Polarization of political groups hinders the progress of environmental policies. The current polarization and divisive rhetoric surrounding climate change can harm the establishment of effective policies and delay the action needed. It is imperative to examine how certain arguments may detract from the necessary efforts to combat this crisis. This topic encourages us to reflect on the impact of discourse and debate on our ability to address climate change and work toward sustainable solutions, fostering a more comprehensive and informed dialogue on this critical issue for all. As well as the noise surrounding large-scale conflicts, aspects of environmental effects are often overlooked, because of this polarization. It is easy to get caught up in these polarized debates, missing the big picture of what is being debated.

Some arguments, specifically political ones are fueled by misinformation or denial, which can downplay the significance of climate change. These arguments may cast doubt on the science, the role of human activities or the severity of climate impacts. Such doubt can delay or weaken the collective response to climate change. There are a lot more deeper issues too that are often overlooked; fossil fuel industries and other organizations that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions often have a vested interest in downplaying the significance of climate change. Acknowledging the need for substantial changes in these industries can be financially costly, such as shifting to renewable energy sources, and the adoption of sustainable farming practices, leading to resistance and disinformation campaigns. Critics sometimes argue that taking aggressive actions to combat climate change will harm the economy. While there may be short-term economic challenges associated with transitioning to a more sustainable future, the long-term costs of inaction on climate change are likely to be far greater.

In climate change debates there is a physiological reaction to agree with information that aligns with existing beliefs already, which is known as confirmation bias. This makes these arguments difficult in themselves to have a solid unbiased foundation. Engaging in unproductive arguments can divert time and energy away from more constructive efforts to address climate change, such as researching solutions, implementing policy changes and taking individual actions to reduce emissions.

In arguments, misinformation or half-truths may be propagated, leading to further confusion and delay in taking meaningful action, such as half-truths or cherry-picked statistics, discrediting scientists and false claims of solutions. Providing accurate information about climate change, its causes and its impacts to increase public understanding is vital.

The lack of media coverage is a big part of affecting and progressing this polarization process. When the media does not give climate change the attention it deserves, people may not be exposed to the latest scientific findings, reports or discussions related to climate change. This limited exposure can result in a lack of understanding of the urgency and severity of the issue.

Media outlets cater to their target audiences, which can lead to the creation of these so-called “echo chambers,” such as Fox News. Fox News is criticized for its perceived right-leaning or conservative bias. People are found to consume news that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs. If a media organization downplays or ignores climate change, it may reinforce the views of those who are skeptical about its significance. Public opinion has a significant impact on policy decisions. When climate change is not covered extensively in the media, it may not be prioritized by policymakers or elected officials. This can hinder the development of effective climate policies. Media often covers extreme weather events as they happen. However, without a broader context of climate change, people may perceive these events as isolated incidents rather than symptoms of a larger problem that is happening all around us. When there is an argument about climate change somehow the whole conflict of climate change goes out the window.

Israel and Palestine are a perfect example of this issue, “Everyone here is fighting over the land, but if we’re only going to spend our energy on politics, there won’t be any land worth living on the left,” an activist for One Climate told Time Magazine. This organization focuses on the environmental aspects of this war and notes that regardless of the war that is going on, the land that is being fought over is getting destroyed in the process. “We are all in the same boat. Even if the Israelis have resilience mechanisms in place. It doesn’t matter. When the Titanic hits the iceberg, everyone sinks,” another climate activist said.

To progress a shared goal of diminishing the effects of climate change, it is necessary to work together rather than fighting over exactly how to do this.

Cece Benza is a sophomore at CU Boulder.