Many important issues, such as education, drug addiction and poverty have received scant attention during this long, contentious presidential campaign. It is inexcusable, however, that climate change was not the subject of a single question from the moderators during the three presidential debates.
Our planet is changing in alarming and dangerous ways, and the United States must play a leading role in pushing for — and adopting — policies to address climate change and its consequences. The U.S.’s next president must take climate change seriously and be a forceful advocate for needed changes in energy use, emissions regulations, land-use policies and other areas that affect the environment. Just as important, the country needs a Congress that will back — not undermine — these needed actions.
The candidates have starkly different views on the topic. Republican Donald Trump essentially thinks it a hoax. Democrat Hillary Clinton has called it the “defining challenge of our time.”
In 2012, Trump tweeted that “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive.” Because he doesn’t think climate change is real, he doesn’t have policies to combat it. In fact, Trump’s campaign website lists no positions on the environment or climate change.
Instead, Trump focuses solely on energy production with a single theme — produce more of it in the United States. This includes extracting more coal and drilling for oil and gas in more places. He would undo regulations aimed at reducing pollution and incentivizing cleaner energy production.
His focus on coal is misplaced. U.S. coal production has dropped to its lowest level in decades as utilities turn to cleaner, less expensive fuels, predominantly natural gas, to generate electricity. Regulations play a part in this shift, but so do market forces.
Trump also has said he would “ cancel” last year’s landmark Paris climate change agreement because it “gives foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use right here in America.” It does not. Every country that signed the agreement — there are 188 of them — will develop its own plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, says Todd Stern, one of the U.S. negotiators of the agreement.
Clinton, of course, has a detailed plan that involves investments in renewable energy, reducing energy waste, greater fuel efficiency and legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Her plans build on the proven point that reducing energy use for manufacturing, heating and cooling, transportation and other uses saves money, which benefits business owners and consumers, as well as reducing harmful emissions.
Scientific evidence is on Clinton’s side. There is no doubt that the plant is warming. NASA reported in July that the first half of this year was the warmest half year since temperature records have been kept.
The first six months of 2016 also saw the smallest extent of sea ice cover since satellite records began in 1979. Most concerning to the NASA scientists is that these changes aren’t stopping: Global temperatures continue to rise, and sea ice continues to disappear.
Climate change is worsening global security threats, the Pentagon warns, as more natural disasters and tensions over food and water result in more refugees and conflict, especially in countries with weak or ineffective government.
Water in the Gulf of Maine is warming at a faster rate than 99 percent of the world’s oceans, threatening the state’s lucrative lobster fishery and other ocean harvests. Moose in Maine are dying from winter tick infestations as the parasites are able to survive warming winters.
Debate organizers and moderators failed Americans by not asking Clinton and Trump to talk about — and defend — their diametrically opposed positions on climate change.
