Over the last few months, I’ve heard myriad folks argue that climate change is not a driving force in this election because it’s not a relevant issue in people’s day-to-day lives.

Respectfully, that’s total bullshit. Because if you care about the fact that food prices and inflation are skyrocketing; that water and electric bills are through the roof; that health care costs just keep getting higher; that immigration is on the rise; or that the American dream of owning a home is out of most people’s reach; then guess what—you care deeply about climate change. Rising temperatures made worse by unchecked fossil fuel expansion are driving all of these problems—and they’ll all spiral out of control if we don’t quickly tackle the climate crisis. If you want to learn more, click the links. But the evidence is solid. Climate is the kitchen-table issue of our lifetimes.

The reason climate change is not a driving force in this election is because powerful people and institutions consistently refuse to talk about the problem with accuracy and appropriate urgency. Last night’s presidential debate on ABC News was a perfect illustration of this.

The moderators—prestigious journalists tasked with the immense responsibility of pressing candidates on the issues most important to Americans—saved climate change for the last possible moment of the 90-minute event, and asked only what the candidates would do to tackle it. And for this incredibly broad and existentially important question, they gave the candidates only one minute each to respond.

In response, neither candidate talked about what they would do, nor did they speak accurately about what must be done. Kamala Harris, to her credit, acknowledged the seriousness of the climate crisis and touted the Biden Administration’s myriad actions to spur clean energy development. But she also bragged about the administration’s increases in domestic gas production—thereby spreading the scientifically false idea that investing in fossil fuels is in line with preserving a livable climate.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump said absolutely nothing about climate change during his minute-long response. Instead, he went on a near-incomprehensible rant about Chinese cars, and how Biden got “three and a half million dollars from the mayor of Moscow's wife.” Harris and the moderators’ heads may have been in the sand on climate, but Trump’s head was crushed underneath a boulder.

This critique is not to say that Harris and Trump are the same on climate, a dangerously inaccurate claim. The research is clear: Even if all Harris did in office was preserve the Biden Administration’s policies, her victory over Trump would still prevent the release of 4 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere by 2030 compared—an amount equating to $900 billion in climate damages avoided by preventing Trump from entering office. This is because of Trump’s pledges to end clean energy investments; repeal the nation’s climate regulations; and turn the nation’s oil spigots to full-blast.

But there’s a reason why neither candidate’s policies would effectively prevent catastrophic warming of over 1.5 degrees Celsius, and it has nothing to do with whether it’s technologically feasible. Indeed, it has everything to do with the failures of our most powerful political communicators—failures that were put squarely on display Tuesday night.

Share

All the climate moments in last night’s debate

Despite only one climate question, related topics came up throughout the evening. Here’s what happened, via Arielle: ...