Neha Zafar

Furrha Ahsan

SS100

5th November 2018

Climate change is a terrible problem, and it absolutely needs to be solved. It deserves to

be a huge priority. (Bill Gates)There has been a gradual change in climate throughout our
planet’s existence. It has faced countless ice ages and defrosts, that have multiple factors
accounting to them, such as volcanic activity, solar output, the tilt of the earth’s axis and its orbit
around the sun. However, since all these patterns were natural, the rate at which they occurred
was relatively constant. The Industrial Revolution brought with it a sharp increase in this rate of
the earth’s temperature. According to experts, NASA and IPCC, two very authoritative
organizations on the matter, the global temperature has risen by 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit since
1880, which is thought to have catastrophic impacts in the future along with the existing impacts
that are currently taking place. This fact is known to have anthropogenic association, as is the
consensus of 97% of climate scientists; however, it is not accepted by all. A major percentage of
the deniers are businessmen and women, members of congress, and others involved in the
corporate world, therefore; the question arises of why they “believe” what they do and how their
stance holds so much importance, in comparison to that of climate scientists and experts on the
issue. On the other side, most scientifically literate people do understand the reality of climate
change and its link to human activity. This divide must be looked at in an effort to eradicate the
problem. The actual debate and controversy revolving climate change emerges due to a
misunderstanding of its definition i.e. it refers to the long term global weather conditions and
patterns, and how constant it stays or changes, not merely the fact that it does change. It is
concerned with the rate, which has seen a “hockey-stick” plummet on weather graphs since the
last century. The existential threat that climate change poses is currently not being looked at with
the urgency that it should be, mainly due to the fact that it has numerous factors causing it and
affects various spheres, making it quite a complex issue. In this essay, we explore the undeniable
existence of climate change and the different factors that affect its recognition.

Climate skeptics question the reliability of the scientific models put forth by
climatologists and scientists that predict the impact of climate change. “Skeptical Science” is an
independent online blog that analyses both sides of the climate argument without demonizing
contrary views, and is not affiliated with any political party, corporation or entity. It contains
articles that reviews the research put forth, and agrees with the figures, however, in some cases
states that they were poorly collected. For instance, in 2009 when a global surface temperature
was taken, many of the stations were “poorly sited”, reducing their reliability. “Skeptical
Science” is generally regarded as an authoritative platform (The Washington Post labelled it as
being 'prominent' and 'detailed'), that poses non-biased analyses of scientific research and myths
about climate change, therefore their work can be trusted. The creator of the blog, John Cooke
stated that skepticism is beneficial to reach clarity on this issue; therefore it is necessary to
consider all perspectives on this matter with objectivity. Those that hold the belief that climate
change is not anthropogenic are largely not part of the scientific community, which weakens
their argument since they carry little expertise on the matter. One must question the link with
ignorance on the topic and climate denial, since a large part of the deniers are not scientists.
According to a survey conducted by Pew Research Centre, “a nonpartisan fact tank”, the richest
as well as the countries that are the largest contributors to climate change, such as China and the
United States of America, are more likely to be the ones that see climate change as a non-serious
issue, or one that does not have any immediate consequences. The survey was conducted in
2015, and a relatively wide sample size of 45,435 correspondents from 40 nations was used,
introducing solidity in the sample itself. Since it was also quite recent, the relevance and
moreover the strength and believability of the survey increase.

However, there is still a great deal of polarization on this issue, especially within the corporate
world. One perspective is that climate change is not anthropogenic, and that the scientific articles
against this idea propose predictions that exaggerate its severity, or simply misrepresent
information. This view is also shared with the current President of the United States, Donald
Trump, who stated that “climate change is a hoax created by and for the Chinese”. The
climatologist and scientist, Roy Spencer, who has received funding from the coal company
Peabody Energy and hence has a vested interest which reduces the reliability of his argument,
possesses the belief that a greater amount of carbon dioxide is always better than a smaller
amount. Marc Moranno, a prominent voice in the climate deniers, regularly takes on climate
scientists in arguments on television interviews,. The tactics of deniers like Morrano is to
completely deny and disagree with the facts put forth by their opposing party, which is why it
has been so difficult reaching some agreement on this subject, considering there is virtually no
controversy in its anthropogenic connotations in the minds of scientists. The arguments proposed
by climate deniers have many weaknesses. They make personal attacks on scientists, as Morrano
did, in an interview on the subject on CNN to Bill Nye, a very respectable and renowned
educator and engineer. They also do not accept established science. Generally, they have little
expertise in the subject, compared to those that accept climate change, which further weakens the
strength of their arguments. In the eyes of the scientific community, they pose a threat to
reaching a consensus on and taking action against climate change. Conversely, there is also a
benefit to having their argument- it makes the research of climate acceptors more thorough in
their efforts to convince the deniers.
Leading corporations such as ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, and British Petroleum,
regularly give large funds and donations towards climate opposition groups and political
campaigns that support fossil fuels. Public image is a very important factor for businesses,
therefore they have motives to steer the public’s view on climate change. In 2016, ExxonMobil
faced a lawsuit that stated that they had been knowingly misrepresenting data for anthropogenic
climate change, in their own favor. That same year, as well as in 2009, they faced another
scandal due to charges of dumping thousands of gallons of fuel into rivers. Throughout history,
whenever a scientific fact goes against the wishes of the corporate elite, they heavily oppose it
due to their power in the public sphere. For instance, when Clair Patterson, a geochemist,
discovered the age of the earth by measuring the rate of decay of uranium to lead, he also
discovered the harmful effects of the neurotoxin that was lead. Unfortunately, lead was used in
nearly every major industry at the time including fossil fuels, paints, electric bulbs and the
canning industry. However, Patterson persisted and lead was eventually banned and its deadly
effects were accepted as factual. It is possible that the same case may occur with climate change.
Following the perspective that the corporate world does make an effort to deny climate change,
one must ask the question of why they do so. One reason may be that they benefit from the
public having little knowledge on the subject, so that they can continue their hazardous practices
such as fracking and offshore drilling. Companies that follow environmentally unfriendly
policies face fines and penalties. It requires a great deal of investment and research to completely
transform the actions of corporations into those that are eco-friendly, which is why they may be
hesitant to accept the reality of this issue.
According to “The Economist”, a magazine style newspaper that claims to provide “authoritative
insight and opinion on international news, politics, business, finance, science, technology and the
connections between them”, renewables are more expensive than non-renewables. Denmark and
Germany, where renewable energy is used in large amounts, face one of the highest energy costs
in the developed world. “The Economist” further explains in an article that “many common types
of renewable generators only produce power intermittently—when the sun shines or when the
wind blows” which is why they are not efficient or feasible. Due to the high cost of renewables,
there is also a fear that citizens may import coal or non-renewable forms of energy where it is
cheaper, which is detrimental for the economy. Therefore, dealing with climate change will
definitely take a toll on the economic sector.
In contrast, there are some corporations that accept climate change to exist and believe in
its anthropogenic associations, such as Gap, Old Navy, banana republic, Skittles, Twix, and
many others. Companies like Tesla and IKEA possess the view that since climate change
proposes an existential threat, not only is it logical and economical to invest in its reversal, but is
vital for the continuation of our species. Renewable forms of energy are actually much more
efficient in creating power than non-renewable energy sources, so shifting to their usage would
result in a much more economical way of living. Corporations may have many incentives to
switch to a green lifestyle, such as getting greater returns, ensuring the sustainability and
longevity of their resources (such as fossil fuels which would eventually run out), entering new
opportunities, and one of the most significant reasons to do so is because of their public image.
Businesses that adopt mainstream policies and ideologies are more likely to do well than those
who do not, as the world shifts to accepting the climate science as fact. Climate change will
greatly affect the economic sector. It will result in a shortage of resources, both natural and man-
made due to intense environmental conditions. Their markets and operational systems would
suffer due to this, which would have catastrophic impacts in every possible sphere. This would
ultimately lead to lower and lower profits and returns, greatly impacting global economic
markets. Climate change disturbs every fraction of life, but economics will be one of those most
greatly affected, due to its interrelatedness to other spheres.
Climate denial will likely have no positive impact, because conserving nature can only
result in an improved way of living. Ultimately, corporations are slowly but surely understanding
that attending to the problem of climate change is in their business interest, due to the grave
consequences that can occur, and are continually occurring, if it is neglected. It can bring about
increased innovation in attempts to eradicate the problem, which may prove to be beneficial for
corporations. The leading solution is to increase awareness about the urgency and seriousness of
this issue and by which it should be looked at, which will mainly be carried out through the
media and governments.
 Thus taking into account the empirical data as well research done by scientists makes
climate change an undeniable issue that needs to be made a priority as stated by Bill Gates. It has
further strengthened the notion that climate change is an existential threat that affects every
sphere in life, especially the economic one, and that no one can possibly benefit from it, be it
long or short term. Furthermore, it has also inspired me to believe that every scientific work must
be looked at with an open mind and skepticism is healthy since it determines strengths and
weaknesses amongst existing arguments and evidences.
Word Count: 1937
Bibliography

D'Angelo, Chris. "Exxon Mobil Sued Over Climate Change Cover-Up." The Huffington Post.
TheHuffingtonPost.com, 30 Sept. 2016. Web. 06 Nov. 2018.
DeMelle, Brendan. "Top 10 Climate Deniers." Before the Flood. N.p., 21 Oct. 2016. Web. 06
Nov. 2018.
Dunbar, Brian. "What Are Climate and Climate Change?" NASA. NASA, 09 June 2015. Web. 06
Nov. 2018.
Eccles, Dr. Bob. "Corporations And Climate Change: Who Will Lead The Way?" Forbes.
Forbes Magazine, 26 Apr. 2016. Web. 06 Nov. 2018.
Griffin, Andrew. "Something Revolutionary Has Just Happened to Solar Power, and It
Could Change Everything." The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media,
05 Jan. 2017. Web. 06 Nov. 2018.
Howard, Emma. "Corporate Leaders Still in Denial on Climate Change." The Guardian.
Guardian News and Media, 15 Jan. 2016. Web. 06 Nov. 2018.
Lartey, Jamiles. "'Climate Change Is Real': Companies Challenge Trump's Reversal of Policy."
The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 29 Mar. 2017. Web. 06 Nov. 2018.
Nye, Bill. "Bill Nye to Climate Change Deniers: You Can't Ignore Facts Forever." YouTube.
YouTube, 07 Aug. 2014. Web. 06 Nov. 2018.
Reubold, Todd. "OPINION: What Does a Sustainable Future Actually Look Like?" Ensia. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2018.
Rinkesh. "Causes and Effects of Industrial Pollution." Conserve Energy Future. N.p., 04 Jan.
2017. Web. 06 Nov. 2018.
Shelton, Jim, and Yale University. "How Did Corporate Funding Influence the Public's View of
Climate Change?" World Economic Forum. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2018.
Timms, Matt. "The Relationship between Corporations and Climate Change." World Finance.
N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2018.
Wike, Richard. "What the World Thinks about Climate Change in 7 Charts." Pew Research
Center. Pew Research Center, 18 Apr. 2016. Web. 06 Nov. 2018.
"Why Is Renewable Energy so Expensive?" The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 05
Jan. 2014. Web. 06 Nov. 2018.