The documentary begins by noting that climate change doubters have a wide variety of reasons to support their assertions. The notion that climate change is motivated by public fear is erroneous, to say the least. It means that investments in renewable energy are futile, even in the face of smog in the main urban environments. Climate change is also an imminent threat, agreed by the lion’s share of scientists. It means there have been concerted research efforts aimed at understanding the issue, culminating in the publication of numerous peer-reviewed articles and journals. The resounding theme through a majority of the empirical efforts is the looming threat of climate change as well as the ultimate culprit being humans.
It is also worth noting how capitalistic minded persons and organizations derail the train of thought advocating for climate change. The emphasis on increasing trade opportunities at the expense of the environment is not only careless but selfish as most of the proceeds in the international scene are gobbled up by developed nations. It means these countries will stand a greater chance of succeeding economically at the expense of poorer nations, while they will equally bear the adverse consequences of increased industrial activity. These economic benefits would also prove useful in developed nations, where they will provide superlative care to patients with health problems caused by increasing pollution while other countries suffer.
It is also ironic that a politician, who is the vice chair of the House Science Committee, vilifies climate change. Individuals occupying public positions should be concerned with improving the lives of the electorate, as opposed to inciting the public to obliterate itself through high emission processes. Rep. James Sensenbrenner should be criticized for his stance on the environment, unlike his political counterpart, Al Gore. The association of the climate change debate as a battle between two political factions was also problematic.
The divisive nature of the cutthroat US political environment has forced politicians to obey the will of the masses, even if they are wrong. The populist nature of US political participation has changed the public’s understanding of real issues affecting the society, not only within the country’s borders but also across the international domain. The role of the media in the vilification of climate change is also a tough nut to crack, particularly due to the gullibility of the audience. Such naivety allows news and mainstream media outlets to propagate false news, which changes the perception of the public on critical issues. The rise of headlines and misleading contexts within the media sources allows people to oppose scientifically explained phenomena with ease.
The sociologist noted how climate change naysayers are getting empowered, which is through liberal and ideologically-driven organizations, instead of the traditional fossil fuel firms and their subsidiaries. It is important that the efforts against climate change are supported by radical groups, which have a history of supporting controversial causes for the sake of publicity. An example of an ideological faction includes the White Supremacists, which advocates racial prejudice across all platforms. The existence of such groups and a multitude of supporters does not indicate that racial discrimination is prevalent in the country.
The climate scientist noted that his contribution to the topic would preempt FOIA requests from climate change skeptics. The lengths with which these naysayers go in the course of frustrating their ideological opponents is alarming, which could even discourage more introverted scientists from refraining from voicing their support for climate change. It is the same conviction that would dampen their resolve to raise awareness of the dangers of incessant and unrestricted emissions.
The Americans for Prosperity president mentioned that the movement gained traction following the 2008 crisis. The connection between the naiveté of the public and public support towards unconventional policies is real, especially when economic stability is the government’s responsibility. It means flaws in governance will be readily exploited by publicity-hungry groups, taking advantage of these problems to increase their popularity. Such artlessness defines the multitude of climate change doubters, who are majorly ordinary citizens in the grassroots with minimal education.
He reiterated that ExxonMobil, which is a fossil fuel-dependent company, led the revolt against the scientific community, using endless resources to increase the propaganda against climate change. It is worth noting that these substantiated allegations were allegedly committed in 1997, which is roughly twenty years ago. Such an extent of time indicates that many companies joined the bandwagon against climate change, using explicit tactics to guarantee perpetual existence in the market.
Paris Agreement (2016)
The agreement under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was designed to increase the mitigation efforts in the course of dealing with rising emission levels. The over 195 delegates proposed to implement radical changes beginning in 2020, aimed at restricting the incremental temperature range by 2 degrees Celsius. It is also worth noting that the delegates agreed to increase the ability of member states to foster low greenhouse gasses emitted to the environment.
These conclusions were directed at efforts that were designed not to affect the global production of food for consumption adversely. Additionally, the Paris agreement stipulated for the institution of finance mechanisms directed at curbing emissions. It means countries with reduced emissions will benefit from financial kickbacks in the form of incentives.
The convention aimed at setting a good precedent in the fight against greenhouse gasses, which have substantiated the consequence of the unrestricted human activity of the planet.