Climate of Doubt

“Climate of Doubt” deals with increasing tensions between scientists, skeptics, republicans and democrats, over the issue of global warming. The concern started gaining national attention around mid 2006, after Al Gore’s speeches on global warming deeply impacted the media, government and skeptics. Throughout the whole documentary, scientists – and most democrats - are working to prove that global warming (which should have been called climate change ever since) is man made, while skeptics and most republicans argue otherwise. The elections were approaching in 2008 and climate change was a huge topic in both Republican and Democrat runs. Tensions started to rise and especially after Obama’s election in 2009, when proposed legislation to incorporate the Cap and Trade agreement. Obama was highly criticized by most Republicans (and skeptics) for having communist views, increasing taxes and spending money on what did not matter. Until today the issue is still hanging around with no definitive view on this bill, still people have opposing views and are waiting the government’s decision.
The American governing system is full of mysteries and rules that make a huge difference in understanding the system. Not only did this documentary expand my knowledge on American politics, it also made some thoughts become concrete. In regards to most republicans, it is hard to look with respect to people that are insensible, blind and “cold-hearted” supporter . While watching the documentary, it was hard to believe in the atrocities that they said, defended and promoted. My education and concepts completely supports environmental protection/sustainability, therefore allying myself with the liberals. At one point of the documentary, skeptics argued that “maybe global warming is good for the planet” or “it’s a natural cycle”, which were miserable phrases to hear. It was difficult to acknowledge how people stood up against scientists trying to completely discredit their findings. Clearly, these Republican thoughts come from their economic centered world, making the Cap and Trade agreement that Obama asked for an unsupported idea.
The proposed Cap and Trade bill is an interesting law that should pass on and have major impacts on the way businesses do business. Although it would mean higher tax bills, it would also provide incentives for people and businesses to engage in sustainable practices. The solution to avoid these high taxes would be exactly to invest in sustainable practices (whether for home or work) in order to get these taxes deducted. The intent of the bill is for people to control/reduce their carbon emissions, ultimately protecting our planet but also investing in a new market. The “Green market” would (is) expand, and while having the potential to generate huge revenues it would also mean higher costs but protecting our mother nature. The idea that this bill will generate higher costs and government control scares away organizations that do “bad business” and others that don’t care for the environment.
Furthermore, the issue on climate-gate really caught my attention due to the way in which Republicans and skeptics took advantage of it. Leaked scientists emails were used by skeptics to prove scientists were wrong, and even after studies were done to prove otherwise, the long lasting impacts of the emails were in favor of the skeptics. Climate gate is a clear example of how skeptics used media in the best way possible to, provoke doubt in the population, discredit scientists and try to gain time over the Cap and Trade agreement. This documentary clearly demonstrates all of the aspects needed to generate social change. According to Marx, all changes result from a clash between two opposites and in this situation there were essentially two parties: pro-environment or anti-environment. What president Obama was trying to alter, changes completely work patterns of organizations and would also represent different ways of life for all citizens. This change was enough to generate social tensions and conflicts arose. Undoubtedly, most people have set in their minds whether they support protecting our environment or not, but there are many people that still have to develop the idea that protecting environment is indeed necessary. Society and social beliefs follows the same process as a person’s life: development – maturity – decline – death. What this represents is our society still has to develop and mature these ideas for future generations to use them. The decline and death, in this case, means that people from this generation who do not believe in environmental protection, will gradually vanish and all people will believe in environmental protection; leaving this issue in the past. Furthermore, the documentary mentioned grassroots supporters and consumer boycott, which is an element that people use when they are angry with “change”. When people discovered Exxon Mobil was in support of Heartland Institute, consumer boycott groups were targeting Exxon. Along with boycotts, another very common social change reaction is grassroots movement. Republicans went on grassroots campaigns to demonstrate that Cap and Trade was a bad move by the government. They did this through flyers, ads and campaigns in diverse place and really small towns. All of these aspects represent conflicts rising between two opposing parties and how the resistance movement sometimes takes advantage because society is not ready for change. The fight to change the way our businesses work has to continue and become stronger. As well said by the scientific community: delay is something that the planet can’t afford.