The Student News Site of Colorado State University

The Rocky Mountain Collegian

The Student News Site of Colorado State University

The Rocky Mountain Collegian

The Student News Site of Colorado State University

The Rocky Mountain Collegian

Print Edition
Letter to the editor submissions
Have a strong opinion about something happening on campus or in Fort Collins? Want to respond to an article written on The Collegian? Write a Letter to the Editor by following the guidelines here.
Follow Us on Twitter
The Importance of Supporting Engineering Education
The Importance of Supporting Engineering Education
February 20, 2024

In today's era of information technology, engineering plays the role of a vanguard, trying to optimize processes and develop new products, making...

Climate change cannot take precedence over other worldly problems

Climate change is a very precarious topic to discuss among intelligentsia.

If you question any of the science behind it, whether it be about the data or the validity of the claims made, you are cast out as a pariah and labeled a “science denier.” Because of this, other issues may be overshadowed by all of the noise generated by climate change, which has been placed at the front and center of present world issues by scientists, politicians and the media alike.


The evidence for climate change is compelling. There is a general consensus among the scientific community that the earth’s temperature has risen by 1 degree Celsius over the last century, and this is caused in part by global industrialization. I am a science major myself, and I do not dispute these facts and data. Climate change is real, global temperatures are rising and humans do have something to do with it. However, the issue of climate change has become highly political in the last decade, and has created a rhetoric built off of emotion to gain attention from the non-skeptical public.

Policymakers in the United States insist that climate change is a “dire situation,” and world leaders must act immediately to prevent “global catastrophe.” Politicians and some scientists alike have created this artificial hierarchy of needs for the planet and its people, where addressing climate change sits as the No. 1 thing we need to take action on. This plays off well to folks who feel like they can make a difference for the environment with the simple cast of a vote.

The fact is, there are much more pressing issues globally that are more disastrous for humanity than climate change is, which need attention now. To developing countries, climate change is a first-world issue. We still live in a world where 50 percent of the global population has a water-borne illness at any given time, due to the fact that people still lack access to clean water. One fourth of people on Earth do not have access to electricity. The amount of electricity used in Sub-Saharan Africa  not including South Africa — in one day equals the usage of electricity in New York City in the same amount of time. People in these developing countries want health care and an education, not solar panels and wind turbines.

An idea that is often proposed for reducing carbon emissions is either imposing a carbon tax or a “cap and trade” system. All logistics aside, this may be a reasonable solution for a developed country. But would we impose those same tariffs on a person living in a third-world country, when coal is often the cheapest — and thereby the only viable — energy option? Is it more useful and helpful to implement sustainability policies or install water wells in these places? If not everyone in the world is living by the same standards where all basic needs are fulfilled, how can we solve the problem of climate change on a global scale, an issue of apparently devastating magnitude?

This is not to say that sustainability efforts are not valiant. We can all make a difference and positively impact the earth’s future by taking small steps to take care of the environment. Eating a vegetarian diet one to two days a week can help reduce carbon emissions — animal agriculture is one of the worst offenders of sustainability. Walking or taking the bus to work, saying “no” to plastic bags and recycling all seem like insignificant measures, but if everyone participates, we can help reduce harmful emissions without relying on government subsidies.

Perhaps instead of spending billions of dollars on policies such as the American Clean Energy and Security Act, we can divert some of that money toward humanitarian efforts. Providing basic needs for people in the developing world would curb the amount of needless deaths each year due to poverty. Pulling these developing countries out of poverty would not only be good for humankind, but in the end it could help sustainability efforts by building economically-stable countries able to contribute to a clean energy initiative. To build a better world for tomorrow, we must first build a better world today, where people’s most basic needs are met.

Collegian Columnist Megan Burnett can be reached at, or on Twitter @megsbcollegian.

View Comments (8)
More to Discover

Hey, thanks for visiting!
We’d like to ask you to please disable your ad blocker when looking at our site — advertising revenue directly supports our student journalists and allows us to bring you more content like this.

Comments (8)

When commenting on The Collegian’s website, please be respectful of others and their viewpoints. The Collegian reviews all comments and reserves the right to reject comments from the website. Comments including any of the following will not be accepted. 1. No language attacking a protected group, including slurs or other profane language directed at a person’s race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, social class, age, physical or mental disability, ethnicity or nationality. 2. No factually inaccurate information, including misleading statements or incorrect data. 3. No abusive language or harassment of Collegian writers, editors or other commenters. 4. No threatening language that includes but is not limited to language inciting violence against an individual or group of people. 5. No links.
All The Rocky Mountain Collegian Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • M

    mememineSep 17, 2015 at 4:36 pm

    Remaining climate change believers be warned!

    Is THIS how you want your kids remembering you;
    CO2 science couldn’t ever say “PROVEN” for a CO2 Armageddon after 34 years of climate action failure so be happy not disappointed the greenhouse gas ovens were not real for billions of innocent children.

    • C

      CBSep 17, 2015 at 6:00 pm

      MeMeMine’s a Climate Denier spambot, not a human.

      Flag it for spam.

      Mod, please terminate the account’s access.

  • B

    BeLogicalSep 17, 2015 at 1:53 pm

    If all the worlds ecosystems fail and we have no food because of climate change I would say the rest wouldn’t really matter. Besides, it not like we have to tackle problems one at a time, work continually on a medley of things and make the world a better place.

    • C

      CBSep 17, 2015 at 6:04 pm

      “If all the worlds ecosystems fail and we have no food because of climate change I would say the rest wouldn’t really matter.”

      I agree!

      There isn’t a single example in Earth’s history of polar ice caps withstanding CO₂ as high as we’ve pushed it.

      To my mind, avoiding being beneath 75 meters of melted ice cap really should take precedence over all other concerns…

      “Together, Greenland and Antarctica contain about 75% of the world’s fresh water, enough to raise sea level by over 75 meters, if all the ice were returned to the oceans.”

  • D

    DrRaeMDSep 16, 2015 at 2:26 pm

    Climate change is not a 1st world problem nearly so much as it is a problem for developing nations. We can afford to move, to build sea walls, to pay more for food, to build water desalinators…
    The places most at risk, according to UND research, is shown here:–gkxwHiOhcx
    From another perspective, shown in pictures here:
    From a risk analysis firm, shown graphically here:
    I agree we should be working more to aid the suffering people of today, but if we don’t also do much more to prevend AGW, there will be increasing suffering in the future.
    As an analogy, I have a boo-boo and am in the street being borne down on by an articulated lorry. Should you give me a Band-Aid, pull me off the street, or both? If you had to pick only one, which makes more sense, helping me now from a small problem, or preventing a much larger problem?
    Given the wealth of our countries, we can certainly afford to do both, we must simply choose to do so.