Recently, scientist and engineer Bill Nye and prominent Republican Marsha Blackburn appeared on “Meet the Press” to debate their viewpoints on the need for more aggressive initiatives on climate change. When asked about the necessity of passing tougher regulations and taking a greener approach, Blackburn suggested a more cautious cost-benefit analysis should be performed before any decisions are made. On the contrary, Nye emphasized the importance of pursuing any efforts that could affect the environment in a positive way.

Throughout the debate, Blackburn attempted to downplay the current climate situation. She claimed, “There is no consensus [on climate change] and you can look at the latest IPCC Report and look at Doctor Lindzen from MIT…There is no consensus there.” Unfortunately, Blackburn is ignoring the 97 percent consensus among climate scientists that human activity has some effect on the climate change. Besides, Blackburn said the amount of carbon dioxide in the environment has “gone from 320 parts per million to 400 parts per million…” calling this change “very slight.” While the numbers she cited are accurate, the analysis of the relative scale of these numbers is incorrect. Comparing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the history of the earth, this change is unprecedented.

Although Blackburn misinterpreted the scientific research, she accurately points out there are more issues than just science behind global warming. Another factor in these decisions is the economic aspect. Eco-friendly initiatives can be incredibly costly. On the other hand, projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline have potential to add $3.4 billion to the United States economy and create thousands of jobs.

While economically sound, environmental opponents say refining the specific type of oil being harvested creates more emissions than typical crude oil and for this reason they disapprove of the project. The attitude toward the pipeline constructions seems to be lax and near-sighted, settling for what has become the unfortunate status quo. If this and future decisions regarding climate change are to be made more effectively, there should be a clear understanding of all the costs — especially the complicated information about climate change. As Nye suggests, there must not be a denial of what experts generally agree is happening. The economic costs are more easily understood — adding money and jobs to the economy is a positive change. However, as Blackburn showed in her discussion with Nye, the facts about the environmental costs are not always clearly perceived and therefore not fairly included in the decision making process.

Our elected representatives must be entirely aware of what the general tide of scientists are saying, rather than hold onto the small minority of research that supports their stance. Distorting scientific consensus is reckless and will have severe consequences.