Ideological Divide

the Trump presidency in the United States, however, much of the progress on sustainability may be jeopardized because of his commitment to remove regulations that deal with cleaner sources of energy. Burke (2007) advocates for a policy of adaptive leadership, which requires dedication to bring about changes to deal with sustainability. The leader rather than solving the problems needs to work to facilitate solutions through the effective and timely sharing of information and management of conflicting views and values (Barth 1996).

IdeologIcal dIvIde The ideological divide can also pose a serious threat to environmental sustainability. There are widespread differences in terms of public opinion on climate change based on ideology. In the United States, for example, conservatives still believe that global warming is natural, and they contest the views of the majority scientists regarding the causes of climate change. Dunlap and McCright (2008, p. 26) view that “the vigorous conservative campaign against climate science (particularly the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)) and climate change advocates (especially Al Gore) has contributed to leaders of the Republican Party adopting a highly skeptical view of global warming.” On the other hand, liberals assert that global warming is a real phenomenon and that it is caused by human factors. Liberals are more concerned about the threat of climate change than the conservatives, and are supportive of the governmental policies to address the causes and consequences of climate change (Jones 2011). Because of the differences in their beliefs, the conservatives do not favor any governmental actions, because they believe that the environmental regulations are unnecessary and impediments to the economic development. The liberals believe that the governmental action is necessary to eliminate the real causes of climate change. The ideological debate dominates Congress and even the judiciary of the United States. For example, on February 9, 2016, the US Supreme Court obstructed the Obama Administration’s federal regulations to curb carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, a major element in combating climate change. The court voted on an ideological line to grant 27 states and private companies to block the Obama Administration’s policy on clean power policy to encourage renewable energy sources.

There are different explanations for the causes of the differences between the liberals and the conservatives. One interesting reason is due

to the activities of the well-organized and well–funded professional climate skeptics affiliated with the carbon-based industries and lobbyists who influence the media debate with questionable theories about climate change (Antilla 2010). These environmental skeptics are reinforced by the anti-regulatory and free market ideology (Jacques et al. 2008; McWright and Dunlap 2010). To deal with the skeptics and their well-organized supporters, public leaders have a responsibility to educate the people about the potential dangers of climate change and the priority of environmental sustainability. The other explanations are beliefs about the perceived importance and inconvenience of sustainability initiatives, with the importance of sustainability having a positive influence whereas the inconvenience of such policies will have a negative influence (Tata and Prasad 2015). As a result, business interests dominate the conservative views as they may consider the sustainability policy to be an impediment to their goals. On the other hand, environmentalists believe that it is crucial to implement sustainable policies. The ideological conflict can be a serious impediment to the implementation of the Paris Agreement of 2015. When the Trump Administration decided to withhold from the Paris Agreement for ideological reasons, it was a major setback for the world on environmental sustainability.

However, recently, a group of conservatives led by the former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, with the former Secretary of State George P. Shultz and Henry M. Paulson Jr., a former Secretary of the Treasury, proposed the introduction of a “carbon tax” amounting to $40 per ton of carbon dioxide produced. They advocated this proposal based on the conservative ideology of free market.

Nevertheless, the participation of thousands of protesters on April 29, 2017, in several cities in the United States, including Washington, DC, is a positive development in terms of the increasing awareness of the environmental problem. The marchers were protesting against the assault on the scientific facts and the assault on the environment policy. The protest can be regarded as a milestone in terms of changing public opinion in favor of a sound environmental policy. The encouragement of the unbiased scientific explanations for climate change and its consequences can be encouraged by the government. Science must be advanced to understand the causes of climate change. It is essential to develop policy indicators based on science (EPI 2016). If business people are convinced about the benefits of the sustainable product and services, the ideological divide will give way to closer cooperation in favor of environmental policy. One way