REPLY TO MY CLASSMATE'S DISCUSSION (NEED IN 8 HOURS NO EXCEPTIONS)

Political party sides often seem sincere in their convictions and conclusions for the reality of climate change but catastrophic consequences may loom in our generation. What should drive environmental solutions, political parties or the science that focuses on the reality of the problem?

PLEASE EXPLAIN WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH MY CLASSMATE RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE QUESTION AND WHY? (A MININUM OF 125 WORDS)

CLASSMATE’S POST

Climate change is a highly debated topic, but there does not seem to be a simple solution. I believe we should rely on science and research to guide how we deal with climate change, but it is extremely hard to understand what research is right and what actual solutions maybe. I think we are starting to make some progress, but there are so many other factors that push and pull policy makers. We had become a society of convenience and few have been truly willing to give that up. There are also very large industries built around things that are huge contributors to climate change. The petroleum and coal industry have powerful political action groups that have done research that sheds doubt upon other climate change research. It certainly seems like an easy choice to say, "We should listen to the scientific information", but areas where coal mining or petroleum production drives the economy can look at scientific data that tells them they will lose jobs and revenue if we stop burning coal for power. I do not believe these things simply have one answer, but there needs to be shift that helps to solve both sides of the problem or we really get nowhere on an issue that could be catastrophic in our lifetime.