3 debates, and barely a mention of climate change
Aside from the possibility that mankind will blow itself up, no issue is more important to the long-term future of the planet than global warming. Rising sea levels, devastating flooding, heat waves and droughts are already causing human misery and economic disruption. Yet discussion of climate change has been oddly lacking from the seemingly endless presidential campaign.
In the three debates, the topic was mentioned only fleetingly. At the second debate, the red sweater worn by town hall audience member Ken Bone attracted far more attention than the candidates’ response to his question about energy policy.
The lack of attention to the issue is disappointing, but not surprising. Human-induced climate change doesn’t lend itself to brief sounds bites, and political systems are particularly unsuited to dealing with this kind of problem.
For one thing, global warming is a slow-motion crisis that will unfold, largely invisibly, over decades. No individual extreme weather event — this week’s record heat in the East, or the excessive rainfall in the Carolinas from Hurricane Matthew — can be conclusively linked to human disruption of the climate.
Moreover, as with pension promises to public employees, today’s politicians will be long gone when the worst effects manifest themselves. The powerful fossil fuel lobby resists change; it underwrites organizations that challenge the science and confuse the public. And no individual city, state or nation can solve the climate problem; that will take a global effort in which individual countries have economic incentives to cheat on their emissionsreduction pledges.
Given all these obstacles, the progress of the past year has actually been remarkable. Last year’s Paris treaty to curb greenhouse gas emissions has been rat- ified by 81 parties and is set to take effect on Nov. 4. A narrower agreement limits emissions from jetliners. And, last weekend in Rwanda, more than 170 nations agreed to phase out powerful, heat-trapping refrigerants known as hydrofluorocarbons.
Continued progress depends in large part on U.S. leadership, the extent of which will depend on the outcome of the presidential election. As on so many other issues, the candidates have diametrically opposed positions.
Democrat Hillary Clinton thinks climate change is real; she says she’d work with international leaders to stabilize and reduce emissions, and with local leaders to invest in flood-protection projects.
Republican Donald Trump, meanwhile, has said that he’s “not a great believer in man-made climate change,” that he would cancel the Paris climate agreement, and that there are bigger risks to worry about.
Certainly, there is room for discussion about the precise degree to which human activity is contributing to global warming. There is also room for debate on the best ways to address the problem. But Trump’s blithe dismissal of the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change is yet one more reason the Republican nominee ought not be president.