I believe that truth in life is learned because everything is viewed from perspective and it takes adaptability and openness to discuss everything so we can hold truth. Truth is built upon faith and fact, faith in the ability to trust the methods of reasoning to draw conclusions. Because only God knows all from all perspectives so it is essential to question the methods and conclusions of everything. Similarly no person can possibly hold a monopoly on truth. There is always a bigger picture and many people depending on their level on the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, determines what level people can solve problems. For a problems of proportions of climate change that is so foreign to most people when they are not focused on the big picture but on things like short term survival or happiness.
It is easy to rationalize flawed science or projections as misinformation however this is detrimental to the science of climate change because now the reliability of today’s projections are going to be questioned at the least. Even with sound science supporting the problem and providing a solution there is always the biggest problem of all: implementation and political viability. Economics is a science and they study, create solutions to problems, but then nothing is solved because the solution is not politically viability. The biggest problem is not internal because our emission capacity is already high; it is the developing nations which cannot thrive on expensive alternative energy that create policy issues because there will be a double standard.
Regarding the political forces regardless of party affiliation, they serve constituents and are influenced by the power of special interest groups. It is not a surprise to me that even the Democratic Party which campaigned on climate change legislation would in a position to do so not. After identifying a problem and a solution to the problem the real battle lies in the method in which you solve the problem. In politics there is always opposition or it wouldn’t even be a political question. The best solution is not the method used but rather the method which meets the least political opposition is chosen. In some cases like Social Security opposition prevents any solutions from being implemented.
The largest problem with climate change legislation is that the proposals impose regulations and limits to emissions called a carbon “footprint”. The problem is in the incentives. The goal of emission reduction can be reached if the energy producers are put out of business but obviously that harms those companies. The proposed plans are all negative in that saving the environment will cost them in both efficiency, regulation, and other penalties. I would recommend taking the money from enforcement and regulatory/policy creation to provide benefits for companies which use green methods and reduce emissions. Supply and demand will also create incentives for more efficient alternatives. If organizations serious in their environmental concerns would purchase rainforests that need protected, if they purchased large amounts of demanded products that emit toxins into the atmosphere supply and demand would raise prices reducing consumption by customers. I believe there are economic incentive solutions which will start people innovating to gain actual rewards versus the idea that they are being forced to ‘help’ the environment through force.
