1.5 -- That’s the percentage of Presidential debate questions during the primaries this year which were dedicated to climate change, a number which quantifies the stunning lack of focus and discussion on a topic which the New York Times recently called“the most important story in the world.”
The facts are clear: This election is a make-or-break moment for our climate -- the next president will either take the bold climate action we need, or doom us to a future full of fossil fuels and quickly rising temperatures. Isn't that worth more than 1.5 percent of our time?
There are just three presidential debates between now and Election Day, and the American people deserve more.
So let's be crystal clear: “more” doesn't simply mean asking the candidates if they believe in the science of man made climate change -- though that’s a start. Americans should see for themselves just how clear the difference is between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on this vital issue.
The basic approaches to this issue in this race area clear: Donald Trump has called climate change a hoax “invented by and for the Chinese,” while Hillary Clinton has laid out strong plans to address the crisis and keep up the progress made under the Obama administration.
In fact, Hillary has pledged to dramatically increase America’s share of clean, renewable energy like solar and wind to make us the world’s clean energy “superpower” and power every home in America; Create a national clean energy challenge to drive progress at the state and local level; and invest major resources in energy efficiency to cut energy waste by a third. She has also made clear that she opposes disastrous policies and projects like the Keystone XL pipeline, the toxic Trans-Pacific Partnership, and drilling in the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans.
But it’s time to go beyond basics and ensure that we all hear a discussion that truly addresses climate action and climate solutions -- or, in Trump’s case, a total lack of interest in the issue at all. For a crisis of the magnitude of climate change and an opportunity of the magnitude of clean energy, the Presidential debates should truly grapple with the issue with the level of nuance and seriousness it deserves.
Where to begin? For starters, Donald Trump, has never been confronted with the consequences which his absurd position would have on America’s relationships with other nations. The Paris agreement, which Trump has pledged to “cancel,” was reached by a world united, nearly 200 countries working together last year. At the same time, a recent study reported by the Associated Press showed that if elected, Trump would be the only head of state on earth to deny the science and dangers of the climate crisis. Trump needs to be forced to confront these facts, and asked how they would affect his ability to achieve any efforts to engage with other countries or safeguard our national security. Certainly, it won't be easy being alone in the world on an issue of such overwhelming importance.
More generally, we need a national conversation about the direction our economy is taking, and must continue to take, towards clean energy and away from dirty fuels. Both candidates need to be asked about their specific plans for tackling the climate crisis through clean, renewable power, and zero & low emission transportation. Those answers must be measured against both the consequences of inaction, and the fundamental scientific facts the world is racing against.
Presidential debates, which are few and far between, are among the most significant public events in our politics, and for our country. Let’s make sure the three we have this year really do justice to the role of a free press in a free society, rather than just serving as more gossip and shock value for the 24/7 cable news grist.
