An article published by the British Broadcasting Company recently dove into some of the most obscure yet deadly effects that climate change can have. The authors explain that “climate change is melting permafrost soils that have been frozen for thousands of years, and as the soils melt they are releasing ancient viruses and bacteria that, having lain dormant, are springing back to life.” The article later elaborates, “In August 2016, in a remote corner of Siberian tundra called the Yamal Peninsula in the Arctic Circle, a twelve year old boy died and at least twenty people were hospitalized after being infected by anthrax.” The anthrax was sourced from a reindeer that had thawed and released the disease into the village’s water stream and soil. Animals who carry deadly diseases, diseases that have previously killed entire populations, are de-thawing and infecting environments.

Nothing is preventing this from happening on a larger scale, such as diseases traveling through the ocean and other greater water supplies.

Infected water supplies are only one of the many deadly propositions global warming has to offer. Global warming intensifies weather patterns, leading to higher intensity hurricanes, longer droughts, and larger amounts of precipitation. Northern states are predicted to experience more intense precipitation. However, Southwestern states are expected to see less precipitation. Global warming has many faces, and research clearly outlines this point. A winter with more snow does not disprove climate change. It actually solidifies the reported effects of the temperature increase. The intergovernmental Panel on climate change remarked,“Taken as a whole, the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.”

Greenhouse gases (a term used in reference to the gasses like carbon dioxide that trap heat within the earth’s atmosphere and warm up the planet) prevent large objects from entering our atmosphere and insulating the globe so that people do not freeze at night. However, with the constant burning of fossil fuel, much higher levels of carbon dioxide are being released into our atmosphere. This meaning that the blanket around our earth is becoming thicker and therefore letting significantly less heat escape. We are producing more heat and releasing less. The globe is essentially becoming an oven.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) points to Industry, Electricity, and Transportation as being the three leading causes of these gas emissions. Following closely behind those are Agriculture and commercial/residential. They state, “Electricity production generates the second largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. Approximately 68 percent of our electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, mostly coal and natural gas” (EPA).  

If the globe is facing these destructive problems and the main culprits are large companies, then why do the people in charge fail to implement change? And why has our government not taken steps to enforce preventative change?

In short: Money! It has become increasingly evident that people who currently hold political power in America have positioned themselves against the evidence that proves global warming’s presence. This is the product of politicized science for personal/financial gain.

Despite the fact that the vast majority of scientists globally, agree that human inflicted climate change exists, many politicians (In America) who lean right, rely on the unique case in which a single scientist produces a study that claims they have found no evidence of change. The right and left have both adapted this as a point of debate for essentially one thing, votes. If politicians on the right can promise to neglect what they see as only a mere possibility, and in place “create more jobs” in green gas producing fields like Fracking and Manufacturing, than they have more people on their side. On the left, if politicians can promise to commit themselves to making sure funding is provided to ensure the well-being of our planet, than they in turn get votes as well. They take a side to step into power and they then chose to either care for, or neglect the issue based on what their audience wants.

Politicians and CEOs ignoring the effects that these companies have on the environment do not simply “disagree” with climate change. They just don’t care enough. They don’t have to care, because they will always be able to fall back onto their bank accounts.

For example, when the wildfires spread through California in November of 2018 (one of many deadly scenarios global warming has to offer), if a person was within the middle class, their house and every belonging burned down, but if one happens to be Kim Kardashian, or any other economic elite, they hired private firefighters. The wealthy have the ability to ignore the situations that they contribute to because they are the ones who have the ability to escape. If fleeing to Mars or creating some other sort of sustainable society ever becomes a possibility (and according to Elon Musk, it will be), only the most wealthy citizens, the top of the top, will have that option. It will be the middle and lower class people who suffer as a consequence of the decisions made by those in economic and political power. This is not to say that Kim Kardashian is causing global warming, but people with similar salaries, who run companies that refuse to up their ecological standards, are.

President Trump has, in multiple cases, referred to climate change as a “hoax.” He, in 2017, went as far as to pull the US from the “Paris Agreement,” an agreement in which countries have pledged to lower their emissions of greenhouse gasses and to eventually slow the heating of the earth as a whole. This plan is to be in effect by 2020, and the United States is the only country who is not signed on. When explaining his decision to remove the US from this agreement, the president has expressed that it is “an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries.”

Trump often referenced coal miners when campaigning. He spoke to the claim that many Americans lost their jobs during Obama’s enactment of the “Clean Power Plan.” Though that is true, it has now been revealed that fossil fuel industries have been some of the most lucrative funds that far right campaigns to collect money from. While Trump may have been concerned about the jobs lost, he also greatly benefited by keeping himself close to these organization. Another point often dismissed by right wing politicians is the fact that new energy inherently creates new jobs. The Environmental Defense fund explained, “The most rapid renewable energy job growth has come from the solar and wind sectors, which rose by 24.5 percent and 16 percent, respectively, from 2016 to 2017. Solar and wind energy jobs outnumber coal and gas jobs in 30 states, including the District of Columbia.” Later adding, “The coal industry, which has been declining, now employs 160,000 workers, less than a quarter as many Americans as the renewable energy industry.” It is blatantly clear that there is interest in places other than the creation of jobs.

According to the vast majority of information published by Americans, climate change is real, and as we have already begun to experience, climate change has real effects. So, next time you hear a public figure claiming that climate change is something to be dismissed, remember that it’s your house that will burn down, not theirs.