Upon reflection of today’s discussion in class, I found that
one of the most interesting topics we reflected on was that those who practice
religion (particularly Christianity), are greatly offended when someone else
interprets their faith in a way that does not exactly conform to their ideas. The
example we discussed in class was the Madonna music video “Like a Prayer,” for
her portrayal of Jesus. We concluded in class that this music video was banned because
the majority of the United States population were Christians, and they found
this portrayal of their faith blasphemous. Upon reviewing/skimming Chapter 6 in
our textbook, I came across a similar scenario about the Arkansas “monkey law,”
which prohibited the teaching of evolution in Arkansas public schools. Unlike
the Madonna video though, the attempt of banning the teaching of Darwin and his
theory of evolution were decreed unconstitutional. “The law’s effort was
confined to an attempt to blot out a particular theory because of its supposed
conflict with the Biblical account, literally read. Plainly, the law is
contrary to the mandate of the First, and in violation of the Fourteenth,
Amendment to the Constitution.” (Tedford and Herbeck 144).
For
centuries science and its empirical findings have been persecuted and shunned
by others, religious or not. In the last few decades though, science has finally
become rooted in our accepted social dogma, or so it appeared. Recently, it seems
increasingly more groups are appearing that deny the validity of science and/or
revert to old, disproven belief, e.g. flat earth theorists and the Trump administration.
For this discussion, I am going to focus on the Trump administration and their policy
of disregarding the reality of climate change. In wake of hurricanes Harvey and
Irma, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson has made a statement regarding the state of the
climate control debate.
In an
interview with CNN, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson stated that, “climate change had
become so severe that the country ‘might not be able to recover.’” (King). He
further went on to say that “he had no patience for those who… ‘cherry pick’
scientific studies according to their belief system… [when] an emergent
scientific truth…requires more than one scientific paper.” (King). Essentially,
Dr. Tyson is saying that too many people, especially those in power, will only
accept scientific truths and theories that suit their purpose and will
disregard those that are inconvenient to them. As an individual dedicated to
science, I agree completely with Dr. Tyson. Too many in our society so easily dismiss
scientific findings proven through rigorous empirical observation and
experimentation just because it doesn’t fit their version of the world.
Leonardo DiCaprio
is of the same opinion. While making a guest appearance at Yale University with
former Secretary of State John Kerry, DiCaprio said that, “future generations
will vilify current politicians who deny and refuse to fight climate change…[and]
[w]e should not have people in office who do not believe in facts, in truths,
in modern science, that are able to manipulate and risk the entire future of
this entire generation.” (Blistein). Once again, my thoughts echo this exactly.
If you want to deny climate change, and other scientific proofs, then you shouldn’t
be allowed to hold a position of power where your choices will hinder the
efforts of those who are actively searching for a solution. The same can be
said for any political issue really; if you aren’t offering a solution or plan
to resolve the problem, then you shouldn’t be able to hold an office with
immense power and influence.
Although the
Freedom of Speech protects the right to disagree with these scientific truths, I
believe that political action needs to be taken to limit the influence of those
who would adversely affect the search for a solution to climate change; just as
the Supreme Court acted to ensure that the teaching of evolution was not banned
because it directly contradicted the Bible. Normally, I would never advocate limiting
the power of others based on their beliefs, but because climate change is not
only an issue that will affect us but all future generations as well, I believe
it might become a necessary step to take if more political leaders don’t
recognize the true threat of climate change. To quote Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson
one last time, “The day two politicians are arguing about whether science is
true, it means nothing gets done. Nothing” (King).
Sources
Blistein, Jon. “Leonardo
DiCaprio: Politicians Denying Climate Change Will ‘Be Vilified’.” RollingStone, 21 Sept. 2017, http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/leonardo-dicaprio-climate-change-deniers-will-be-vilified-w504773,
Accessed 21 Sept. 2017.
King, Alexandra. “Neil deGrasse Tyson says it might be ‘too
late’ to recover from climate change.” CNN,
18 Sept. 2017, http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/17/us/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-climate-change-cnntv/index.html,
Accessed 21 Sept. 2017.
Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the Unites States.
8th ed. Strata Publishing, INC., 2017.
To propose that political action be taken to "limit the influence of those who would adversely affect the search for a solution to climate change" requires a much greater deal of specificity. What does this mean? Does it imply that candidates for public office who don't have a plan to combat climate change should not be allowed to run? If so, how would this measure be achieved? Is it constitutional to begin with? This statement raises many questions.
ReplyDeleteI'm very much in favor of adopting policies like a price on carbon (such as Mankiw's carbon tax proposal), but I believe the best way to advocate for these is to push open debates about the merits of such public policy prescriptions. One measure I would strongly support that I believe would hold our potential elected officials more accountable would be to ask more questions about climate change during debates. In the 2016 presidential debates, for example, this topic was all but ignored - Clinton had no opportunity to voice her opinion and policy proposals regarding this pressing issue, and it can be argued that Trump dodged a bullet by not having to address this debate - something that he's clearly unconcerned with.
Sources:
Letzter, Rafi. “One of the Most Influential Economists in the World Explains Why a Carbon Tax Is a Good Idea.” Business Insider, 1 Nov. 2016, www.businessinsider.com/gregory-mankiw-harvard-professor-carbon-tax-2016-11.
Schwartz, John, and Tatiana Schlossberg. “For Clinton and Trump, There's Little Debating a Climate Change Divide.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 17 Oct. 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/science/hillary-cinton-donald-trump-global-warming.html?mcubz=3.
Now that you bring it up, I do realize that my suggestion to "limit the influence of those who would adversely affect the search for a solution to climate change" is far too vague, so let me clarify. What I am suggesting is that when debates and legislative sessions are held to discuss climate change, only those who recognize climate change as a real danger to the world are allowed to attend. This will hopefully make it so that policies can actually be proposed and enacted to combat climate change instead of the session turning into a heated debate over whether it is real or not. Bringing it back to Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, "The day two politicians are arguing about whether science is real means nothing gets done. Nothing" (King). I specifically chose this quote to end my initial post because it emphasizes the fact that no progress can be made when one side is trying to simply convince the other side that there is even a problem in the first place. The situation is only worsened when the other side vehemently refuses to be persuaded by rigorous, empirical data and sound reasoning.
DeleteAs far as the carbon tax proposal, I believe that it would be a good start. However, I don't believe in the long run it will a huge difference. Our society requires vasts amount of electricity on a daily basis, and I don't see this changing anytime soon. The only true solution I see to this conundrum is an alternative source of energy that is clean, renewable, and economical. When funding is cut and advocacy is diminished though, agencies and research groups that are focused on the development of this alternative fuel are hampered, and the longer their efforts are inhibited, the less likely it becomes that we will find a solution in time to make a difference.
This is my reasoning as to why only those who accept that climate change is happening should be permitted to join debates and discussions concerning the matter. Ultimately, time is our greatest enemy when it comes to combating climate change, which is why we can't afford to be fighting each other over whether or not the issue is real.
Sources
King, Alexandra. “Neil deGrasse Tyson says it might be ‘too late’ to recover from climate change.” CNN, 18 Sept. 2017, http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/17/us/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-climate-change-cnntv/index.html, Accessed 21 Sept. 2017.
I think the debates you're proposing would be an effective measure in pushing our country in the right direction when it comes to the climate change debate.
ReplyDeleteAs an unrelated side note regarding the carbon tax proposal: I believe a price on carbon would inadvertently lead to the development of cheap, renewable energy sources. This is actually one of the key arguments presented by economists like Mankiw, Feldstein, and Halstead in favor of this particular policy. The reasoning goes like this:
When our government wants to correct for a negative externality (or negative side effect) caused by an unregulated action, we tax it. A key example of this is cigarettes: non-smokers are hurt by secondhand smoke, so in order to reduce its scale and potential impact we tax cigarettes so that a) we increase tax revenue and b) we reduce the amount of potential buyers. Not only would a carbon tax reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere due to the financial consequences firms would face for unabated emissions, but it would also incentivize them to develop newer, cleaner sources of energy to avoid incurring the costs they would receive for burning fossil fuels.