Ideology in My Controversy

Anything and everything to know about climate change in Alaska

1. Who is involved?

Besides the people and government of Alaska, Obama, and the legislature, the controversy also brings up issues about the US natural resources and how the country needs the resources in order to stay independent of entirely foreign natural resources.

2. Major speakers and leaders

This is a highly publicized story circulating the major news groups, such as CNN and the NY Times, the twittersphere, and social media in general.  Just recently Sarah Palin has become rather vocal on how much Obama missed on his tour in Alaska, and her comments have spread amongst some of the more sensational news groups such as Twitchy and Fox.  News groups, including Fox News, bloggers, and youtubers have also sparked debate on whether or not the Chinese warships nearby Alaska, a recent development, where the real reason that the tour occurred.  Unfortunately this controversy within a controversy dragged the focus away from entirely climate change momentarily, but the focus seems to have returned to the actual issue at hand.

Screenshot from my computer - Mediaite "Sarah Palin on Pres Obama's
Alaska Trip: 'Here Are a Few Things He Missed" Sept. 4 2015

3. Social, cultural, economic/political power

The president, legislative branch, and the Alaskan government hold the most authoritative powers in this controversy, as they hold the key to how much funding the Alaskan villages and renewable energy development receive.  The people of Alaska hold the least power in terms of economic and political power.  They are quite literally trapped by eroded land, insufficient government and funding, and climate change that will either worsen or stall depending on the actions of the government.  They do hold the upper hand in cultural and social power, as they are the ones at fault and hold the moral upper ground.  The president had to address the issue and being attention to the issue at hand, otherwise he was the bad guy.  The media's power comes into play in mainly the social aspect.  They have the power to show the public both sides of Obama's actions on climate change and feed information to the public.  Politically, they also have the power to draw the focus on climate change or divert it to something like Sarah Palin diminishing Obama's trip to tourism or the 'true meaning' of the tour being the Chinese warships.

4. Resources available

Control over the state of climate change rests in the hands of the relationship between the money and the resources.  Obama has given the hefty fund of $4 million to develop the renewable energy resources in Alaska, but the funding to relocate the eroding towns is nowhere to be found.  His hope is that with better renewable resources, less oil will be necessary to extract.  Still, Obama has continued plans of supporting oil drilling and further exploration in Alaska, which has a great chance of causing lasting damage to the world environment.  This necessity for resources to keep an entire nation afloat on its on internal resources, as opposed to external, is a solid block to advancement in sustainability and environmentally friendly practices. 

5. Group values

The people of Alaska stand on the most solid moral ground in their crumbling towns.  Obama and the US legislature have conflicted values of representing further sustainable practices while still trying to keep a dependable amount of oil.  The media is on one of two sides, to show an accurate and fair version of Obama’s true intentions on his Alaska tour or cause a social media frenzy via alternate conspiracies to ignite further Obama hatred and therefore halting further climate change conversation.

6. Evidence

The funding Obama has given to Alaska, the new Clean Act release, the videos and quotes from Obama’s speeches, past and present, climate graphics and studies on Alaska, and the past, present, and plans for renewable energy development are all pieces of evidence that have been discussed in the articles circulating the news.

7. Difference in power of groups

The media and the people of Alaska and the US have minimal power other than influence in social media in this particular situation.  The power rests in the hands of the various governments, oil companies, and the natural processes of the Earth.  Although, each person has an impact on the Earth, positive or negative, the controversy discusses environmental policy and how much the US government is willing to fund protecting the planet on an international and country wide scale.

8. Common ground

Hopefully the common ground rests in the fact that every individual on this planet wants their lives, their children's, and their children's children to live on a sustainable and safe planet.  That common ground alone, should be enough to push forward the protection of precious areas such as Alaska and further research and technology in efficient environmental practices.

9. Communication between all of the involved parties

This tour is a perfect example of the type of conversation that goes on in my particular field.  Often unity and communication in how an entire country attempts to be environmentally aware is a bit scattered.  Occasionally a public official steps forward and announces a plan, which may gain initial headway and success, but more often than not, that attention dies away and the project fizzles out of the media until the next frenzy.  The people living with the issue are the most highly aware and most likely to form communities to solve the problem, but the world turns it eyes to the project just as quickly as it looks the other way,