Climate Change After Mid-Term Election

Climate Change After Mid-Term Election

The activists, scientists, and policymakers working on slowing (hopefully stopping and reversing, but let’s start with the small steps) climate change, took an enormous hit this mid-term election due to the Senate majority moving into the hands of the GOP. This means the lead climate-change-denier GOP Senator Jim Inhofe is taking over the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

The environment could not have sustained a bigger blow when it comes to the policies we need moving forward. Stephen Colbert’s humorous take on Inhofe’s promotion to the chair takes the edge off — but only slightly.

 

Climate Change: I am not a Scientist and Next Steps

What does the phrase, “I am not a scientist” really mean here? It means politicians don’t even have to pretend to listen to the people who are actually scientists, who are actually conducting research on climate change, and who know without a doubt what needs to happen to slow the onslaught of crises that will come with sitting on our hands claiming innocence of knowledge.

It means they do not have to take action.

There is clear scientific consensus that climate change is real and due to human activities. Congress must act. The EPA must use its authority to limit carbon pollution. The people must educate themselves, each other, and push for better. It is up to us all now.

I have to believe that we fundamentally all have this same common link and recognize its importance…

 

How do you feel about this mid-term election and the role it plays in our environment? Does the outcome leave you searching for actions to take, organizations to support, or other roles? I would love to hear from you!

 

 

 

8 Replies to “Climate Change After Mid-Term Election”

  1. I’m glad you shared the Colbert link. Honestly, I have to laugh about this stuff or I will cry. That the news just keeps getting worse and worse, the science more clear and yet we seem further and further from real action is disheartening. I don’t know where to go from here other than to try and educate as many people as possible in as many ways as possible.

    1. Yes, the must-laugh-or-cry situation is often needed. I do believe that education is the key, but when we have purposeful ignorance and misinformation as part of our political rhetoric we face an uphill climb. My hope, and courage, comes from knowing there are lots of people out there who care.

  2. I think we’ve got our work cut out for us. If there is one lesson I’ve learned in the past several years it’s that we need to do a lot of education about how science works with the American public. Whether it’s climate change skeptics or anti-vaccine enthusiasts, we really don’t understand how science works and what “scientific consensus” means and why that is so important. And it’s time to get money out of politics!

    1. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head regarding education on science, Lindsay. It is unfortunate that we really and truly do not understand how science works in so many of instances. Scientists are braving a new world of communicating the right messages to the public, but something is still getting lost. I think science communication and science is journalism is needed now more than ever, but we’re losing the will and the funds to create and keep those positions. Getting the money out of politics would do a world of good!

  3. I also enjoy Colbert. Thanks for bringing attention to this issue. On a different but related topic some good news – historic climate change deal, US and China agree to cut greenhouse gases.

Comments are closed.