1. Running Head: CLIMATE CHANGE: A WAY FORWARD
Climate Change: A Way Forward
Jonathan M. Tennison
American Military University
13 March 2016

2. CLIMATE CHANGE: A WAY FORWARD 1
Abstract
This paper explores Climate Change and a way ahead while utilizing three academic
disciplines. An interdisciplinary approach and way of thinking is ideal to expand focus
beyond the simple yes or no ideology of climate change supporters or climate change deniers.
Academics have a hard time understanding with all of the overwhelming evidence that the
political world would be the voice denying climate change and preventing a way forward.
The focus on the Natural Science argument for climate change supporters is very strong and
to them undeniable. There were 196 nations represented in Paris at the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in December, 2015 that agreed to
keep greenhouse gas under a 2 percent increase and also shooting for a 1.5 percent goal with
the peak of Carbon Dioxide production within 5-10 years. The future of Climate Change is
positive regardless of the seemingly slow action of government, Science and Economics.
Keywords: climate change, interdisciplinary, Natural Science, Economics

3. CLIMATE CHANGE: A WAY FORWARD 2
Climate Change: A Way Forward
Climate change is a global problem. How can the global population work toward a
solution while achieving economic and social prosperity? An interdisciplinary approach and
way of thinking is ideal to expand focus beyond the simple yes or no ideology of climate
change supporters or climate change deniers. The three areas of focus are Political Science,
Natural Science and Economics (Ripke, 2012). The research in this paper is designed to
focus on understanding of each area and how to push them to come together instead of just
being at odds with one another. Climate change is accepted in Academia but must be looked
at from multiple facets in order to move energy solutions forward.
A reference point for climate support and climate denial is important base line to
understand in order to negotiate a way solution. In an effort to reduce perceived bias the
climate denial arena will be explored first. Senator Ted Cruz, along the presidential
campaign trail, stated that:
“According to the satellite data, there has been no significant global warming for the
past 18 years. Those are the data. The global warming alarmists don’t like these data,
they are inconvenient to their narrative. But facts and evidence matters.” (Atkins,
2015)
This testimony was accurate, the only problem was that the information provided was 18
years old and scientific is rarely created with such a generic dateline. The statistics were in
his favour and if an additional year were to be added his testimony would be false. Why
would a politician support climate change denial and utilize misleading statistics and pass
them off as a rebuttal? The answer is that this politician is the candidate with the most money
deriving from the oil companies and he hails from Texas, a state that is strongly devoted to
fossil fuel backed funding. His goal as a politician is to support the people that get him

4. CLIMATE CHANGE: A WAY FORWARD 3
elected instead of focusing on protecting the people from the potentially negative effects of
climate change. In addition to this, Senator Cruz is running for president and his goal is to
get to his first four years of elected office and not focus on a long term 2020-2050 climate
change focus that could lead the world in many different directions. A politician and
government that is backed by money from the coal industry has succeeded and until
renewable energy is not a start-up company but a conglomerate like the oil companies there is
no need for politicians such as Senator Cruz to overwhelmingly focus on shutting down these
types of businesses.
In May of 2015 there was even a vote in congress about if humans significantly
caused climate change. The results were a no vote of 50-49 and the United States Senate
made public that they as a governing body believe humans do not significantly cause climate
change (Overpasses News Desk, 2015). Some politicians backed the vote due to the word
significantly being the cause of the no vote but notice that there is no peer reviewed
information from the political world on climate change in this research so far. How then can
it be acceptable in an academic forum a reader may ask? Politicians like Senator Cruz are
running for office and their discipline is deception and feeling focusing on what the people
want and if 50% agree with their view, there is no incentive to cross the boundary into what
they really believe. The above news article is partisan news and the vote was established to
place each senator on record stating their view on climate change.
Academics have a hard time understanding with all of the overwhelming evidence
that the political world would be the voice denying climate change and preventing a way
forward. This three pronged approach to a way forward will shift towards the overwhelming
natural science evidence and then push toward economics which should drive the politicians
and the people demanding the required change. It is important to state that it is not a
politician’s fault that they are able to denounce climate change with quick one liners and

5. CLIMATE CHANGE: A WAY FORWARD 4
blowing it off. They will probably not be able to stop as long as funding is pushed their way
by corporations or until those corporations shift importance to natural energy.
The focus on the Natural Science argument for climate change supporters is very
strong and to them undeniable. There were 196 nations represented in Paris at the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in December, 2015 that
agreed to keep greenhouse gas under a 2 percent increase and also shooting for a 1.5 percent
goal with the peak of Carbon Dioxide production within 5-10 years. 196 nations appear to be
a lot of people but that is just a verbal agreement derived from the conference (UNFCCC,
2016). The actual signatory document will be held at the United Nations Building in New
York and available to sign on 22 April 2016 for one year. It will only become an agreement
after 55 countries that account for at least 55% of global emissions put their plan forth on
record (Paris Agreement, 2016). During the keynote address by Richard Kinley after the
conference it was noted that action of governments was what is necessary to move the Paris
Conference forward and portrayed that action would speak louder than words for each nation
moving forward (UNFCCC, 2016). This thinking was not on par with over half of the United
States Congress not in line with the 196 nation verbal agreement. The Congress in power
will stop at nothing to reject this legislation.
If 196 different countries speaking out do not provide enough muscle or proof of
climate change data, then Natural Science is just spinning the Climate change wheel and not
very effective. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and co-
located on the United States Environmental Protection Agencies (EPA) website, there are
many facts that prove that climate change is real. The document states that humans are
“largely responsible for climate change” (IPCC, 2013). It might be worth pointing out that
politicians might agree if their bill stated largely versus significantly even though both words
are synonyms when it comes to placing the blame on human beings. An additional note was

6. CLIMATE CHANGE: A WAY FORWARD 5
that the earth’s temperature could rise from .05 to 8.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 100
years and sea level could rise 3 feet during this time and harm coastal communities (IPCC,
2013).
Thus far, Unites States politicians deny climate change and the Natural Science
community, even the Government agency called the EPA, support climate change. Who is to
blame? Is there someone to blame? To dive a little deeper one needs to pull from the
economic community. Economics drive policy in Washington D.C. and even fight against
policy. Recently, President Obama created the Clean Power Plan after the Paris summit. His
Clean Power Plan is an attempt to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent from 2005
levels by 2030 (Obama, 2016). This plan would decrease coal power plants which are the
greatest carbon dioxide producers in the United States as an attempt to meet the Paris Summit
execution. The Clean Power Plan was put on hold when the Supreme Court in the United
States put a stay on the legislation awaiting the Court of Appeals decision which could take
up to two years. The litigation was led by 27 republican governors and there were 18
democratic governors that sided with the EPA on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan
(Gerrard, 2016). The Supreme court happens to be equally split between Democrat and
Republican as the political realm appears to shapes the global climate change debate. It
should be pointed out that this is only 1 of the 196 countries at the Paris Summit and many
countries including India, Canada, Japan and Indonesia made difficult Climate Change
proposals in Paris (Victor, 2016).
While there is major support for the coal industry there are banks that have moved
away from supporting the businesses that are not moving toward carbon emission reductions.
Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo
all came together to push the global economy in September, 2015 in an effort to support
climate change mitigation with $13 trillion-dollar investment network straying from the coal

7. CLIMATE CHANGE: A WAY FORWARD 6
industry moving forward (Ceres, 2015). This data was used in Paris and the only thing
holding back energy efficient business is their youth and that the oil companies and fossil fuel
industry is so large with so many ties to the global economy in place.
The three disciplines have been portrayed in this paper so far and each reader has the
capacity to accept or not completely reject one or all three disciplines represented above but it
is in everyone’s interest to dissect the importance of all three and find a way to understand
each logic. Politicians owe it to the people to become bipartisan for the good of the United
States and the global community while leading the way on climate change moving forward.
If a politician hesitates it is because they are following money or the climate of perceived
government. They also might currently have their pockets funded in a last ditch effort to
keep fossil fuel in power by these corporations. Eventually, not if, but when the economic
world leans toward energy efficiencies the lobbyists will be controlled by the green energy
businesses which are backed by major banks and investors. Politicians could incorporate
policy that supports scientific innovation and in some instances like in California have done
just that. A company called Solar City in California will lease a solar system for a household
for 15 years which was funded by green energy laws put into place in 2002. The company
states that over 30 years of use is the equivalent of removing 178 tons of carbon dioxide
emissions over a 30-year period or eliminating the need to burn 174, 000 pounds of coal
(SolarCity, 2016).
Natural Science needs to infiltrate corporations that are on the front lines of energy
efficiencies instead of working for the government that does not have specific interest in
Science. It might make sense to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency all together
and force the great minds of science to work in the private sector and Innovate a way forward
instead of pleading that government increase their control over the private sector. One of the
failures of the Paris Conference is understanding that industry like coal is supporting

8. CLIMATE CHANGE: A WAY FORWARD 7
individuals that work hard for their community and forcing government to make policy
destroying it could hurt the American way of life. Half of America does not want
government telling them what to do but if it was a small business, backed by a brilliant
scientific mind which created a few hundred jobs than it would go over just a little bit easier.
The economic community is controlled by big business but in the climate change way
forward some of the biggest banks are behind innovation and efficient energy. The banking
industry realizes the losses occurring in the fossil fuel market over time and choose get their
hands on new energy sources in an effort to capitalize on long term investments that they
know will occur in the future. Understand that banks executives would not just jump ship
from big business if there was not any foresight on the dismal future of said corporations.
The global population can move toward a solution while achieving economic and
social prosperity by allowing the change to occur because it is already in motion. Support of
a candidate and protecting coal jobs important to a prosperous community it is not a bad
thing. The future of Climate Change is positive regardless of the seemingly slow action of
government, Science and Economics. An interdisciplinary view of how all three come
together show a positive roadmap on climate change moving forward. It also sets the tone for
understanding viewpoints that can make someone angry at the thought of change and loss of
jobs. To add perspective, climate change has been around since humans have existed and
research on global warming is relatively new. The first conference was held in Geneva in
1979 by the World Meteorological Organization (Mohammad, 2014) and innovation to
combat climate change is less than 15 years old. Moving forward on a chance to protect the
earth from detrimental carbon emissions that could heat up the earth and cause loss of life is
also a good thing. The bottom line is that climate change management is already moving
forward and understanding different viewpoints can benefit humanity and ease the tension
associated with one of the most important global issues ever imagined.

9. CLIMATE CHANGE: A WAY FORWARD 8
References
Atkins, A. (2015). Ted Cruz Challenged Science At His Climate Change Hearing. Science
Won. Retrieved February 4, 2016, from
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/10/3729732/ted-cruz-and-science-have-a-
rocky-relationship/
Ceres. (2016). Major U.S. banks call for leadership in addressing climate change. (2016,
March 2). Retrieved March 13, 2016, from http://www.ceres.org/press/press-
releases/major-u.s.-banks-call-for-leadership-in-addressing-climate-change
IPCC. (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis Exit EPA Disclaimer.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M.
Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Gerrard, M. (2016). The Supreme Court's Action Threatens Vital Climate Policies. Retrieved
February 12, 2016, from
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_courts_irresponsible_action_threatens_vital_climate_p
olicies/2962/
Mohammad, T. I. (2014). Climate change diplomacy- apparatus for climate change
mitigation and adaptation: A reflection in the context of Bangladesh. British Journal of
Environment and Climate Change, 4(1), 115-132. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1655288370?accountid=8289

10. CLIMATE CHANGE: A WAY FORWARD 9
Obama, B. (2016). President Obama's Plan to Fight Climate Change. Retrieved February 13,
2016, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/climate-change
Overpasses for America. (2015). In 50-49 Vote Senate, Declares Climate Change Not Caused
By Humans. Retrieved February 6, 2016, from
http://overpassesforamerica.com/?p=8637
Paris Agreement. (2016). Retrieved February 6, 2016, from
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/paris/index_en.htm
Repko, A. (2012). Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publishing.
SolarCity. (2016). Discover how you can power your home with clean and affordable solar
power energy. Retrieved February 9, 2016, from http://www.solarcity.com/residential
Victor, D. (2016). Why Supreme Court’s Action Creates Opportunity on Climate
Retrieved February 12, 2016, from
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/why_supreme_courts_action_creates_opportunity_on_cli
mate/2961/
UNFCCC. (2016). What Now? Climate Change and Energy after Paris Keynote by UNFCCC
Deputy Executive Secretary. Retrieved February 7, 2016, from
http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/keynote-address-climate-change-and-
energy-after-paris/