Organized Climate Change Denial (It’s happening regardless...)
Denialism and media are portraying an ongoing realistic problem as pop-ups that are continuously being blocked with theories, and corporations, coalitions, front groups, and think tanks that generally promote climate change denial (“excuses,” to essentially simplify it). The evidence is, and has been in plain sight, statistically, economically, and environmentally since long before the moment it was first acknowledged.
The Key Components of the Climate Change Denial Machine I find to be an embarrassment, because those who deny what can be proven and explained without the arguable tendencies, are well aware of what they are facing once that actually occurs. “European scholars such as Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens describe the current era as one of ‘reflexive modernization,’ in which advanced nations are undergoing critical self-confrontation with the unintended and unanticipated consequences of industrial capitalism—especially low probability, high consequence risks that are no longer circumscribed spatially or temporally such as genetic engineering, nuclear energy, and particularly climate change (Beck 1992; Beck et al. 1994; Giddens 1990).” They are actively approaching climate change with the questioning of regulations, rather than the disposition of how to resolve major problems, or enhance regulations if they are even acknowledged in the first place.
It seems (most likely is) as though political administrations draw in what they set to begin with, and in return is the continuation of the flow of components in the denial machine. It rumbles around in the echo chamber, and nothing but attacks and backlash are returned. Another focus is the international diffusion of denialism where the ecological threats only become greater due to the spread of ‘anti-reflexivity,’ basically the rejection of facing the flaws in the aspects/qualities of a capitalistic society.
I can include that in environmental economics, the presentation of The Kyoto Protocol was a major step in regulating emission levels, and although it has not decreased the amounts that are emitted, it has definitely decreased the rate of global CO2 emissions. Other alternatives that help reduce one’s carbon footprint, and is economically friendly include: monitoring electricity at home, water consumption, recycling, and one that is difficult to perform in an urban to suburban area would be to bike instead of using a car to commute. More doable: carpooling, taking a shuttle bus, using the metro.
Personally, one way or another, left or right-sided, I would have to say that it is in the hands of the advanced nations to step up for the entirety of the globe to manage better alternatives, to better handle the potential dangers from such high consumption and burning of fossil fuels. Although these may not be major first-world problems in a high society like ours, but inevitably everyone is at risk for being equally impacted as a consequence of denialism.
