Only Advocacy Can Change Attitudes About Climate Change. Extreme Weather Won’t

[Dobhal, Shivani]

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/04/24/advocacy-can-change-attitudes-climate-change-extreme-weather-wont/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

[Arslan Ijaz]

A very interesting article indeed. It's sad but it's true that people are divided into political groups and their thinking is affected by their political views. Democrats and Republicans are seeing the same thing differently and they try to defend it. Instead of thinking on their own, people are letting their leaders play around with their thoughts. It's definitely a valid point that these surveys are conducted for a small number of people and it's not right to generalize the results based on those people's views. In order to get the real results, we need to conduct surveys around the world and involve more population. I don't agree with the author that extreme weather does not effect much on the views about climate change. Well, it definitely matters a lot but you need advocacy on top of that to change the approach.People are more likely to take a problem seriously when there is a solution given to them with the problem statement. Just telling them about the issue and not providing any solution will not work and they will ultimately forget about it. These fossil fuels have taken up the market just because they are cheap. When we come up with new alternatives that are of similar cost or even cheaper than these fuels, we will actually take this discussion to the next step of taking action and using those new alternatives. Until then, it will just be a discussion between two groups and there will be no real results. 

[Chun S]

This is sad to see people don’t learn until their life get on a line. We have seen so many extreme weathers happened next to us, such as the hurricane, storm, tornado, tsunami, extreme cold or hot. Some people think this is because of global warming, and some people think this is normal. It doesn’t matter which is true, but the article pointed out that the democrat’s supporters tend to believe the climate changing occurs due to human, and the republicans don’t. They would rather be the echo chambers of the specific party but not doing the research by themselves. Climate change shouldn’t be a political battle.

[Martinez, Alfred S.]

The title of this article is misleading and untrue, in my opinion. Advocacy, although can be a major factor is swaying opinions of climate change, it is not the sole source. I do agree with the statements that persistent advocacy will create more awareness and generate more enthusiasm. Those that champion this effort, however, do need impactful examples to supplement their conversations.Take a workplace setting for example: in my experience when one proposes an idea it does not take effect right away. If one only brings it up one time, then that person can forget about their proposal every taking shape. One would have to be persistent in reaffirming their idea and making sure to gain a good base that listens - this will, in a lot of cases, be a constant battle. The possibilities are that one may gain some supporters and one may rile up some oppositions (similar to the struggle between liberals and conservatives). One must constantly advocate their idea, have other team members get on board and advocate said idea as well. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, after all.

[Arslan Ijaz]

Alfred I agree with you that we need to be consistent with the advocacy to realize the importance of a matter. But as I mentioned earlier, we need the impact first. If people see that some thing odd has happened and then we raise that issue, it will catch the attention of the audience easily. Just not that, we need to raise the issue with the solution so that it is felt to be a problem with a solution. At that point, we will have a long lasting support of the people with us. 

[Dobhal, Shivani]

I found this article pretty interesting, mainly because it addresses a very hot topic at this day and age. The author of this article brings up references to several studies measuring out the general American mood and opinion towards climate change. I could not agree more with the author on his findings that a sudden heat wave or a severe storm brings about some kind of 'mass hysteria' amongst Americans, only to be completely forgotten in a month or two. I cant help but relate these kinds of attitudes to how we sometimes react towards terrorist attacks. For instance, terrorist attacks on different parts of the world bring about a sense of anger and helplessness amongst people, followed by rants all over social media. Several political and social groups pledge to fight against terrorism and do recognize that it is a very serious threat to mankind, and rightfully so. However, after a brief spike in interest, people go on with their lives like those events hardly made any impact on their lives. Only advocacy and a persistent push towards the issue will actually make people sit up and notice. In the end, it is on influential people such as world leaders, senators and congressmen, celebrities, sportsmen and news reporters to actually provide coverage to the matter of global warming and shape the public opinion. I believe these people have the kind of exposure and social platform and should definitely use that power to spike people's interest in this matter. Global warming is real and is happening, we are all aware of that! As commoners, we could do our own bit to help support this cause. There are several social groups that we could try to be a part of and bring about change. Of course, these things take time and you have to be patient and determined in your cause, but I completely agree with the author when he says that well-defined, persistent battles could shift opinions and we should not wait for a massive storm to hit to start thinking on this major issue.

[Dobhal, Shivani]

Chun, I agree that climate change should not be a political battle and people shouldn't act like puppets at the hands of political leaders. However, our society is structured in a way that some influential people will always be at the top, voicing their opinions and actually having the power to swing things their way. We, as commoners, can only support what's right or wrong according to our personal beliefs. In my opinion and from what I get from the news these days, the democratic party has long expressed concerns on global warming and Obama had put some strong regulations in place to reduce pollution from fossil-fuel powered plants. From what I hear, he is also a very strong advocate of clean and green energy initiatives. Republicans on the other hand, think of this as a war on coal and are all about opposing this matter. Using the matter of global warming solely to swing votes is definitely wrong but people should make an effort to understand that it is truly happening and something needs to be done to curb it so our future generations don't suffer.

[Agustin Quintana]

I thought this article was interesting because of the way people think about climate change. I agree that extreme weather is not going to convince people who don't agree about global warming, similarly how some people say smoking doesn't give you cancer. The biggest challenge of getting the public motivated around climate change issues is that climate does not immediately impact your day. This article shows that when the economy is bad or there are national security issues, global warming is not a concern for people. This allow the global warming opposition to dismiss the issue under the pretense of bigger things to worry about. I think the way to fight this issue is by education and spreading of knowledge. It should be mandatory in every school science class to learn the effects of burning fossil fuels on the environment. As the people are more educated they will push towards green solutions.