Reference no: EM133191663 , Length: Word count: 600 words

Assignment Task 1: It is not hard to see that scientist and politicians have very different views on climate change. Politicians tend to follow the money and give preference to those that have it. Those that are wealthy get major tax breaks and have minimal government regulation of land use (including the pollution that they create) (Krieger, 2020). Meaning that they are able to pay their way out of having to follow the rules and the politicians just allow them. It is scary to think that just because someone has a lot of money that gives them a lot of power and authority to do what they want regardless of how it affects everyone else. Another issue that we hear about often when it comes to politicians and climate change is lack of funding. If you take a look at the funding of the EPA from 2022 and compare it to 2017, there has been a $1.5 billion budget increase, but their workforce is almost 1,000 people short ("EPA's Budget and Spending," n.d.). I found this to be interesting because even though funding has improved, their workforce can also use a lot more people.

Scientists on the other hand are advocating that big, immediate change to be done. Humans have made obvious effects on the planet and its climate and what scientists used to think would happen many decades down the line is occurring now. We are seeing record high temperatures that will continue to rise in the years that follow. Some seasons are getting longer while others are shortening. We are continually experiencing weather extremes, whether it be dramatic increased precipitation or heat waves. Hurricanes are getting stronger and more frequent as the years go by ("The effects of climate change," 2021). The facts and proof are there. It has happened within our lifetime and until politicians put aside their own beliefs and start listening to the scientists while also making real change in policies, it will be hard to slow down the damage that is already happening.

Assignment Task 2: Climate and weather patterns across the globe have been changing at an increasing pace in recent decades (Cloern et al., 2016). Research shows that this is a human-driven problem. Multiple "solutions" and mitigation strategies have been come to by those in the field with varying responses to each (Hughes, 2017). To express the scientific response to this phenomenon can be summed up with the idea that there is dire need for rapid change in multiple areas (Chakrabarty, 2017 & Perreault, 2020). Research has shown repeatedly that climate change is already creating disastrous weather patterns resulting in significant loss and it will continue to worsen the longer nothing is done to instate strong mitigation strategies. It would seem only logical that politics and governments would take these warnings seriously and push to create significant climate change mitigation policies worldwide. However, it is disheartening that this is not the case. 

Politics often take a stance of for or against, as if climate change is a true/false issue to be argued as opposed to a scientifically researched subject with worldwide implications. To worsen the situation, many politicians who deny human involvement in climate often receive money from the industries that contribute to climate change (Brulle&Werthman, 2021). Their actions have resulted in creating space for debating an undebatable issue that would be better utilized in discussing solutions (Brulle&Werthman, 2021). In total, the political response, in the United States at least, has been underwhelming. The political discourse on climate change has been one-dimensional at best and based on small facets of possible change instead of any sort of "big picture" changes (Perreault, 2020). The subject is emotionally charged, which keeps many climate forward policies from being put into place (Hughes, 2017).  It is alarming that this is such a polarizing political discussion at all despite consensus in the scientific community that something needs to be done, and quickly.