The Politics of Climate Change

Even with all the environmental action that has taken place, it’s already too late. But in recent months, it seems that the United States, along with other countries, is finally beginning to become attuned to the severity and direct effects of the larger problem—climate change.

In September of last year, the UN Climate Summit took place in New York. It drew more than 300,000 protesters and activists to the city, urging governments to address different facets of the issue.

In November, the media revealed that the United States and China had struck a bilateral agreement that would restrict both countries’ carbon dioxide emissions.

While Europe has led the way in these deals, this was the first to be made by the two countries held responsible as the world’s number one and two top polluters. Largely considered the most productive climate news of the last several years, the potential here is enormous.

In December, there were international climate change talks in Lima, Peru. While the deal written there will not be finalized until next year in Paris, it plans to commit every country to cut their greenhouse gas emissions in one of the first truly global fights against global warming.

And now in 2015, White House officials announced on January 13 that Obama wishes to impose new regulations on methane emitted by the oil and gas industry. These regulations aim to cut the emission levels in 2025 by 45 percent of what they were in 2012. This is a large step for a myriad of reasons. Primarily, it is because they would signify the very first methane regulations our country has seen.

But while the issue seems of utmost importance to most Democrats, it is not even near being a problem of bipartisan significance. A headline from right-leaning Fox News on January 14 read: “Obama pushes new methane limits for gas drilling, industry says ‘energy renaissance’ at risk.”

To many Republicans, it seems silly to mess with a booming industry. The money is good for the country and for their campaigns, and the climate is not enough of a reason to try to limit the actions of oil and gas companies.

The counterargument has remained unflinching. Because methane is 86 times more potent when emitted than carbon dioxide, it was recorded as accounting for 9 percent of U.S. global warming emissions in 2012 by the EPA. Cutting its emissions could have remarkable effects in climate change, but Obama’s practical objectives remain unfortunately ambiguous.

Nevertheless, the statement itself sends the message to all oil and gas companies that restrictions are coming. They will not be left alone.