Global Warming Debate Needs to Be De-politicized

It is not surprising that the issue of global warming has become politicized. Action that can be taken with respect to it runs conveniently along political lines; when one accepts the premise that global warming is man-made, the logical course of action is to request corporations to change methods of production to become more environmentally friendly. This runs directly counter to one mainstay conservative belief: that corporations should face minimal restrictions of any kind from the federal government. Concern regarding the environment then falls by default to the realm of the politically liberal, who have successfully held the mantle of "eco-friendly" for quite some time.

It is unfortunate to say the least that science has been appropriated and segregated neatly along party lines in this way. The public debate regarding global warming appears to be, at least in the culture of the United States, less and less rooted in science and more and more rooted in political stance. As a result, increasingly one's own stance on global warming reflects personal politics more than careful scientific analysis. As the country appears to be more deeply politically polarized, the issue of global warming is just another reflection of violently clashing political ideologies.

There are at least two problems with this development. First, political debate itself appears to have become more antagonistic and less constructive in the recent past. Thus, any political debate seems to involve more veiled name-calling and insults and less rhetorical skill. Any topic that falls within a political realm is twisted, the facts are exaggerated or thrown out altogether in an effort to de-legitimate the opponent. Thus, the population is fed misinformation and outright lies as a by-product of the politicization of global warming. Second, any positive, constructive movement toward a consensus regarding what should or should not be done about global warming is put in check as fairly balanced political powers engage one another in what seems to be an endless struggle. If, indeed, global warming is the result of man's activities, our nation could be coming up with effective solutions instead of being bogged down in political/ideological gridlock.

It is difficult to say whether or not science itself can ever be free from socio-political detritus. Indeed, the possibility of science without prejudice itself has been an issue of debate for quite some time. However, it seems that it is necessary for the scientific community itself to come forward in very public forums and present aspects of the debate to the general public. While much of the public may not be able to grasp the subtleties of scientific analysis, it would be much better than hearing debate from politicians and cultural pundits, many of whom are certainly uneducated in the area of global climatology. In this way, perhaps we can de-politicize the issue of global warming to some degree, and thus be able to make an unprejudiced judgment on how to go forward.