25.2 C
Friday, June 21, 2024

Climate deniers and the limits of politics

An instance of consulting some 100 doctors concerning the health of a child and about 97 of the doctors all gave similar prognosis with well proven evidences which all share an above average similitude, Then left with just three of the consulted doctors who in their respected view of  experimentation have not totally arrived at a definite answer. Then having in mind the dying child who stands a narrow chance of surviving if not treated based on every necessary prognosis available, the question is would you give in to prognosis that carried the larger percentage or rather wait on the probabilistic decision from the other less significant odds?


The U.S president, Barak Obama, gave this rather vivid description about climate change at the University of California Irvine commencement and it was virally noted as a direct attack on climate deniers.

It is no news again that quite a lot of people still wouldn’t see to the fact that global warming is real and in fact some still attribute the changes to being a normal phase in the progressive evolution of our planet  in adjusting to the period. In a great a deal of way, they all show some similar side of making up premises which would only tend to yield some baseless arguments and in most instances arriving at no definite conclusion. The question is what could be fueling such rather petulant field of view while all facts are glaring enough to make the choice of agreeing to the reality.

I have been trying to see the reasons into the link between politics and climate sciences; obviously, there seems to be no direct nexus between both worlds as they share a different base of operation. Climate sciences is purely an academic premise while politics shares a lot with activities associated with running a government, an organisation or a movement. But then what connects the dots between politics and climate sciences and in a way the scenario of climate change.

Climate change is well admitted as a global phenomenal change which in every way warrants all countries of the world being involved in finding ways of reducing the impacts and most importantly mitigate the causes of greenhouse gas emission. For the reason of this, governments and inter-governmental agencies have been brought together to share expertise and resources to finding a common solution. Having in my mind the definitive nature of governance all around the world which has a lot to do with politicking, then, the differences in our systems of governance which vary so significantly in the respect of influences attributed to positions. Then again, we have to take note of the premise of key personalities among the public who though not seen as parts of governmental systems but in a lot ways hold significant influences as a result of their wealth and probably positions of influence on the public.

Overtime, the bases of governmental operations in the view of making decisions still has the influence of all the premises stated in the preceding paragraph and so the success and failure of arriving at a well accepted made up decision would always have to take into consideration the effect on the economy (investments) and the public (popular opinions). In the wake of climate change, popular opinions haven’t been a major issue that matters but the economy bases of respective nations of the world.

The economy takes precedence in decision making and from every angle of observation; it’s been assumed as a major stumbling block in making a significant progress with action on climate change policies and interventions.

The economic strength of every country is assumed as the fuel of all activities and which is strongly influenced by politics and in a way we can assume, economy as a reason for the existence of governance system within human societies.

So against popular opinions and world acclaimed facts, decisions on climate change cannot seem to be made without the influence of politics, the cost benefit ratio.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been well placed to supply and provide the summary of their related findings on climate change to policy makers to aid their knowledge base and help to facilitate a rapid concession to working out a feasible framework of interventions. But the problem has been with the policy makers who would rather choose to follow the supposedly normal route of decision making which as I would put does not play a supportive and not too relevant role when it comes to climate change. For the reasons of this, skeptics have well risen among even the leaders and supposedly followers. They have built their respective opinions and premise to support their reason for not conforming to what the time calls for “a selfless, sacrificial and timely intervention”. Of course, it is necessary to take into cognisance every factor of consideration; but then, the future is at stake here if we do not accept the obvious fact into reasoning out a possible way out that will ensure a balance in our fears and necessities.

We must be ready to make the due sacrifice and not create a space for denial of facts which are well spelt out. This is obviously misleading some people out of the fact of being responsible and for all that matters, dimming the hope of a collective action against climate change.

There is the need to make some clarification as to the limit to which politics could come to play in certain issues, such as decisions on climate change and alongside we need our leaders not to shy away from assuming some necessary responsibilities while hiding under the disguise of denial.

By Bamidele F. Oni (Executive Director of Green Impact International)

Latest news

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you