Climate change is more politics than science

Following up my previous post on climate change, I have realised that the debate on climate change is much more politically motivated than scientifically based. Call me naive, but I thought such an issue would rely on the science more than anything else. Now I know better.

If you have been following the news, it is blatantly obvious most of the activists are politically left inclined whereas almost all of the skeptics (and outright deniers) are from traditionally right winged factions. It is not difficult to understand the reason behind this.

The right winged have always been known as "by the rich, for the rich," and it is easy to see that climate change policies, on the international scale or the national level, affects the rich more than the poor.

Taking action against climate change requires money from developed nations, but relatively speaking, benefits them little. True, the Great Barrier Reefs will be gone. But that is nothing when compared to losing your entire nation, which is what will happen to hundreds of island nations. Or, having insufficient water supply for your entire population. This is why, like the starving population of Africa, developed countries cannot care less.

On the national level, reducing emissions will greatly increase the cost of power companies, industrial companies and countless other companies who are million, if not billion, dollar profit making companies. Let's face it, we promote Earth Day to 'save the earth', but our individual emissions are no match for major industry players. Hence, the rich, which are relatively few in numbers, and not everyday folk, which make up most of the population, will be carrying the burden if such a legislation is passed. This is why the right wing politicians are so strongly against the carbon tax.

The sad part is, these politicians then go on to use scare tactics to win over voters. They say that the cost of the tax will be passed on to consumers as the companies will sustain higher cost of operations. My question is, why can't the CEOs of the companies, or the owners, or all the million dollar employees of the companies, take a pay cut? Will the $100,000 less in their $2million paychecks cause starvation in their families? Or just a few less Gucci?

From my point of view, the science clearly points to climate change from carbon emissions. Leaked emails are not scientific data. And the data does not come from just one study, or just one scientist. They come from all over the world from multiple different industries. Even if the evidence for it is not conclusive, there currently exist no evidence AGAINST it. It is safe to say, the debate is not about the science, but about the burden of it to the rich.

Who says you can't rule the world with money?