In the past, alarmism and panic have dictated environmental policies, leading to extreme reactions from people. For instance, one of my friends completely quit eating meat even though she loves steak because she read that animal farming is bad for the environment. The debate about climate change has not been done in an intellectually honest manner. For instance, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (AOC) Green Deal proposal to address climate change was a façade to restructure the economy (Crowe, 2019). This occurrence shows that the debate about climate policies is not always straightforward.
I think inconsistencies persist because they originate from top officials in government and in the field of science. Ordinary people, such as students, are inclined to believe science experts and politicians without questioning the validity of their claims (Hooten, 2019). An alternative explanation for the continued alarm is that people are reluctant to question “science.” Since the arrival of COVID-19, we have learned that top government officials and scientists use the word “science” to justify policies and expect not to be questioned about their decisions. For instance, anyone who has raised questions about the COVID-19 mandates and vaccines has been labeled an antivaxxer and cast as a social pariah. Science should be about making policies that people understand, yet some individuals treat it as unquestionable.
Economically, it would be expensive to attend to the climate change problem. For instance, AOC’s Green Deal proposal that would apparently fix the climate problem, among other economic and societal issues, would cost $93 trillion over ten years (Crowe, 2019). Although it is costly to deal with the climate change issue, ignoring it would also be expensive. Some scientists believe that climate change will result in famine, drought, and death to ocean ecosystems (Ebell & Milloy, 2019). If these disasters happen, governments all over the world will incur hefty costs to sustain people and restore the economy. Therefore, there are economic ramifications for either choosing to attend to climate change or ignoring it. An alternative route that may be taken is to engage in honest debates about the issue, which will reduce alarmism and defeatism. A calm and honest approach to the issue could also reduce the amount of resources spent on combating climate change.
References
Crowe, J. (2019). AOC’s Chief of Staff admits the Green New Deal is not about climate change. National Review. Web.
Ebell, M., & Milloy, S. J. (2019). Wrong again: 50 years of failed eco-pocalyptic predictions. Competitive Enterprise Institute. Web.
Hooten, K. (2019). College students think world will end in 12 years. The College Fix. Web.