6:31 AM
Cathy Kim said…
This was a really interesting post and I enjoyed reading it! For me personally, I try to be up-to-date with current news and especially politics, so seeing environmental issues is such a controversial topic is not brand new to me. However, I am not to say that many others are not aware of the controversy. In my opinion, I think environmental issues should not be a contributor to the separation of the two parties but something that both parties must acknowledge in order to educate the general public about what is really going on in our world and the severity of it.
March 20, 2019 at 8:12 PM
Anonymous said…
It’s upsetting to think that the harsh political climate of this day and age bypasses basic facts of scientific processes. Rather than using climate change as a point of bipartisan debate, both parties should work together to resolve the issue rather tha argue about its existence and significance. Unfortunately, it will probably take some catastrophic occurrence in nature for lawmakers and the public to realize the true ramifications of climate change. This is counterproductive, rather than waiting until something bad happens to take action we should be taking preemptive measures to prevent any catastrophes from occurring.
March 20, 2019 at 10:37 PM
Anonymous said…
Climate change is a very controversial topic, as you pointed out, with many choosing not to believe in the issue due to their political or other views. For example, the Republican party and the Democratic party often disagree on policies and views surrounding this topic, furthered by many people's unwillingness to truly understand the issue. Additionally, economic situations can affect how people respond to climate change. Businesses that deal in industries known to cause climate issues (ex: the fuel industries) take measures to protect their companies through donations and contracts, manipulating those who have the power to control and regulate their industries. However, it is important to spread accurate scientific knowledge about this topic to inform populations and take measures to curb climate change before more major issues occur.
March 22, 2019 at 1:07 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Neel Sheth- Genetic Engineering on Food

Image
Genetic engineering, a practice commonly utilized on food, is the manipulation of an organism's gene makeup through the use of biotechnology. In 1994, the first genetically modified food, the Flavr Savr Tomato, was approved for release. In the 25 years since then, the prevalence of GMO's has increased each year. GMO's are useful from an economic standpoint, as crop yields are greatly increased from the new genetics. However, genetic engineering can have negative effects, such as, a lack of biodiversity, ecological risks, and human health risks. One example of a negative consequence of GMO production is the lack of biodiversity. Genetically modified different species of plants can cause some of these species to become invasive. Because much of the genetic engineering field is an unknown quantity, many of the results can't be predicted with 100% accuracy. For example, a plant may pass a lab inspection and be deemed safe to be planted or grown in an actual environment (...
Read more

Air Pollution Blog by Harrison Cui

Image
Air Pollution Harrison Cui Air pollution is, as we all know, the contamination of air by chemicals or compounds that pose a level of health risk. The World Health Organization estimates there are 4.2 million deaths every year due to ambient air pollution, and they report over 91% of the world’s population live in places where air quality exceeds WHO guidelines. In addition, the Earth’s ozone layer in the stratosphere is being depleted by chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons. The ozone layer is what protects us from harmful UV rays from the sun. We were taught from a very young age what air pollution is, how it’s caused, and what can be done to slow its progression. I remember walk-or-ride-your-bike-to-school day was a huge deal at Old Settlers Elementary, but nowadays I don’t see the same enthusiasm or effort to be a greener people. Granted less than half of an elementary school student body riding bikes to school 1 day out of 365 is microscopic, it was someth...
Read more

Nikhil Guddati - Ice Cream and the Environment

Image
Nikhil Guddati - Ice Cream and the Environment Ice cream. Pure joy. Utter bliss. Unparalleled happiness. Environmental destruction. Humanity’s one sweet, sticky, gooey pleasure might not be as sweet as it seems, and it might not even remain our one true pleasure for long. The production of ice cream continues to corrupt the environment, and at the same time, the environment may mark an end to ice cream. Ice cream, no matter how pleasurable it is, harms the environment through an excess amount of emissions, furthering climate change. However, at the same time, an increase in climate change may mark an end to ice cream. Ice cream is creating its own kryptonite. One way in which ice cream destroys the environment is from the extraction of palm oil, an essential ingredient in ice cream. In fact, the World Wildlife Magazine writes that palm oil is essential in giving ice cream its smooth and creamy texture, yet its extraction threatens rainforests and bio...
Read more