By Congress formally acknowledging climate change, the debate can be shifted from whether it actually exists, to how it can be best controlled.  Climate change is a time sensitive issue and the longer our government fails to even acknowledge its existence, the harder it will be for future generations to correct the consequences of our current politicians defiant ignorance.

On July 28, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) blocked a resolution seeking to formally acknowledge climate change’s existence and its threat to the United States. Since then, there has been no further legislative discussion. On Sunday, The Washington Post ran an editorial board saying that, “The National debate on climate change has devolved.” This is an issue that needs to move forward, not backwards. 

The issue of climate change has become increasingly politicized and has served as a divider between most Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Inhofe may be our nation’s most prominent and outspoken denier. A July 28 article from The Hill had him quoted saying that climate change is a “hoax” and a result of government “colluding.” 

In response to Inhofe blocking the resolution, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) delivered an impassioned speech directly criticizing all climate change deniers. Whitehouse points out that the Dept. of Defense, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration all unanimously agree that climate change is a dire threat to our country and that steps must be taken to ensure the safety of our people. These entities are established to serve the public interest. Claims of collusion are preposterous. 

Whitehouse is no stranger when it comes to publicly challenging climate change deniers. In a Nov. 13, 2013 speech he cited a study conducted by the League of Conservation Voters saying that 53 percent of Republican voters under the age of 35 would call climate change deniers “ignorant,” “out of touch” or “crazy.” 

It’s not as if our government has always had a partisan stance on our environment. The Environmental Protection Agency was formed under President Richard Nixon, as well as the Clean Air and Water Act, in 1970. Somewhere down the road, regulating our affect on our environment became a wedge issue, one that is currently endangering the lives of our generation and generations to come. 

According to 2011 data from the PEW research center, 71 percent of millennials and 69 percent of Generation X believed that the United States should prioritize developing alternative energies rather than continuing to use current energy sources linked to climate change.

Young voters are gaining increasing power on this issue and soon it will be in the best interest of anti-climate change politicians to switch their stance. Unfortunately, votes are not the only thing politically valued right now.

To attempt to understand why an issue as straightforward as this is met with vehement opposition, it is best to follow the money. A May 8 Huffington Post article detailed how Wyoming, the nations leading coal producing state, is the first state to reject new K-12 science education standards. Republican Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead described them as inclusive of “global warming components.” This is no coincidence.

Those who reject climate change represent states that financially benefit from existing industries. The problem is that these existing industries have deep pockets and a vested interest in continuing business as usual. The politicians who benefit from these industries, however, need to consider the bigger picture rather than short-term economic gain.

The longer our politicians fail to act, the more ground we will have to make up and, at a certain point, it will be too late.    

Azor Cole is a junior public relations major and geography minor. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at azcole@syr.edu.

Published on August 27, 2014 at 12:12 am