Climate change denial a reflection of the interlinked state of corporate and political affairs
By: Matthew Gavidia
March 10, 2019
Coverage on climate change often leads readers in a constant loop that both fails to distinguish exactly what it is and discredits its effect on the global economy. President Trump managed to do both recently as his tweet describing the extreme cold weather in Chicago highlights his continued misinterpretation of climate change and his ignorance in learning. The tweet can be found below.
As intensifying weather conditions continue to showcase the credibility of climate change, it is alarming to see so many prominent figures in the media eschew or poke fun at its existence. It’s often these trivial slights, casted by figures like President Trump, that become synonymous with climate change and consequently impede public opinion.
So, what exactly is climate change and what causes it? Moreover, why has it been so widely discredited in the media?
As opposed to Trump’s inclinations that pertain to global warming as a mere increase in temperature from say 3 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit, it has a far more intricate impact that explains the underlying reasons behind extreme weather conditions. While this warming does in fact increase the temperature, it is this increase that deteriorates surrounding ecosystems and results in the alteration of the global climate.
The NRDC, an environmental organization who prioritizes the preservation of natural ecosystems, describes climate change as an amplifier of severe weather conditions as essentially “wet areas become wetter and dry areas drier.” This effect can have catastrophic consequences on the global environment, primarily low-income areas, as these amplified conditions subject vulnerable communities to inescapable dangers.
This can be seen through California, a usually dry climate, who has experienced recent water droughts and a devastating wildfire that killed upwards of 87 people. When visiting the town of Paradise in the immediate aftermath of the natural disaster, Trump described what he found as “total devastation” and that “we’ve never seen anything like this yet.”
Trump further voiced his disbelief as he told reporters that “I think people have to see this really to understand it.” Although Trump witnessed the impact of California’s natural disaster, he remains a major critic of climate change’s legitimacy. This leads to the subsequent question of why?
The chart above portrays the amount of political campaign contributions from corporate entities over the past two decades which coincide with the increased knowledge of climate change.
The political action committee, PAC, pools campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to campaigns for or against candidates. This process is vital in understanding the increased suppression of climate change advocacy as often candidates who accept these PACs become representatives of these corporations.
As a politician’s campaign relies on donations, advocating against the functions of connected corporations would result in their funding being retracted. Furthermore, the ability to fund campaigns against candidates leads to a difficult battle for politicians as they face pressure from oil and gas industries to avoid any talk about climate change.
Whether Trump genuinely feels that climate change is a hoax, or if his campaign is being funded to say so, remains a subjective argument. Chicago, which suffered such blistering cold weather that the railways caught fire, is the latest region to be victimized by the exploitative nature of corporate and political affairs.
xxx
