This just infuriates me. DNC, you are making the gravest of mistakes and completely losing people like me.
5
Ya know...some candidates, (one) aren't/isn't waiting around for Democratic's to incrementally, maybe, moderately, do something. Much less raise a voice and attempt to rectify with any reasonable measures.
Too hard. Too risky. Somebody might get upset; isn't going to save anybody or anything but the rich and those making bank on Chaos Capitalism and Devastation Porn. Guess who our leaders are backing and banking on. It isn't you or I.
…except for one...
https://www.c-span.org/video/?455281-1/senator-bernie-sanders-holds-town-hall-meeting-climate-change
Here is Sen. Sanders (then a mayor) back in '87 talking the talk...walking the walk... https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=HaddyNSo-xE
3
When, oh when, will the Democratic Party, especially the National, learn that democracy works from the people up, not the NDP down?
3
The Democratic Party we see out here is a party of the silent. A party drunk on the 1%’s money (Nancy). A party of inaction. We know the Republicans will never acknowledge climate change.
The old guard needs to go. Time for some good old pioneering spirit. Let’s dive in head first and change for the better. Lead the world.....it’s easy to see leadership and passion for the advancement of all people and the preservation of the Earth’s resources is wanting in a major way!
1
The GOP has been, and remains, pure evil greed on this matter. The Dems have been cowardly. Perhaps it is time to dust off the term "baby killer" and bring it back for this issue. Because rising seas, economic dislocation, heat waves, and particulate matter will kill your kids. But hey, y'know, campaign contributions. I'll be writing a check to Mr Inslee.
2
"...he would be banned from party-sponsored debates if he took part in any unofficial candidate debate on climate change."
This comes on top of the DCCC decision to blacklist consultants etc. who support a primary challenge to any current member of Congress.
I was giving a small monthly donation to the Democratic Party till a couple of days ago. I stopped it. I'll give what I can to specific candidates.
Progressives are now the driving force in the party and the candidates and voters are strongly supportive of progressive positions. Even Joe Biden is tacking left. The party leadership and bureaucracy either haven't figured that out yet or are threatened by it. They need to get out in front of the parade and lead.
4
Scientific consensus(not fact) shows we could have a serious carbon emissions problem with potential for catastrophic cascading release of carbon frozen in ice and tundra. In this case we must assume the worst. But energy is necessary, cheap energy is critical for improving living standards for the worlds poorest,that's fact. Democrats seem think solar,wind,batteries,waves geothermal etc and unaffordable power bills are the answer but are on the hysterical bandwagon about nuclear power. The scientific consensus regarding risk,cost,benefit pretty much agree only nuclear is capable offsetting fossil fuel worldwide ..in time to make a difference. Sceptics ought to check out the Bill Gates prototype capable of using existing spent rods as fuel source leaving behind very short half life waste!
3
I’m from WA and what’s funny to me is that this climate crusader version of Inslee is completely new to me. Sure the old Inslee claimed to care about the environment but yet he would always take the standard centrist route that mostly every centrist politician has taken since WWII. Does anyone here really think he would have gotten into the governor’s mansion by doing otherwise? But I must say, I’ve been very impressed by this new version of Inslee. From what I understand WA has no term limits for its governors. Yet Inslee is tackling this issue like he does not care whether or not he will be re-elected and I think this is precisely the type of candidate the nation needs. In other words, someone that is willing to sacrifice the progression of their career and/or personal achievements in order to make progress for every citizen of this nation/world. You think you’re going to get someone like that with Mitch McConnell? Also, if you don’t think that someone who sacrifices their own betterment or well being for the sake of others doesn’t make for a potent vote winner as a candidate then maybe you should go back and brush up on your history lessons a bit. In the end this winner-take-all-at-any-cost modus operandi will prove to be nothing more than a fad. My prediction is the spoils will go to whoever can usher in the next sacrifice-for-the-good-of-all fad.
1
Sadly, the DNC can't count. All those Green Party voters in 2016 should have been solid Democratic voters. All those Democrats who voted in 2012 and stayed home in 2016? They should have been solid Democratic votes. Please DNC, don't blow this next election by ignoring the environment.
4
Thank you. Thank you for both saying this AND putting it into print. These people in high places of power have been begging to be called out for a long time now.
4
@Mike
Yes, it's in print. But it's also buried in the 'Opinion Section' and takes some looking to find, when it should
be featured on the Home Page. What's with that, NYT ?
1
Remember, the democratic party consultants who devised this absurd strategy are the same people prospective candidates have to hire or be cut out of funding by the DCCC.
2
Does this author really expect American voters to flock to candidates who tell them we're doomed on the present course and that, given American political reality, it's best to ask ordinary people to make any and all sacrifices, because on the steadfast insistence of Congress, hedge fund managers, oil magnates and billionaire heirs, the Davos and Park Avenue crowd will continuing dining out?
In a word, there's no way to turn climate change to any candidate's or party's "advantage", since the news is all bad. It makes no sense to talk about it.
10
@jrd I love your stick your head in the sand approach. Maybe we can try it with every issue that seems slightly difficult? It'd save us a lot of time in terms of life span for sure.
17
@Andrew I love your rejoinder! Anyone who can use humor so effectively on an issue as deadly serious as climate change has surely got his head screwed on right.
4
Normally I would care. but it no longer matters what any individual or entity thinks or how it acts anymore. It's over. It's not if, but when. More than a decade ago during the Bush43 reign of error, I had passed through all the stages and finally arrived at acceptance. The multitude of variegated disasters which are blatantly obvious are already plainly visible on the horizon. This species homo sapiens has never, and continues to be oblivious and frankly too stupid to notice or do anything whatsoever about the proverbial toad (us) in the slowly warming pot.
29
This article is completely anti-scientific.
There is no evidence tying California wildfires to anthropogenic warming. Ask the IPCC.
If you can't be bothered to base your climate policies and claims on science, you can't complain when the GOP engages in wholesale denial. They are doing the same thing you are.
2
I moved back to SC a few years ago. Every fall since then, I have had to deal with flooding rains that I never saw when I grew up only 10 miles from where I now live. Rain up to 24 inches in 24 hours or less will flood any property and mine has been flooded several times by such rain, even in the absence of a hurricane. Even 4 inches of rain over a day or two will flood my property, though thankfully not my home as the land was graded well.
In-between, we have mini-droughts, something we also didn't experience when I was young. A few years before I moved, there were several years of drought.
Perhaps Democrats don't need a full debate on climate change because most Democrats believe it exists. What we do need, however, is a plan that will be implemented as soon as we win back the White House and Senate. It won't happen without that, given that Trump and McConnell are blind to the problem.
1
The best answer to the climate crisis is to keep the debate going for years and years during which time businesses worldwide will continue making headway in the profitable, clean, efficient use of energy. That will be the ultimate solution to the problem, businesses would have done that anyway. If the debate is kept going without resolution governments and other self-interested political busybodies will be prevented from interfering in this useful work.
The key reason for why the Democratic candidates should not hold a debate that's exclusively on climate change is that it should not be isolated from issues such as economic inequality and racism. They are all interrelated and need to be addressed together.
2
Federal efficiency standards on just 3 categories of industrial products CAN be raised to 100%. Zero Emission Product (ZEP) standard would clean 80% of our use of fossil fuels.
Products that could be switched from fossil fuels?
1. ENGINES: in cars, trucks, big rigs, boats, lawnmowers, generators. A ZEP standard could switch these all to electric motors or hydrogen fuel cells, solar arrays, etc. California has a ZEV for cars. This expands it to all the other dirty engines.
2. TURBINES power coal and gas, but they also power clean energy: hydrogen, solar thermal, geothermal, hydro and wind. GE is going out of biz because they stuck with fossil, but there is a far larger clean energy turbine needs than fossil.
3. FURNACES: Industrial heat is 74% of the use of fossil fuels! Instead of burning coal, heat could be provided by solar thermal, or from thermal energy storage or hydrogen or electric arc furnaces, like Arcel Mittal, the world's biggest steelmaker is testing in the EU:
https://www.solarpaces.org/steelmaker-arcelor-mittal-testing-thermal-energy-storage-slag-cut-carbon
This is so myopic. The issue deserves to be front and center. Nothing short of human civilization is at risk. This willful denial will not endear us to millennials nor will it bring the growing numbers of Independents Republicans who are quietly concerned about the climate into the fold. (See the Yale Climate Opinion maps) What the DNC clearly doesn’t get is that Republicans are coming on board, and Democrats are deeply anxious and engaged on this issue and want serious debate about solutions. Without a serious Democratic commitment, Republicans or third-party candidates could snatch this issue out from under us and send us in a much less helpful direction. This is so dismaying. How can the DNC be so utterly obtuse?
3
The refusal of the DNC to allow debates that it does not sponsor is indefensible. It is just DNC saying "What about me? What about me?" rather than what about the members of the Democratic party or the country as a whole.
It sounds just like the "What about me?" of our current President.
1
@Eileen Hays
Agreed, what business is it of theirs if candidates want to discuss an issue outside of their 'sponsorship' ? And who decides what constitutes a 'debate' ? Suppose a couple of candidates are at an international forum on, for example, impacts of climate change on shipping in the Circumpolar North ? And they participate in a 'debate' during that forum. Does that automatically exclude them from any future DNC sponsored debates?
At least the DNC has exposed itself for all to see.
3
In the meantime, what we can do is support organizations that have succeeded in shutting down 50% of new coal plants in the US, as @BeyondCoal - they are now working on 100% renewable. Solar and wind are now the cheapest option for utilities.
Now, they are doing the same to replace gas powered electricity. which emits methane that is far worse in the short run (decades) than CO2 (centuries) and getting permits refused for new gas plants, with @BeyondCarbon like they did with coal permits. This is the most effective way to cut emissions.
https://www.beyondcarbon.org/
Paris announced last week it will create a new 100 acre mile-long park around the Eiffel Tower, banning cars.
The US, between all of its Dem. governed cities, doesn't even have a Low Emission Zone. Not one.
The Democratic Party is not trying to downplay Climate Change, they're still just doing nothing.
When I go jogging by the lake in Chicago, the thousands of other joggers don't seem to mind 8 lanes of traffic blowing carcinogenic exhaust fumes into their lungs, or the ugliness of a highway as a lakefront.
4
One of the worst aspects of my Republican party going down the tubes is that there is no entity to hold the Democratic party accountable for its misdeeds. Avoiding a climate change debate is simple depravity.
2
The Democrats should emphasize climate change, partly because it is one of the most important problems currently facing the world, and partly because Donald Trump is so clueless on this subject. Or should I say on every subject?
In a recent meeting on the subject with Prince Charles, who has made the preservation of the earth's environment one of his signature issues, The Donald came away saying he could not believe Prince Charles actually cared what sort of earth is to be left to future generations. I guess our president feels everyone else is as selfish and as wrapped up in themselves as he is.
With the recent unprecedented hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, fires and dust storms, surely even moderates in the Democratic party want this issue front and center, not to mention Independents and even some Republicans who simply want to preserve their homes and save the land as it is.
4
I think the main reason Hillary lost was because instead of focusing on the real day to day problems preoccupying the Americans, health care, job insecurity, opioid crisis, you name it, she was pushing the climate and the rights of LGBT community. Don't get me wrong climate change is real and LGBT people deserve respect. But planting a few more windmills in the hills of California will not turn around the climate, will not even slow it by much. Climate change is here to stay, we better adapt.
I live in one of the richest most advanced place on the planet, SF Bay Area. There are thousands of homeless people and the numbers are only growing. There are under every bridge, man, women, young, old, the richest place on the planet, I see them every day. Nobody cares. A thousand time more important than climate change. Let's debate this instead.
5
@Gabi
There are thousands of homeless now but there will be millions in the near future, displaced by floods, rising sea levels, drought, and extreme heat. Let's think past the present and imagine it magnified many times. Those of us in the continental subarctic are front-line witnesses to the accelerating changes. We are accustomed to extremes, from temperatures in the minus 60's F during the winter to temperatures in the plus 90's F during the summer. That happens in the span of only 5 months (January to June), along with corresponding shifts in day length. So we KNOW how fast things can and do change. It is equally possible for climate to change just as fast on the scale of decades, as has been proven through study of ice core data.
2
I don't ascribe to the blame game anymore - it merely promotes our position of being voyeuristic spectators. We sat on our hands for too long. It was naieve to rely on the hallowed market to develop solutions when so much money was being spent preserving the status quo. Even now - how many got caught up in socialist howling surrounding AOC's green new deal instead of having intelligent discussions despite the door being awkwardly opened?
Yes- climate must be discussed by Democratic candidates. It should be discussed by all of us. And we have to vigorously confront the petrochemical industry, the Koch network, right wing hate mongers, and the dominionists - a terrifying evangelical group with unfettered access whose god wants them to exhaust it all.
What we also need is a plan, a map. Otherwise it is so hopeless. I am making adjustments but we need to work together and barrel over groups that stand in our way.
I am astounded that green businesses and companies reusing plastic in all sorts of ways are not absolutely thriving. Talk about jobs, talk about hope. This country has totally lost its mojo.
As I've gotten older - I think a hanging chad didn't cost Gore the election. It was the petrochemical industry. Our time is much shorter now. Not to design something is to suffer design by default. Nature plays hardball. She's earned it.
In fact I'm contacting the DNC now.
3
Has Mr. Gillis heard of the Peshtigo fire in Wisconsin? In 1871. Killed more than a thousand people. Long before anthropogenic climate change.
Has he heard of the great Mississippi flood of 1927? Much worse than this year's, or 1993's.
Has he heard of the Kansas drought and famine of 1860? Or the dust bowl of the 1930's?
There has always been disastrous weather. Climate change doesn't change this. It's a little warmer. So what?
Classic demagogue tactic: Make people terrified of a supposed threat that is really only a manageable everyday event. For Trump it is illegal immigration. For Gillis and his friends, it is climate change. We'll survive, both of them. The immigrants will become good Americans, and the farmers will adapt to climate change. No big deal.
4
You're talking about more than century and decades between events. What scientists are saying is that these are going to be more frequent, perhaps even yearly, and more intense. Are we prepared for that?
2
@Beth scientists say -- does anyone on the left know a scientist? These events have not become more frequent or intense. And the global temp record is based on estimates and guesses. There were but a handful of temp stations back in 1900, most located on the coasts, not randomly positioned, they didn't follow a common protocol, etc. there were no stations above the arctic circle or below the antarctic -- so don't believe everything scientists say. And predictions of disasters in the future are easy to make and impossible to prove wrong -- until the time has passed.
Ever hear of Carbon dating? Scientists are able to collect data about climate in the past using carbon dating. It isn't a political tool. It's scientific tool. Temperatures and sea levels are rising at a much higher rate than a century ago. You could look it up. We should be concerned.
4
Political parties totally lack morals or ethics. They are machines designed to maximize getting power for themselves and maintaining it. When a political party happens to promote good, it is only because that promotion been calculated to achieve more power or to hold on to power. There is no law and little else that compels or encourages political parties to be consistent, logical or honest, or to prioritize debate subjects by actual importance. To rely only upon political parties for vital information and priorities is foolish.
Primary politics in United States elections could be run entirely differently. Political parties could be relegated to exclusively using their private funds to run their internal elections, or caucuses, or whatever methods they use, to endorse "their" candidates. Legal official primary elections that paid for with government dollars could be open to all, with or without party endorsement. Laws could prevent government dollars from funding party elections. Laws could also prevent parties from controlling the subject matter or format of official government-sanctioned debates.
2
So long as the democrats continue to be neo-liberal frauds, instead of real democrats, nothing will change.
2
Voters run away from chicken little the sky is falling hysteria.
1
YES!!!
2
The Dems. really have to show some back bone if they expect a 2020 win. Climate Change is a top priority issue..touching on all of Americans main concerns. If they're not willing the people will be crying for a 3rd Party player. Cannot forget Bernie's popularity and message that resonated among America's youth & all who realized we need a major change in this country.
3
Good idea!
Fat chance...
Past history show that less than five percent of the debate questions from all the networks have been climate related. This past year we have seen California ravaged by fires, the Midwest ravaged by flooding that has prevented farmers from planting crops, and a border crisis fueled by migrants fleeing the drought in Guatemala.This crisis is destroying lives and affecting our economy.It's time to give this critical topic the attention it deserves instead of allowing topics to be chosen by networks interested in driving ratings.
3
Why publish this?
The Democrats support environmentalism, the Republicans oppose.
@Daniel F. Solomon Democrats generally support the climate change policies most likely not to be enacted. If they would move off of heavy taxation and on to subsidies then we would see progress being made. They really care more for redistribution than climate.
@John
When I was a kid, Republicans were self styled conservationists. Nixon created the EPA. No longer. Republicans support pollution.
Chamber of Commerce types oppose environmentalists. Anyone who cares for the environment will support any candidate against reactionary Republicans.
You might be right. But this article is unnecessary. Want to oppose pollution? Go on Fox. The WSJ.
Keep the eye on the ball.
1
Shame on the Democratic Party for explicitly hanging me, my generation, and all future generations out to dry (to die, frankly). And then they have the gall to tell young people off for not voting, or for voting for “radicals”.
I’m sorry, but if you’re *not* behind the Green New Deal and immediate climate action, you ARE the radical. A dangerous, irresponsible, and morally bankrupt radical.
7
Fully agree. The issue of 'climate warming' is such a fundamental issue, so vital, that it can not be left loose, so it's pieces may be picked up in the midst of an increase in frequency and intensity of floods, droughts and fires...and the malevolent denial of Trump of a phenomenon already biting our 'behinds'. Climate change must be an integral part of any conversation, especially now, that we have a chance to evict an arrogant brutus ignoramus that is making things worse...just because he can. What remains galling is republican's complicity!
1
Could there be a better illustration of how the two parties frame an issue? The republicans merely sow some doubt while the dems acquiesce, rather than present a case. They are pathetic.
4
According to climate scientist James Anderson at Harvard we have 5 years to substantially replace fossil fuels in order to provide a reasonable chance humans will survive the looming warming catastrophe.
The political process is demonstrating that it is inherently incapable of addressing what needs to be done fast enough.
Existing renewable energy technologies cannot do the job.
Breakthroughs have been invented that can make a difference. For example, water can replace gas, diesel & jet fuel to run engines. Turning water into a fuel using Walt Jenkins new process needs only a tiny amount of energy. The science is new and hard to believe. He plans to drive a bus across the nation, taking the water from the air, to demonstrate this remarkable reality. See H2GE.com
This is a GREEN SWAN - a highly improbable innovation with huge implications. A few other GREEN SWANS exist. Rapid implementation can make a huge difference. See aesopinstitute.org
Students are demanding change to give them a chance to survive. Imagine those of all ages learning enough new science to make that possible. A GREEN SWAN Movement driven by their energy might change the world fast enough to matter.
And turn them into teachers in the process.
@Mark Goldes
"... Turning water into a fuel using Walt Jenkins new process needs only a tiny amount of energy. …"
OK, I'll take bait. I googled searched for reputable scientific journals and websites for articles on this. Could not find any. Maybe I'm using the wrong search keys? Can you provide a link to any independent, legitimate and reputable website (EG. Scientific American, Nature, etc) for peer reviewed articles?
1
@oldBassGuy There are as yet no such articles. However, there is a book by Moray King which provides a great deal of the background science.
I am writing a book titled RUNNING ON WATER which provides an alternative hypothesis. King states Jenkins is tapping Zero Point Energy.
My view is that his water fuel is a much simpler way of using fractional Hydrogen - which Brilliant Light Power calls hydrino energy. That work is well documented. A good introduction is the book: Randell Mills and the Search for Hydrino energy.
I prefer the term ECHO - Energy from Collapsing Hydrogen Orbits. Unlike Mills who uses a chemical catalyst, Jenkins employs nanobubbles and micro ball lightning - a plasma.
Using ECHO a barrel of water become the energy equivalent of 200 barrels of oil.
This is well documented by Mills.
Other scientists have patented fractional Hydrogen systems employing a plasma.
The importance of fractional quantum states was predicted by Dr. Robert Carroll, Ph.D. in 1974. He wrote a mathematical analysis in 1990.
A former student of Carroll's, Ronald Bourgoin has published Inverse Quantum Mechanics of the Hydrogen atom: A General Solution. That paper is readily available on the web.
The Jenkins approach is inherently extremely energy efficient and economic. It clearly can replace the need for fossil fuels.
Since it can turn water fueled vehicles into power plants, it can supersede coal, natural gas and nuclear power.
This is the required energy revolution!
There shouldn't be a grand debate on climate change amongst the choir. Unless you want to write attack ads in the general by exposing hypocrisy and being horribly out of touch.
Look, I understand that a changing climate has implications that reach beyond the disasters and right to the everyday financial picture. Having that discussion while candidates fly around in private planes, with Secret Service's SUV engines running, and staff clicking around on smart devices is about as hypocritical as you can get.
Then, they'll attack flyover country for their trucks, addiction to gasoline, and apparent lack of green energy. Now we've changed the discussion into an attack on people who have no mass transit and need their trucks for work. All while forgetting that the companies doing the worst are based on the coast, that most wind and solar farms are on farmland, and that a lack of competition means you can't avoid plastic. You probably can't work close enough to your house to avoid using the car.
It must be framed as a job creating, cost saving life saver. All of which it is. That's not going to happen on a stage with a dozen Democrats eating their young.
27
@Kate
I thoroughly disagree. The Yale Climate Change Communications Team has been studying attitudes towards Climate for over ten years. Check out their data (See their Climate opinion maps) and you will see we’ve reached a tipping point. Most Republicans are now worried about Climate too and a majority believe we need action. We ignore this critical juncture of changing attitudes and heightened concern at grave risk to our country and to the party. Pretending this isn’t the most important issue facing us all is sheer folly. Millennials who are often jaded toward politics care about this more than any other issue. I’m retired. I care about this more than any other issue. A debate on various solutions would only engage our more jaded brethren to take part in the system to engage with the process. We risk a third party candidate or even Republicans themselves putting forth solutions that might be appealing to many. Oh the myopic DNC is at it again. I’m so very disheartened.
17
@Kate I have to disagree. Putting global warming front and center, for at least a few hours, will force Democratic candidates to hone their policy proposals -- and their rhetoric. Of course responses to global warming must be framed as job-creating and, more broadly, in terms of social justice. AOC has already skillfully done this and some of the candidates, Sanders and Warren in particular, have been savvy and committed enough to follow her lead. I am certain that Warren will not launch an attack on "people who have no mass transit and need their trucks for work." Her entire narrative is based on empathy for working people, especially those in the so-called "heartland." Let's not assume that the Dems will "eat their young." In fact, it looks like quite a few of them are learning from their political offspring. That should be encouraged by giving them a chance to shine in a national forum.
4
We should have a real debate about climate change - but by scientists, not politicians.
One of the major networks - or maybe Netflix or Amazon - should develop and present it - with as wide a distribution as possible (think heavy promotion and YouTube).
The debate should feature the several - say three - top policy experts on each side. It could use a standard debate format with each side presenting its case - in say 20 minutes - with three 10 minute rebuttals.
Perhaps it could be followed by a panel discussion evaluating the issues of the debate - by top scientists not politicians or newsheads.
Come on CBS, NBC, ABC, Netflix, or Amazon. Get'er done.
2
I recommend that the Dems not have a debate about global overpopulation or the alleged overexpansion of the human project. This topic has been and must continue to be entirely off limits in public debate. I am confident that all environmentally concerned and responsible candidates for the presidential nomination will make every effort to suppress any mention of this issue.
Forward to 10 billion.
3
This is insane. Sanders, Booker, Harris, Warren, Klobuchar, and Gillibrand are all co-sponsors of the Green New Deal. Warren and, god help us, Joe Biden even, have explicit proposals for this. But most critically, why is this the sole responsibility of Democrats? The invaluable Lawyers, Guns and Money site has something they call "Murc's Law" based on the observation of a frequent commenter that in the mainstream media, only Democrats are seen to have any agency. This is a prime example of that unfortunate phenomenon.
14
But, see, if we don't placate, appease, kowtow to, and triangulate, then Trump might win again. We have to become just as awful as our enemies in order to compete with them. Plus (of course) the big corporate dollars and the cushy jobs we want to keep prevent any program of actual change. And it worked so well last time when a moderate fingers-to-the-wind Hillary kept that awful Trump out of office . . . Wait! It didn't work then, but no matter, we'll keep doing the same thing over and over and hope for different results, throwing up Dukakis-Kerry-Clinton-Biden and wondering why things get worse.
Look. Democrats today are to the right of Nixon, who at least started the EPA.
3
Climate change will transform our society, like it or not. It is already doing so as we gird ourselves to losing community after community to fires, floods, and storms, as people displaced by drought pile up at borders, and as it just gets bloody hotter everywhere.
Read the science! It's here, it's real, and it's getting worse.
Can we find leaders who will meet this challenge? Not if we allow it to be marginalized and lost in the din of lesser issues. Progressives often criticize Republicans for having betrayed their every value in exchange for pinch of Trump's power.
The DNC is posed to do no better. Who are these people? How does one reach them. If I wrote this message on the back of a $100 bill and sent to them, would it be heard?
5
The Liberal Guide to Failure: Disparage your own side for not agreeing with you on every single detail of an enormous issue, and, as a result, help the Republicans win another election.
1
The outlook for climate change is increasingly bad as noted in this evaluation of the current analytics. At the current pace we could see major disruptions within 30 years and it is probably much worse than anyone has predicted:
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a0d7c18a1bf64e698a9c8c8f18a42889.pdf
But while people say they are concerned, the Koch and Mercer machines continue to pump out propaganda to protect their interests and they are winning the war of "hearts and minds".
But where is the counter-narrative? Where are the films out of Hollywood that would show what it would really be like, not some fantasy, in 50 or 80 years? Nada.
Until the media-industrial complex actually starts to highlight that, yes, we are actually in an existential crisis, not much is going to change.
You picked the wrong subject matter. Guardsman Pass in Utah still has 12' - 15' of snow, they just opened Montecristo Pass by plowing it. The May snowstorms in the West, the temperature in SLC will be 63F tomorrow. Horrible article.
Weather and climate are two entirely different things.
2
A cold and wet winter doesn't invalidate climate change. Climate and weather are two different things. Climate change is happening all around us, humankind's destruction of the planet is evident nearly everywhere.
1
@Ryan
What people don't get is that 'climate change' means a wider range of extreme weather events in All Directions.
More rain (look at the Midwest right now, it's practically underwater) falling in heavier amounts. More cold and snow. More heat and drought. The real danger is that we are going to see, in the near future, conditions which are not stable enough to allow reliable production of the cereal grain and other staple annual crops which feed our species. What then ?
2
Time for debate is over. Time for "green dream" is over. Action is needed now. We cannot build nuke plants fast enough. How about standardizing electric car charging? How about everyone carries a cup with them with permanent straw. Or a canteen.
2
It is fascinating how little attention climate change gets on MSNBC. Maddow is a particularly bad offender on this point.
1
Democrats are their own worst enemy. Offering better subsidies on renewable is a much easier pill to swallow than extreme taxation. Too many Democrats are focused on the stick instead of the carrot.
What the climate change deniers all have in common is that they want to be rich, even if it is on a dying planet, and they don't care about anybody else. The only way to "win" on climate change is to explain to the deniers where the money and jobs are going to come from as we transition to renewables. Climate change science is conclusive, and eventually we run out of oil anyways - so you'd be debating climate change with idiots and oil company executives, but who among the ignorant doesn't want to get rich? Forget the environment - people either get it or they don't care. Talk about money.
It’s disgraceful that zero Republicans and very few Democrats care not a single iota about climate change. Shame on the DNC! Getting to the point where I’m becoming embarrassed to even call myself a Democrat...so much inertia...
2
If the Democratic Party is doing what your headline states, then what are the Republicans doing?
Yes, exactly. The temperature hit 125 in India this week and we're talking about Trump's tax returns. Despicable.
LOL. American politics is about keeping the corporate overlords happy, have you not been paying attention? Climate Change does not matter when over half of D voters are too poor to feed their children.
Be very careful. The DNC will try to steer things in the same feckless direction that they did in 2016. HRC and her milquetoast agenda was one of the factors that caused crucial previous Obama voters to opt for The Trump, the disaster that keeps giving. It is now almost too late to stop apocalyptic ecological collapse brought on by our fossil fuel addicted civilization. It was indeed tragic that Climate Change was ignored in the 2016 Presidential debates. Trump's monumentally stupid position on this crisis would have been revealed in prime time. This subject albeit not a "bread and butter" issue (yet) needs front and center attention as we select someone (other than Biden) to bring down this out of control madman.
2
Democrats want to save their seats, not the planet.
2
This is a case of Nero fiddling while Rome burns....
1
Meanwhile, republicans deny it's existence.
Why is the author agreeing with the false term originated by a conservative wordsmith to minimize the scare of the term global warming? I don’t really care that much about climate change. I really care about global warming!!!
Perhaps it’s time to rename it global baking.
1
Excellent op-ed!!
RE: “You wouldn’t always know it, but it went up every year I was president. That whole, suddenly America’s like the biggest oil producer and the biggest gas — that was me, people,"
-Obama, 11/18/2018
1
We've been fooled again--by the DNC.
Democrats need to be VERY careful to play this climate card too hard. Sure; Americans are concerned about the environment, but that quickly changes when gas prices go over $3, and when unsightly windmills start popping up around their neighborhoods. The number ONE goal for 2020 should be to get rid of this wrecking-clown in the White House. So dialing it down on identity politics is probably good advice. To name a few; republicans want to keep their guns? Let them - that genie can't be put back in the bottle anyway. They hate abortions? Well, I am in favor of the right to choose, but I do NOT support abortions in the 2nd and 3rd trimester. Might be good to stress this publicly for Democratic candidates. And this CO2 thing? It is a problem for sure. But I would like to see it tackled with fourth-generation nuclear energy, the so called intrinsically safe MSR (Molten Salt Reactor). THAT is the way you win elections, by appealing to Independents through realistic proposals, NOT extremism. Democrats still have a lot to learn. If they continue on their current path, the clown is going to win again. I guarantee it.
Vote as if your life depends upon it. Because it does. The Republican Party runs on Fear -- of Mexicans, Muslims, gays, of Obama, Hillary, or any Democrat coming for your guns. Fear has worked well for them for at least 40 years. Climate change is the most terrifying reality humanity has ever faced. An Australian think tank told us this week that human civilization will likely end by 2050. Do you want to give a scientifically illiterate president another 4 years, or do you want to get to work asap to save human civilization? Young people are terrified that they won't have a future. Wanna get them to vote? Let them know that one party (and only one) understands their fear and is going to make stopping climate change their top priority.
1
It's sad that the end of the world isn't a winning issue but first someone needs to address why some voters take the word of a politician over a scientist. When you have a toothache, you see a dentist, not a politician.
2
Nonsense.
Climate change doesn't "imperil civilization". It's getting a little warmer. Winters are getting milder. In North America we aren't setting any more record highs (in some other continents we are). We are setting fewer record lows. Growing seasons are lengthening. There is less drought than there used to be, at least in North America (not a surprise: warmer oceans evaporate more moisture, and it has to come down as rain somewhere).
All the preceding are results of statistical studies by my students, published in peer-reviewed journals.
Change isn't necessarily bad. Only reactionaries think so; the "green" movement, fantasizing about a remote Eden (probably in the cool woods of Northern Europe, speaking some vaguely Germanic language), is reactionary.
2
Every since 2016 the DNC and it associated arms have shown a very ugly side towards, especially towards certain candidates.
They pick and chose which candidates and causes to promote. They decide who "deserves" their funding. They decide the national agenda. This does not reflect the wishes of the voting public.
It is no wonder certain members of their party are questioning their leadership
1
Hey, I know. Let's have a debate and give all the dem candidates a test on the science of climate change and see how well they do. Methinks they are just mouthing platitudes that play well to their base. How about a real test?
"Democracy" itself is a bit of a joke in a country that tolerates only two parties, both dependent on cash from the rich. By European standards the Dems, aside from their infatuation with identity politics, are basically a conservative business party while the GOP toys with neofascism. What strange chicanery takes place thats allows the repeated election of presidents who actually came up a bad second with the electorate.
Democrats downplay climate change because most Americans don't care about climate and the environment.
Look at how European cities have changed over the past 30 years: low emission zones, less or no thru traffic, traffic free centers, wider sidewalks and separate bike lanes, etc.
Our big cities have been controlled by Democrats, yet little of this has happened here.
2
The democrats are basically two camps now: those who won't take on trump, and those so far to the left that they are shackling the party. Unless they can pull out of this nosedive, trump gets another 4 years.
8
@DMS
And what pray tell does this have to do with this article?
Is it far left to deal with climate change? Is science far left?
5
@DMS
*…shackling the party.*?
More like dragging the old, stubborn, to afraid to act, do nothings forward in an attempt to save America and the world.
6
@LFK
As the democrats are repeatedly getting mired in far left issues, clear and present issues like climate change and impeachment are being treated like uranium. Why? What in god's name are they waiting for? Trump's shiny objects distract voters from what he's doing, but the dems have shiny leftists objects of their own, and these are doing the same thing: distracting voters from the most pressing dangers of trump's presidency. Why isn't climate issue #1? Why is facial recognition technology being put in schools? What is actually being done about gerrymandering and the electoral college, the militarization of police, the arsenals stored in every neighborhood? Nothing, because transgender military, legalizing drugs, abolishing borders all attract more attention---and are useless for getting voters on board.
4
I think a debate by democratic candidates about solutions to climate change would be not only highly warranted but advantageous politically.
When you have 23 candidates treating an issue with importance it makes the one guy denying the issue (Trump) the outlier.
It would help shift mainstream opinion to move forward with solutions and less people will stick with the one guy that doesn't get it (Trump).
Discussion of climate change is pointless unless it includes an acknowledgement of overpopulation, which is a taboo subject in both parties. I see no indications that the Democrats are going to admit that the planet is overpopulated, much less advance proposals for population stabilization or reduction.
3
"People are 'Roasting alive' ..."
Glad the Dem's aren't giving in to manufactured hysteria in facing global warming for a change.
It seems that there are advances in technology which ought to help address the climate change issue by 2050. Advances in solar power, batteries, fusion reactors, food production, etc all ought to mitigate the impact of man's contribution to climate change. Change is constantly occurring, we have always adapted.
2
"People are roasting alive in California towns hit by the deadliest wildfires in the state’s history."
True. But in contrast to that alarming photo accompanying this piece - undoubtedly taken last year during a drought - the Rio Grande this Spring in New Mexico is overflowing its banks, threatening its dams, is the fullest it's been since 2005. So, you see, this is the problem. We unscientific Americans only think in terms of months or a year or two. We don't see trends. I suppose it'll take catastrophic fires in New Mexico's forests, like those in California last year, to wake up New Mexicans, and others, to the threat.
1
Thank you, Justin Gillis, for exposing this political chicanery.
Are there really no voters to be gained from a Primary debate on Climate Change? Of course there are! In fact, EVERY debate should feature it. Republican voters are coming around and they’re looking for answers.
The Democrats own this issue…if only they would. Even Bernie soft-pedals it to 3rd or 4th on his platform. Jay Inslee is the only one who calls Climate Change for what it is: The Single Greatest Issue Facing the World. Every other issue is subsumed by it — the economy, immigration, food and water, the Future. Everything.
The Republican Party is slowly creeping around to admitting that it’s real. They’re only doing so because the voters know it already. If the Democrats wait long enough, the Republicans will be able to say they care, too, which, of course, they don’t.
Amazingly enough, very few people have made the point that Justin Gillis describes.
It should indeed be front and center in every primary debate. (In fact, why didn't Al Gore make it a lynchpin of his Vice Presidency for eight years? He didn't really start speaking up until he was running for President, himself).
Thanks, Mr. Gillis, for this excellent column.
3
Climate change should/must be the sole focus of at least one debate among candidates of the Democratic Party; at the very least, we owe that to our posterity.
Another issue worthy of an entire debate is our militarism and endless wars, and the money pit we call the Department of Defense.
2
Of course, Jay Inslee wants a single-issue debate on the climate. He's polling in the low single digits and it's his signature issue.
Is every candidate -- all twenty something of them -- supposed to get their own Single-Issue Night?
1
There needs to be a debate, focused if not on climate change then on environmental issues in general - For climate change mitigation/reduction a debate on the role of nuclear power, non-climate change environmentalism, and combating nimby. There solar projects blocked because it covers too much land for wildlife - wind farms blocked because of birds - wind farms blocked because they are within view of rich people homes - If this is a crisis for the world - and the country - they need to debate what other environmental standards must relax.
And they need to stop putting out proposals that are 'do what I say, not what I do' -
1
I think sometimes the Democrats focus on winning more than principles and values. The irony is they are doing neither.
Impeachment is an example. Rather than principled actions to remove the hideous monster in the White House, Pelosi is sticking her finger in the wind to see which way the political wind is blowing.
If they do not impeach (not the same as conviction), history will record their cowardice, and the bar for unacceptable behavior by a president will be non-existent.
The same goes for Climate conviction as party policy. When someone asked Chris Hayes why MSNBC doesn't cover climate change more often, he admitted that when they do the ratings go down
1
I am a big fan of Mr. Gillis but this is a distortion. Let us be clear where the blame lies for US climate inaction. There is precious little nuance on that question since Gore's loss in 2000.
The DNC decision is about campaign management, not governing policy. If they hold a single-issue debate on climate, they must do it for other issues too. Where does that end?
As for the 2010 climate bill, the "Democrats failed" reading obscures the truth. Pelosi's House passed the bill but Republicans united to filibuster it in the Senate: even "hawks" Graham and McCain defected and joined McConnell's strategy to deny Obama any victory.
Democratic candidates should and will debate climate if the debate moderators ask the right questions.
This debate is infuriating. The worst thing about the comments here--reflecting the general misinformation among climate-aware Democrats--is the failure to recognize that there is an easy, proven technological solution to the energy-climate issue. Nuclear electrical generation. Not mentioned in the Green NewDeal and a subject of much hysteria among science-weak Democrats, it offers a way out of increased CO2 production without imposing serious and politically impossible lifestyle changes on the public. We need to get started on this as soon as possible. Already, nuclear provides half of the electricity for some states. There's no real obstacles except for (1) Big Oil (not to be minimized and (2) uninformed, absurd propaganda mostly from what you could call the "left." We don't need a "debate;" there's really only one credible side to this issue.. We need information and people who don't understand the issue need to read up on it.
4
@JMcF This is true. No one wants to talk about the fact that solar is not emissions free. Nuclear creates less carbon emissions than all other renewable sources except for hydro.
2
@JMcF (3) A place to safely and "permanently" store nuclear waste.
1
@Skip
Getting rid of waste plastics is a bigger and potentially more dangerous problem than nuclear waste. We live with many such disposal problems and deal with them. Large scale industrial civilization poses huge management problems, but few people are clamoring for a return to the Bronxe Age.
A big issue here is how the debate forum will be designed. My understanding is that with 24 candidates — or even 16 that make the cut — having them all on the stage at once will be chaos and prevent any candidate from speaking more than 5 minutes total. So if I they divide the field into two groups, will only half have the chance to address climate change? Or for that matter any issue? I’m concerned that with so little time given to any candidate, Americans will chose the candidate the way we’ve always done it, by sound bites and glamour.
There is an individual solution to the climate problem -- make enough money to afford to live in wherever in the earth is still habitable by humans. If things get really bad, this will be something like an underground city powered by wind, solar, geothermal, or nuclear power. Otherwise, it will be Alaska, northern Canada, Siberia, Greenland, Patagonia, Antarctica, and other such places.
The collective, or socialist, or joint solution to the climate problem is to develop and switch to climate-friendly and climate-change-reversing technologies. Current property relations and political entities that inhibit these developments will have to be changed. We will have a wartime economy in which individual economic and other freedoms are limited and the material standard of living will drop except for the poor, who will have better job opportunities.
Rich people, libertarians, and moderates who dislike rapid change not imposed by market forces, will prefer the individual solution.
"The party has always made that most basic of political calculations — which voters does this issue get us that we don’t already have? — and come up with the answer: none."
The correct answer is actually: Young People.
They largely stayed home in 2016. They wisely care about this issue, which will affect them more profoundly than older generations, who vote in much higher numbers. If Democrats want to win elections, they can focus on issues young people care about, especially climate change.
1
They also largely stayed home in 2010 and 2014, which is how we got Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. And how the Paris Accords got chunked.
I’d love to think you’re right, but I will believe in millenials when I see them actually showing up to vote.
2
Having a degree in economics, I read articles like these and shake my head. The solution is so simple. You remove all incentives for renewable energy, and tax carbon to make it more expensive than renewable. The market will sort it out.
The problem is the general public doesn't understand externalities, and currently has no appetite to pay for them.
We don't teach economics, unless you select it in college. It should be taught at the high school level. Supply and demand. How capitalism and a competitive playing field work. How tariffs work. And externalities!
2
The idea that global warming "imperils civilization" or that people are "roasting alive" is political talk, not science. The Bronze Age was warmer. The Earth is 15% greener than it was a few decades ago is a positive. The U.N.'s 1986 prediction that Madagascar would be submerged by 2000 didn't pan out. Why not pursue a sensible middle ground, as advocated by the founder of Greenpeace? Reduce emissions, but take costs and effects on poor people into account.
3
@rick
You can go back to
TheBronze Age with a little household downsizing, if you like. Great heroic poetry then. Me, I’m fond of telephones, penicillin and that kind of stuff.
@JMcF
And modern dental care. With Novacaine !
As a friend once said to me, 'I tend to believe the last person I talked with.'
In reading this article and some of the comments, I end up where my friend does.
Still, though clunky, it's a way of realizing that everybody has something worthwhile to say. Once you get out of the way.
Our 45th President calls the issue that imperils civilization on our planet "a hoax". Mr. Trump doesn't know the difference between climate and "weather" and delights in rallying his base against science and facts that our planet is dying. That our oceans and lands are polluted by mankind's use of them as waste-bins for plastic trash and industrial chemicals.
The seas are rising as salt-water warms. Earth’s polar ice-caps are melting and Mother Nature is showing us human beings that our planet is dying.
The Republican Party ignores the issue of climate change. The Democratic Party's candidates, sprinting to replace Trump next year, may well downplay climate discussian as a non-starter against Trump's base. Only a cataclysm (like the asteroid or climate-warming that knocked off dinosaurs and extinguished most life on earth in an earlier extinction) may capture the attention of all American voters next year.
1
@Nan Socolow: Didn't Dear Leader say to Piers Morgan that the climate goes both ways? Just like there were good people on both sides in Charlottesville. He's really into this 'both sides/ways' thing. His mind is truly one of a kind.
1
The DNC is right; talking about Climate Change in the Primaries does nothing to ensure we win the General Election, and that is ALL THAT MATTERS. Not individual issues, however important.
2
Where do I send my contribution to Jay Inslee's campaign?
One big problem for Democrats is if they (we) don't discuss climate change, Republicans (Trumpists) will continue to lie about it.
They will tell people that Democrats want to ban beef. That trucks will no longer be legal. That all fossil fuel employees will be unemployed.
We've already seen this kind of lying, not just with respect to the environment but also gun control, international relations, abortion, "socialism," and everything else.
If Democrats don't explain their positions, expect fear mongering. (That will happen even if Democrats do explain, but at least the counter narrative will be available.)
1
@Justin
The scare stories you mention are basically true unless we ramp up our nuclear power capacity. Alternatives such as solar, wind, etc can’t be scaled up enough to provide the level of energy to support a 21st century lifestyle. You might like this if you follow a minimalist philosophy like the ancient Cynics, but good luck attracting a mass following.
1
As a scientist, I find the article and resulting comments troubling. When do we get serious about the looming crisis? Not yet, evidently. I'm guessing that we'll wait until it's obvious to all that we need to act, which will be too late. Just sayin'.
6
@Edward Devinney How many innocent wildlife species will become extinct by the time enough people get concerned to do something about it?
@Edward Devinney: It's already too late. Another 100 years? It will be extremely difficult for those left. Even if we stopped pushing carbon into the atmosphere right this minute, it is still going to be very, very bad.
We humans are a stupid lot. What other animal fouls it's own nest so willingly? Our one and only nest.
I'm so sorry we will take so many species down with us. Innocent species that made this blue ball floating in space a garden.
2
Although the subject this time is climate change (which is one of the most important issues we face), the real underlying problem is being ignored: Once again the DNC is actively trying to limit our choices and to decide for us which candidate we Democrats should support in the coming primaries, rather than letting the voters decide for themselves. It’s a repeat of the Clinton over Sanders debacle of 2016.
The purpose of the DNC should be to facilitate the opportunities for voters to compare the candidates by sponsoring ensemble debates, to collect and distribute campaign funds as needed and to assist the states in the conduct of the primaries by addressing issues like voter suppression. It should NOT be to limit and direct our options.
It’s time for a revolution within the Democratic Party to get rid of, or at least totally restaff, the DNC. The old guard currently running it are as beholden to corporate and fossil fuel extraction interests as their alleged opponents the Republicans.
5
I'd like to see any side (which in practice means Democrats) start with a simple proposal to greatly increase taxes and fees on private jets. A huge per user carbon generator, and one that would show that they really are willing to stand up against the wealthy elites who use these private jets.
2
If we're not going to have a huge change in our governmental policies, we might was well let Trump and Mitch do their worst. Relatively, they are insignificant.
There are elemental forces that are threatening our planet, our democracy, and any semblance of peace and security all over the world.
I worked for Hillary in 2016 and have high regard for Joe Biden as a human being, but their politics are counter-productive.
We need a drastic change in direction. Some suggestions are coming from AOC, Marianne Williamson, Jay Inslee, Elizabeth Warren, and others. In some ways, women candidates seem to be leading the way.
We need to hit hard on climate change, income and wealth inequality, the refugee crisis, the environment, preserving and enhancing civil liberties, and becoming a part of solution to problems across the globe. Our security lies as much with improving relations around the world as with our military.
In 2016 the Dems focused on electoral demographics - not particlulary stimulating to voters.
People sense the force of the coming change and the fragility of our situation, hence the fear and defensiveness. And hence the appeal to demagoguery.
A strong and positive program that faces our future candidly and is proactive is what's required. Nothing less.
2
They really don't get it do they? They've learned NOTHING from the 2016 election. I am soon to be 68, have been voting Democrat since I turned 18. For the first time in my life I no longer think the Democratic party is working in the interest of their constituency. They are just a more liberal version of Republicans, beholding to corporate interests.
If Biden gets the nomination, which certainly seems to be what the party is pushing for, I'm not sure I will vote for him.
4
How about instead, all the democratic candidates are required to convene for one day and draft a united vision on climate? This would test far more than each candidate's knowledge and debate skills on climate, but far more, their abilities to lead, persuade and gain consensus.
With as many candidates as there are, debates on any one and all issues are bound to be repetitive, shrill and shallow.
2
Currently, under the "leadership" of the current occupant in the White House and his fossil fuel and big agriculture lobbyists posing as environmental stewards, the country has taken a big step for mankind. Backwards.
This must be one of the top 3-4 issues in the upcoming election. We are the only country on earth that has stepped away from the barely effectual Paris agreement. We are the only country with the mindset that climate change won't affect us. And even when it does, we scoff if off as "a weather anomaly".
The recent UN report warns the world that we have a bare 12 years to turn this around, if that. What do we need, another horrific summer of catastrophic fires, hurricanes, droughts, crop failures and - yes - more food-seeking migration to finally knock some sense into our politics?
With increasing desertification, there will be more than enough sand for the climate change deniers to stick their heads into.
3
Great idea, Mr. Gillis. Elizabeth Warren already has a plan, and Jay Inslee is committed to saving the Earth. Your idea about the Democratic candidates going ahead with their own climate debate is brilliant! Let's see who has the courage to take up the mantle!
7
Just like impeachment, the only reason climate change isn't a winning political issue is because the Democratic Party has failed, thanks to excessive timidity and awful messaging, to make it one.
87
@Steve You really think that's it? Not the decades of disinformation campaigns funded by the fossil fuel industry? Not widespread voter ignorance about basic science and the public's outright refusal to read any kind of scientific research paper?
10
@Amos
Right. And the Democratic Party could have made a concerted effort to effectively combat those purveyors of misinformation. It hasn't. The rate of natural disasters is consistently increasing, our water and air are being contaminated by unaccountable corporations, the economic growth potential of the clean energy industry is being stymied, farmers are struggling, and cute animal species are being extinguished. This should be an easy win.
13
@Steve: I'm beginning to think they don't want to lead at all. The chair of the Finance Committee (I think it's that one) refused Trump's NY State tax returns on some bogus 'have to play fair' kind of thing.
Why would he do that? It's mind-boggling to me. Don't we want those tax returns? Won't they tell us a lot? Didn't the legislature in NY pass a bill to give it to Congress? And now Congress won't take it?
I don't know how to think about that. But it makes me very depressed.
3
The Dems. have to play this one carefully. I think many people want government to address climate change but their support shrinks away when told the hard truth that it’s gonna require some sacrifices. It’s like proposing higher taxes for better schools and policing. Republicans win by promoting low taxes and dangling shiny objects in front of their uninformed base. Nothing comes for free but many don’t get that when it comes to the greater good of the planet and nation.
1
Gillis would have us all believe that the environment is not going to be addressed. No one told him that. So why is he making a big deal out it? Is it because he just another control freak who can't stand to have "his" issues ignored or otherwise responded to? Sure sounds like it to me.
I don't deny that climate change and environmental destruction due to same is in evidence, however, that does not fall upon the Democratic Party to solve in one election cycle.
Why isn't Gillis taking the GOP to task, more specifically Trump and McConnell?
I don't like headline grabbing hyperbole at the expense of the Democratic Party.The party and its leadership have enough problems to deal with without people like Gillis and Inslee throwing false flags before the game even begins.
Unfortunately for all us, the GND as stated by AOC and other Progressives--essentially adopted by 90% of the Democratic presidential hopefuls--would, with its reckless spending, destroy our economy, impoverish all but the wealthy in their privileged enclaves (Disclosure: I live in one) around the (Malthusian) world and end civilization as we know it.
Yes, we have to do many things to combat climate change. Adaptation, massively more R&D, etc., are required. Putting Democrats in charge of our extinction as a species is not one of them.
5
This article is certainly one way to demonstrate the idea that we get the president we deserve. And perhaps that president is in fact the current climate denier in chief.
1
Shouldn't states begin now to work on solutions now? There are some realities about Climate Change that should be more than a political football because in the meantime, people are suffering from its consequences.
Look at the flooding every year around the country. Take New Orleans for example. The city floods after heavy rains. Other parts of LA have also had severe flooding. I've seen photos of water up to roofs of houses after rain that was not caused by a hurricane!
I was born and raised there but in all those years, I never saw anything like these floods from rain that are occurring now.
https://www.newsweek.com/see-photos-video-new-orleans-streets-flooded-mothers-day-heavy-rains-slam-1423193
1
There is evidence that extreme weather events are scaring many Americans into awareness of climate change. I think it would be very stupid not to consider this as an issue that would attract voters, as well as a golden opportunity for educating the public, a desperate need.
There is a strong economic argument for clean energy and environmental protection, yet to be strongly made by politicians. And the arguments about the health threats from climate change as well...the scientific evidence for these things has been substantial for quite a while. Exper rise abounds. Past time to use it!
Why should the DNC care? They're already measuring the white house drapes for their anointed candidate who cares squat about this issue other than mild rhetoric and quarter measure platitudes. What could possibly go wrong? If they lose, at least they'll have plenty of convenient scapegoats to blame all their misfortune on. If they win, we'll have 2 years of cold gruel right of center legislation, followed by a sweep of both houses in 2022, 2 years of lame duck defensive outrage, and a Tom Cotton administration in 2024.
4
If this column resonating with you, please consider donating to Inslee’s campaign. Just $3 is enough — he needs to get 130,000 individual donors to qualify for the third debate. He just hit 65,000 a few weeks ago.
I am not part of Inslee’s campaign in any way. I just want to see our climate change guy on stage.
5
Ultimately this all comes down to the weakness of Democrats - as has been the case for decades now, their primary concern when it comes to taking a stand on anything is: will it upset conservatives?
5
I think this is a horribly broad brush and not the least bit productive. Democrats have been the only ones speaking up about climate change. I'm not sure I understand the Inslee decision, but you can be sure the environment will be a loud part of this group's debate. Or are the Democrats going to be the circular firing squad they often are, and pick off candidates and brew disharmony until they enter 2020 completely factionalized? Bernie people can't vote for Warren, Warren people can't vote for Harris,Harris people can't vote for Pete. Nobody's people can vote for Biden. Until, eventually, everyone stays home and bathes in his or her self-righteousness. Or writes in Ralph Nader. Want single-issue agreement? How about defeating trump? That would be the best vote for climate change.
3
This should be a concern for both parties. The climate is changing as a result of pollution. Re-brand the problem. We can see pollution. Pollution poses a grave threat to the future of human life and it is a local issue. We see and smell pollution. Autism was rare fifty years ago. ADD/HD was rare, too. Why the rise? Recent findings concerning nano plastic particles deep within the ocean should shock and concern all, especially religious fundamentalists and conservatives who vote Trump. If this unseen world can become infected with plastic, so can we. Pollution can change the genome, but most people need to see the threat. Focus on the visible world first. Climate change is not the rapture, but an attack on life. Certain plastics appear to change gene expression and we already know this. The affects of BPA on the development of fetal genitalia is well known. Are their other effects, perhaps on the developing brain? We see pollution in our streets, we smell it in the air. Dems must make it real for the voter. They should focus on Senate and House races and State races where they can make meaningful change. Take out those politicians who are pro-pollution and anti-life. I'd vote for anyone who talked about cleaning up my local community. Wouldn't you?
2
Mmm....Climate Change as the Rapture, or the Apocalypse. Don’t just write it off. There’s palpable analogy there.
Climate change is the paramount problem of our planet. But debating the issue is pointless. The science denying half of America will not listen being content to wallow in ignorance perpetuated by Republican sycophants who, I am convinced, know in their hearts that humans are causing or contributing to the problem. Climate change is also only one of a dozen or more issues that polarize the nation. The platforms of the two parties are diametrically different when it comes to abortion, race, religion, LGBTQ rights, medical care, gun control, taxation, immigration, education, voting rights, judicial appointments and virtually every other important concern. Democrats must hammer at every outrageous Republican position. One issue isn't going to swing the election.
I'm generally not a fan of the DNC-bashing that Bernie and his Bros used to such beneficial effect in 2016 (*sarcasm*).
But the idea that the DNC is trying to control not only what the candidates can talk about in their debates, but also what the candidates can talk about in other forums? It is ludicrous.
Memo to DNC: THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU. We are trying to save the country and the world from Trump and from climate change. Stop being part of the problem.
5
Thank you Justin for your article. The democrats as a whole are mostly spineless and will not take any bold measures when it comes to climate. I love that Gov. Inslee is bringing it to the fore front. Now is there any way for us to petition the DNC to get the climate issue debated?
1
I’ve never been entirely clear why self-styled progressives spend so much time attacking the Party that gave us clean air, clean water, open space, emission controls and so on and giving a pass to McConnell, the Koch’s, and Trump.
2
@Neal, first, you must not be paying attention if you think progressives are giving Rs a pass on anything.
Second, the dweebs running the DNC now would never have lifted a finger for the Clean Air Act, the Wilderness Act, the Fed Land Policy & Mgmt Act, etc. etc. The people who championed those causes were true progressives - the honorable Stuart Udall and others.
It's time to examine your prejudices, sir.
“The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, still harbors a grudge about that opposition from the left, and rightly so.”
So it was stupid for some environmentalists to push for a stronger bill which they couldn’t get, but Pelosi is right to hold grudges on what is the most important issue of our time.
Seems like a double standard. Or at least a very weird one.
I can see the argument that environmentalists should accept a weak bill rather than no bill, but don’t understand the notion that powerful politicians should be praised for holding grudges on an issue that might involve the collapse of civilization. But, you know, pragmatism.
3
Let's see, I just read an article about monoculture and all our seed being patented, so we can't access traits. Now an article about our world burning up, but we can't talk about it. Sounds like the love of money is very deeply rooted in American politics. That is the biggest problem.
4
I'm sorry but this column reads like it was written for the high school newspaper. the overly simplistic descriptions and overly dramatic appeals don't sway me to support the authors point of view.
Is the DNC truly failing by not providing a single issue debate? there will be plenty of discussion surrounding this issue and much like the gun debate, very little progress made towards finding solutions.
It's not from lack of discussion we find ourselves impotent on the issue. its lack of a spine and guts.
The underlying cause of not to speak of things that can’t be readily changed, means there’s no god. That nature may be done with us, is unfathomable to think of. Who wants to purvey a sense of hopelessness?
1
@fme, you're out of touch with reality if you think there is "very little progress" being made to soften the climate crisis. Trouble is, the action is all in the states and among entrepreneurs who see all but limitless opportunity in remaking our energy economy. We need national leadership too, and for that some ability to claim a mandate after the D nominee wins the 2020 election is essential.
I also profoundly disagree with your characterization of the climate crisis as "a single issue." It impacts or is impacted by virtually every policy issue we face.
1
I agree with Jay Inslee. Why sugar coat in anyway the coming devastation. I also believe Jay, Warren and others will offer up plans of sufficient specificity and spark needed debates.
The terra firma is literally shifting- the American people want solutions, even as individually and collectively we continue to rape the planet.
And if the pundits are right- and climate is poison at the ballot box- then at least this and future generations- who will face another kind of poisoning- will know we tried.
74
@Lowell Greenberg
Amen. Thank you.
3
The Democratic party as a whole is not trying to downplay climate change. Biden is, with the DNC's support, because he's playing to some mythical "centrist" voter by underplaying all the causes that are truly important to the left, like abortion and the environment.
That is a strong argument for why Biden is the wrong candidate for this moment.
3
What exactly are they going to debate? What the best way is to utterly destroy our economy and return civilization to the Stone Age to fight a nonexistent threat? Doesn’t matter anyway. Trump is going to be re-elected in a landslide.
2
Greg: Convincing argument. Certainly has me rethinking my understanding of the issue!
1
Yeah, right. No use upsetting the American People with a straightforward message. They've got enough to worry about, what with unheard-of cyclones, breaking levees, devastating wildfires and ocean levels threatening their homes...
3
Pew Research states that most people think violent crime is more important than climate change.
@Randy
Most Repubs think that immigration is the crisis that requires our attention and not the endless gun violence, income inequality, deteriorating infrastructure, and climate change. When you only watch Fox news, you will not do well in reality testing.
No one is going to accept the changes required to stop or reverse the accumulation of CO2 which causes climate change. Will the debate tell people that? Will it tell them not have any more children? Will it tell them they cannot have a middle class lifestyle focused on endless consumption of junk which pollutes the world? Will it tell them their jobs must be eliminated?
Or will it tell them they can have their cake and eat it too? Vote for me!
1
Most ordinary Americans look out the window and don’t see a crisis. Maybe it’s a little hotter some days? Sure there are floods, but not as bad as ‘93. Hurricanes? We’ve always had them, and some of the worst were in the 60’s not to mention the 30’s. So they go on with their lives and look at people claiming catastrophe and crisis as hysterics. That’s your average voter.
1
"The Bolsheviks are coming!"
Inslee is right. It is the #1 issue, and Democrats should make it the #only issue.
But they make me dizzy with all of the things they want changed and where they want government funding for.
And now that #only issue has gotten exposed as a subterfuge for implementing those "Bolshevik" ideas. The Green New Deal which was thrown in peoples' faces is socialist.
Democrats are infuriating, They think that if they get attention then they are making progress. So every other news story has a picture of AOC.
It isn't Republicans who are being demagogues and who have messed up the climate change issue. It is Democrats with their incessant need to fix everything, change everybody, and have the government do it.
As an example, Democrats need Republicans on their side, but yell at them, constantly, about guns, and insult them, constantly, about their guns. Well, 100 million households have a gun in them. Think insults and changing other people on this issue is going to make progress on climate change? The climate is going to kill millions more than guns will.
Democrats are coming across as wanting to force too much change on Republicans (but not on themselves, because they are already enlightened). Try getting votes for climate change when you do that.
2
HR763 Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Bill... here is a measure where fees are collected from all the carbon producers (polluters) and passed back to all US citizens. As the cost of Carbon based products will be increased, this will allow the market place to make informed choices. Let’s ask ALL candidates to get behind this!
The benefits from reducing Carbon pollution will means better health for all, clean air and cleaner water (no mining disasters from coal mining!).
Already Hydro power produces the least expensive electricity ... technology advantages now allow wind energy to produce power for 1.8 cents/KWh, solar for just under 2.0 cents/KWh. These prices include recovery of the cost of capital. Burning natural gas coast 2.5 cents/KWh - with out allowing for capex recovery.
All Democrats should be asked to discuss their approach to reducing our carbon emissions, improving the air and water, thus the general health of the US population. Reducing premature deaths.
CO2 levels (at Mauna Loa) are now over 410 ppm - the last 5 years have been the hottest ever on our planet. In 2017 and 2018 disasters accentuated by the changing climate cost the US economy over $650 Billion!
We must act now. So we can stand a chance from not having our economy overwhelmed with repairing the continuing increasing cost of weather induced disasters!
1
Wait. This is the same scheming, short-sighted, inclined to deal from the bottom of the deck DNC that vitiated the enthusiasm of Democrats last time and so were a huge factor in giving the presidency to Trump, right? When ALL generations of Americans are or should be terrified of what is happening to our planet, they pull this stuff? May as well just announce that Trump and his fossil-fuel-loving side can just have four more years of the now less than 12 scientists say we have to possibly, maybe, with enough work, save civilization and our lives.
3
This is crazy. It's like a starving person refusing hamburger because it isn't filet mignon.
The Democratic Party is the only hope for action on climate change. All that attacks like this do is enable the Trumpie deniers.
Lighten up. This kind of extremism damages the cause, not advance it.
1
The writer is wrong. Climate change should be a part of the debates, but there is no reason to devote an entire debate to it.
1
The Rio Grande's headwaters are in Rocky Mountain National Park northwest of Denver. Most of its upstream waters comes from snow melt. The river runs dry as it traverses the desert because its waters are damed to fill reservoirs and diverted for crop irrigation. It is replenished downstream once it curves around Big Bend National Park by tributaries flowing out of Texas and Mexico.
Such drama. Perhaps the DNC recognizes that climate change is way down on the list of concerns among voters.
1
"The party has always made that most basic of political calculations — which voters does this issue get us that we don’t already have? — and come up with the answer: none." Wrong. The voters this issue may get them are the young voters who need to feel motivated to TURN OUT. Climate change is THE issue over what our future will be or whether we even have one; and the right Democratic voices could and should inspire younger voters to demand that their future be environmentally sound and sustainable. It is sheer idiocy not to include climate change and clean energy in the debates.
It infuriates me that we have been talking around clean energy for almost 50 years, from a time when we could have prevented or delayed some of the dire consequences we are seeing today, and yet our so-called leaders have utterly failed on this issue since Reagan undid Carter's efforts. Red states have seen record-breaking extreme weather events in recent years; people there have suffered from the GOP lack of commitment to emergency relief and effective government action. Why can't the Dems figure out how to turn this to their advantage?
1
"the party informed him that he would be banned from party-sponsored debates if he took part in any unofficial candidate debate on climate change"
I am starting to think the Koch brothers have infiltrated the DNC
2
The DNC is evil and not getting a cent of my money. They have made some very poor and undemocratic decisions over the past several years. I'm proud of Gov. Inslee for standing up for climate.
2
Here is the reality: Only an Economic Social Political Philosophical Religious mind-change of shattering magnitude can save us.
Many are joining in with the understanding that there is a-material/non-material cosmic inner/outer dimensionality to this planet and to the Universe and within an enfolding/unfolding order. These many are also concluding that that our civilization in its present form is not meeting the test of being a part of that enfolding/unfolding order.
In recent years the inherent danger from planetary biosphere degradation as a result of human activity has been forcing many scientists and non scientists throughout the world to focus their attention on the interactive life sustaining relationship between our planetary resources and our human species’ utilization of those resources. Many are now concluding that we humans in our utilization have become a force acting contrary to planetary biosphere stabilization/regeneration and that this is so serious it could lead to our extinction.
In 1992 1,700 scientists warned us about the catastrophic impact of human actions on the environment and predicted the same high Permian Triassic temperatures. That report was updated in 2017 by 15,000 scientists when they expressed even greater concern. The late renowned physicist Stephen Hawking in that same year predicted that the planet will turn into, as he described it; “a sizzling fireball.”
www.InquiryAbraham.com
2
Losing to Trump in '16 was a feat many in the Democrat Party establishment thought near impossible. . . until they did it, of course. But now, those same people think it'll be easy in '20, now that they know what strategies work. Once again, their safe & boring senior party guy candidate is in place early. The rest follows. It comes as no surprise that the strategy of ignoring climate change is being used again.
I am supremely confident that if anyone knows how to almost win an election it is the geniuses at the Democratic National Committee
Environmental issues have been the #1 concern of this voter since the 1980s. No other issue comes close to being priority for me. I was hoping the country would finally join me so we have a shot at saving the planet.
The Dems should make climate change their #1 issue and campaign on what they're going to do about it and how grossly negligent the GOP has been, and how much that threatens our national security. The public needs to wake up, and leaders need to lead!
Mr. Gillis shoots himself and the cause in the foot with the rhetoric of the title of this piece. This is precisely the fodder that feeds climate-change deniers: "Oh, look at the pure hysteria of these environmental nuts! They are actually claiming that people are being roasted alive!"
If we are going to force our government to finally take action to save this planet, we will have to not only be aggressive and steadfast, but intelligent and canny in how we do so.
Living in a time when science is a debate topic not a hard won knowledge base is sad. Thing are getting a bit medieval. I wonder who put us here...
It's terribly amusing that we have a president who doesn't know the difference between weather and climate change. It boggles the mind. It also boggles the mind that we have a president who can't speak coherently off script.
The dem party has little credibility on this issue. First, when one of the leading climate fighters (AOC) claims that we're all gonna die in 10 years, that's simple hysteria. And when the left shouts down any challenges or opposition to its theory of climate change, that doesn't lend credibility either. Nor when you see plans put out by Warren that are simply incomprehensible and the one by Biden is plagiarized, well, it gets a little ridiculous.
Then you have the hysterical demands for this or that (as per this piece). And all the dem plans for fighting CC involve getting rid of fossil fuels, wealth distribution, and few include nuclear. In short, it seems like the dems like CC because it comports so well with the left's political agenda.
What would work much better would be an honest debate about the science, the various scenarios that could occur, and the costs and effectiveness of various solutions -- if we have a problem. And it would also help the dem cause on CC if they didn't treat every weather even as "it's here now, there's hurricanes in the Atlantic, what will we do." In short, the dems come across like religious zealots trying to sell us some very questionable policies. If they could dial it down a notch or two, quit flying all over the place and have an honest discussion, that might work, but at this point dems trying to outgreen each other might be good theater, but hardly good politics.
It's almost as if when bitter apathetic non-voters say: "There's only one political party in this country. It's a good cop, bad cop routine. Both of them just love rich people and neither is going to do anything that Big Oil and Big Pharma doesn't like."; they're telling the truth. Almost.
And then there's the "God's Will" people. I grew up around them and I know there's no amount of mysterious smiting and plague and brimstone they won't put up with if it's "God's Will".
I've come to think that like a war or any disaster, natural or man made — there's money to be made on this climate change business and so the rich folk who steer our politics know that they'll be angling to profit of the next big thing and their broker will know which stocks to buy.
Miami under water? No problem my family bought realestate in Orlando, it's ocean front now! The Inland Empire burns? No problem my family owns the homes that didn't. they're worth twice as much now! Grain shortages due to drought? OMG! Daddy bought wheat futures for a song! Toronto has the climate of Mauritania now? You should of moved to Baffin Island when you could still get land up there cheap, we did.
This is what's behind the donor class's non-chalance about climate change. They'll profit from it.
Thanks for a great, thoughtful, instructive article!
I as a citizen would like to know if there is a Russian connection with manipulating opinion against climate change acceptance. Specifically whether the Russians expect to profit from climate change in the north seas, and in other areas related to their own climate warming.
Thanks!
If they dont have a plan I wont vote for them. There are solutions all around us. Whos brave enough to get things done, and quickly!
Id like to see more businesses and rich people step up with their own independent plan, instead of leaving it up to the politicians. We need an army of people to change our ways.
The Democratic Party is not the Green Party. It needs Green Party voters so it panders. Poor Senator Dianne Feinstein trying to defend herself against a group of 11 year old school children who have been indoctrinated on climate change by their teacher. The Senator knows cheap energy keeps the country going and gets votes. 11 year olds have no idea what it is to pay an electric bill or fill a gas tank. The Democratic party used to but not anymore.
Stop acting like 11 year old children.
What even this excellent column misses is the fact that a single-issue debate helps educate the public, including the many folks who won't watch the debate, via the lead-up to the event and the follow-up coverage and discussions. A climate emergency (let's stop using the inaccurate, milquetoast term "climate change") debate would serve such a purpose, including by prompting consideration of the policies and options the debate would illuminate. It also would help Democratic voters decide which candidate should be their candidate by indicating which one can best translate complex ideas into simple, accurate, persuasive messages.
4
@Thunder Road There are plenty of politically produced environmental documentaries that educate the public. It does not fall to the Democratic Party to do that. It falls to supporters to do that.
My college students think climate is THE most important issue of our times. They know that future economic growth and political stability depend on taking this issue seriously. They understand that short run thinking is how we got to this place and that ignoring the problem is no longer an option. They are also voters and savvy consumers. Ignore them at your peril.
2
@Nicole
Speaking for myself when I was 20 years old I didn't know anything. And I'm still learning.
This column helps to describe why so many Americans are fed up with both established parties and not just the Trumplicans. As this year progresses, mark my words: the DNC will try to undermine Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders because they are the two candidates who most want to challenge the systemic deficiencies of our extreme form of capitalism
5
Why is anyone surprised, there is basically no difference between the two establishment parties, Democrat and Republican! That's why Trump is the White House, because people know this and wanted a change. It's too bad the change ended up being him, but that doesn't mean the DNC are the good guys either.
4
I think climate change is the most important issue of our times, but I actually agree that the Democrats shouldn't "debate" it on TV. Solutions are going to be very difficult, complex, and require careful evaluation. A TV debate will require reducing the policy discussion to soundbites and will do more to obscure the issue and create confusion and fear than anything else.
No, this is the kind of issue that actually needs to be handled with extensive Congressional hearings and involvement of the appropriate federal agencies. What the Democrats should do is collectively commit to making that process one of their top three priorities if they gain control of the Congress and the Presidency. Commit to saving the planet, but don't trivialize the debate by turning it into a campaign football.
60
@617to416 What if the Democrats don't win? Then people will not hear a discussion. They will believe that if climate was important then the DNC would have had a debate about it. In '16 if the DNC would have had a debate about climate change the world might have never had the misfortune of a President Trump.
15
@Newell McCarty
The Democrats should loudly promote ideas for solving climate change. My point is they shouldn't turn it into a campaign issue to fight over.
13
@617to416, If Democrats don't define the issue for the themselves, Republicants will do it for them. The will say fighting climate change is part of Democrats' socialist agenda and it will sink the economy. Democrats must educate people about the exciting possibilities of transitioning to a carbon-free economy. It will make us more independent and stable, not less. It will make us more prosperous, not less. It will create far more jobs then is will eliminate. Democrats just have to pose the question to voters, "Do we really want to continue to base our economy on extracting polluting fuel from deep below the ground, deep water, mountain tops, and unstable parts of the world, and continue polluting our air and water with it when renewable alternatives already exist that now cost less?"
17
"Democratic fecklessness on the subject of climate change is nothing new."
The core of the Democratic party is feckless on any issue that would challenge corporate power and interests, whether that be related to climate, wealth inequality, tax policy, campaign funding reform, defending unions, over-consolidation of media ownership, etc. Sanders and Warren are addressing these issues however.
2
I think you covered the wrong party - don't you mean "The Republican Party is Trying to Downplay Climate Change. Don't Let it."?
1
There is no man made CO2 driven climate crisis.
Nearly every scientist on earth, more than 200 international science organizations, and farmers the world over disagree with you.
3
Unless America reduces carbon dioxide emissions from cars and trucks mankind will become extinct. What's there to debate?
2
If I could harvest self-righteousness off this page, and sell it, I'd be a wealthy man. What this writer and most of the left refuse to consider is that while they are worried about the end of the world, most Americans are worried about the end of the month.
To address the climate crisis, Democrats must win in 2020, and they must win big. A close election will almost certainly be challenged by Trump, who may declare it invalid and refuse to relinquish power—as Nancy Pelosi has warned.
To reach 270 votes in the Electoral College, and to do so convincingly, the Dems must win big in the battleground states. To achieve that, they must address the bread-and-butter issues of concern to most voters.
Crisis talk of any kind, whether about climate or impeachment, will only drive moderate voters away. That is what the DNC understands that this writer does not. Such voters mistrust such talk as grandstanding by politicians in order to gain attention and promote their careers. It erodes trust, when winning requires a candidate to build trust. Does this candidate have my back in the issues I care about? That is the mental calculation that most voters make.
That does not mean that Democrats should not talk about climate. To the contrary, they should do so emphatically, but in practical terms—about wind farms, solar panels and so forth—not in apocalyptic terms. This is all about issue framing, and it will require a mental shift by liberal Democrats if they want to be on a winning team.
86
@Ron Cohen You may be right. We should also direct attention to people, businesses, institutions, laws and government programs which force people to merely think one month ahead instead providing a birthright of a vision ‘for the long run.’
13
@Brian Elsesser that’s a good but incomplete list of factors forcing the one-month-ahead mentality. Add climate disruption with respect to the climate migrants of Paradise and the Midwest Floods. Disruption is coming to a neighborhood near us all.
17
@Ron Cohen I take it you don't live in an area affected significantly by climate change, or don't plan on living long enough to suffer seriously. You also must not have any children, nieces, or nephews. For many Americans, this is already a 'get through the end of the month' issue. For young (under 40) people, this is a 'get through the rest of our life' issue. And the idea that candidates shouldn't address crises is absurd at best. What good is a candidate who helps with a bread and butter issue but doesn't take significant action against the largest threat to humanity?
30
Simple remedy: Whatever the first question is during each primary debate, every candidate should answer it as if they were asked: "What should we do about climate change?"
1
This is a time for leadership, not cowardice. Find a compromise & let Climate Change be 1/2 of a debate. Educate people how a transition to different types of energy can benefit all, e.g. more jobs, better health. Be like Justin Amash & Elizabeth Warren & take your decisions directly to the people. Come on, Democrats, you may surprise yourself & pick up votes, especially from young people.
119
We are now in a situation where there is NO room for “compromise” with climate-change deniers. Civilization at large is at risk of complete collapse, if not outright extinction of the human species, if we do not roll up our sleeves and get to work eliminating greenhouse gas emissions completely over the next 20 - 30 years. Let’s stop wasting time trying to talk to the Republican/Fox News anti-science deniers and work around them. No one waits to “convince” flat-earthers before designing rocket launch trajectories. At the end of the day, we have to call a spade a spade - yes, there are DUMB people out there. We don’t run a successful civilization by conferring with people who lack the brainpower to advance society. I am tired of Republicans complaining that White people in the South and Midwest have been left behind. Guess what? Reading a book is free! Go to public school, pay attention, work hard, be the best you can be academically. Go to college. Challenge privileged authority. Stop fighting to dig holes in the ground to collect rocks and get lung cancer and go on public healthcare (Medicaid!!!) and start learning about new technologies, get non-exportable jobs putting up green power infrastructure, and join the “elite” coasts in solving these problems!
5
The real problem is that Congress is totally geriatric while the population of America is increasingly young. The voters will have to inherit the planet, but the politicians (on both sides!) don't care because they'll be dead before the calamity arrives. I grew up excited about American history and government and truly believed in the American experiment. I have never been so disgusted or disillusioned in America, ever. The reality is none of these other issues matters unless we resolve climate change. If you think immigration stories are bad now, just wait until the entire middle belt of the Earth is uninhabitable. If you think the economy is a hot topic now, just wait until we are staring in the face of millions of dollars of damage from flooding, fires, drought, and increasingly violent storms (wait, isn't that already happening??). No point worrying about reproductive justice if there's no planet for our babies to live on. No point worrying about education if our kids don't actually have a future.
You'd think this would be the most no-brainiest of no-brainers, but I guess Congress is too senile to catch on.
3
Thank you Justin Gillis! Reversing and reducing the harmful effects of carbon emissions to safe levels is a problem that affects each and every one of us, especially the most vulnerable who live in poverty. The DNC needs to take this issue as seriously as the 15,000 climate reality leaders across the planet; as seriously as the Global Catholic Climate Movement and Laudato Si' plans; and as seriously as the Sierra Club, 350.org, Nature Conservancy, Greenpeace, Center for Biological Diversity, NRDC, and so many other dedicated organizations. Our lives matter. And think of the positive effects that could happen if the three judges in OR rule favorably in the landmark case Juliana vs the US. WOW! With news like that, the 21 kids who filed the lawsuit against the federal government would have a future!!
21
@Connie Anderson
....and as seriously as the 120,000 members of the Citizen Climate Lobby, 1500 of whom are flying on their own dime to DC this weekend to lobby every member of Congress on behalf of the www.energyinnovationact.org
1
Sounds like the Democrats are looking for a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again. They need to remind people about the perils of climate change. It is a mistake not to remind the voters about their stance on this issue. If they assume they have these voters in their pocket the voters will not show up just like Hillary lost Michigan and Pennsylvania by not going there.
3
Better not to put Climate Change front and center in the presidential campaigns, given the propensity of most people to dislike bad news and its messengers, but to put it front and center in actual policies.
1
Corporate Democrats (MOST of the official party) are no better than Republicans. We need a whole new generation of representatives to will respond, intelligently, and altruistically, to the problems of our time. There are only 2 Democratic presidential candidates, of whom that can be said. I don't think I need to tell you who they are. The rest just want to be rich and powerful. Thanks, I'll pass. This race isn't just about tRump. It's also about survival for most of us.
5
@ChesBay: Yup, you'll pass on trying to combat global warming if your anointed candidate doesn't make it and you state contrary to evidence that Democrats who also engage with industry are no better than NRA-funded and oil-industry (think Saudi Arabia, Russia) funded and bribed Republican climate change deniers. What jobs & workers do you think Bernie Sanders is trying to save? Those include jobs in the fossil fuel industry... Also, I haven't heard much from him on combating global warming.
Democrats should run on the "sunny" stuff people like. Slogans win US elections, not drafts and arguments on policy details, the Republicans prove this every election.
2
@Winston Smith
Not true - they cheat, lie, and gerrymander.
If this action by the DNC, along with the earlier action by the DCCC strong arming election related companies to keep them from working for anyone challenging an incumbent, it is clear that something is very rotten in the Democratic establishment. Right when Dem voters are in a fever pitch of activism and interest, these organizations seem to be doing everything they can to dim that passion only to protect themselves and secure big money booty. They just don't get it. This would be a great time for someone like Elizabeth Warren or other leading candidates to step forward and demand change or else follow the idea in this article and work to have a climate debate without the DNC. Our planet is dying and the DNC seems interested only in oil money and political game playing.
9
Renewable energy comes, generally speaking, from diffuse sources and is able to be harnessed at the individual level, as long as you include storage. This means that generators and transmission grids become as redundant as coal mines. Some very big investments suddenly become much less valuable; no wonder the DNC is reluctant to debate climate change. The same issues bedevil Australian efforts to manage climate impacts.
I suspect that there are senior Democrats who also do not believe that god would let this happen. They and their Republican counterparts will not accept reality until the rising seas lap at their chins.
3
What a great opportunity missed to spotlight a much needed issue! The DNC is shortsighted, as more information about and more focus on climate change will inform more people about what it is, what the dangers are and what candidates intend to do about it. The more information and ideas the better! Staging this debate now will help Democrats in the long run to address an issue that is increasingly on everyone’s mind.
The Republicans haves nothing. A debate now will bring climate change forward, show that Democratic candidates have ideas and plans and help Democrats win the election.
5
nobody cares about this issue enough, which is why it gets buried. some folks just need to come to grips with that. solar panels are popular, great, but the real blood and guts of what needs to be done is not popular. some two dozen democrats running, only one is making climate a front and center issue and if they narrowed the debate stage to just 10 people, he wouldn't be on it. democrats would rather talk about jobs, health care, education, gun violence, race relations, voting rights, good government, taxes, etc. etc. guess what, most of america is the same way.
if you want to know why the DNC wants to stifle this debate, look no further than the electoral college--yet another issue democrats would rather talk about over climate. environmental issues and carbon taxes are used like a cudgel against democrats in OH, PA, MI, WI and other key states. this next election is basically all about these states. the rest of the country is just window dressing.
3
The DNC also declared that appearing on Fox News was off the table. Bernie did it anyway. He thought it was self-defeating not to speak to everyone, regardless of their inclination. He was cheered by the audience. After his success, others decided they would do it, too. Now, they all seem to be hurrying to get on Fox.
So, you are right. If Bernie, Warren, and Islee stage a debate on climate, the rest will follow. It is what they do.
There is nothing, no even Trump, more important than assuring a future for all life forms on this dying planet. If we fail to address it, sooner - not later - we will not be able to raise enough food to support human life and not have enough clean water to drink.
As the Native Americans say, "You cannot eat money."
11
The DNC is wrong and you are right to call them out.The Washington Post reported that in 2018 there were 247 deaths from extreme weather and $100 billion in costs.Working to mitigate the effects of extreme weather is the moonshot of our generation.It is more urgent than a moonshot because already areas are not habitable and migrations have begun from places where people can no longer plant crops to sustain them.China, of course, sees the profits to be made from new sources of energy and Already is far ahead of us.The Democratic candidates must address the dire consequences we face- the next two generations will face immediate threats to their way of life.Ask young people what their priority is-they know that this problem is facing them.They want Climate to be an issue.
9
The Climate Emergency must be recognized as such. We are in the fight for the existence of humanity and millions of other creatures. A DNC debate on Climate is important because we must mobilise the population to address it. We must activate people into emergency mode. In this mode, people can and will make the sacrifices and do the work that needs to be done.
Half measures, incremental fixes and political calculus will do nothing to solve this problem. This is fight for survival and all hand must be on deck.
8
Many people desperately urging action on global warming are commuting long distances to the workplace, flying for business & pleasure & purchasing consumer goods produced by countries using fossil fuels for production & distribution as well as exporting those power plants to emerging nations.
Fighting climate change will require cost & sacrifice. It seems the American public will never be ready to do anything more effective than cry wolf.
3
You report, "The Democratic Party establishment in Washington really believes it is going to get away with running another round of presidential primaries in which the climate crisis is basically hidden in the attic."
This is a huge misunderstanding. The majority of the voters in the United States, some may be independents, want the U.S. to take an intelligent, global leadership (Marshall Plan) approach to global warming, Governor Inslee knows that that a regressive carbon tax is NOT the global answer but I admire his commitment to give the climate change issue the highest priority of government.
Some leaders have recognized the need to "mobilize" the World's largest economies in an urgent international effort. The effort will include focusing considerable research and engineering resources to create technologies that can provide economically viable solutions.
We must give priority to the global commons: atmosphere and oceans. It will not be easy. Over 150 years of economic success came from combustion of fossil fuels and there are lots of working people who are anxious about their fossil fuel related jobs.
I believe that cheap electricity is probably the new energy source.
Beamed space solar systems will be a very major and important component of Earth’s future power systems along with ground based wind and solar, nuclear, and hydropower. With a multi-component system, problems with one component could be handled and solved without shutting down power to Earth.
4
@james jordan
(cont)
It is critical that development of beamed space solar power systems be carried out on a cooperative, international basis, with all countries contributing and benefitting from its implementation.
A competitive race to build and dominate space solar power systems would lead to a very unpleasant world political, economic, and environmental structure.
Finally, in addition to helping to eliminate fossil fuels as an energy source for the World beamed space power offers a unique opportunity to restore the World environment to the state it was before we started burning fossil fuels.
Even if we succeed in transitioning from fossil fuels to beamed space power and other renewable energy sources, the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere will be much higher than it has been in the past millions of years, and immense damage to the World’s environment will occur.
With beamed space power, the energy cost will be sufficiently low that it will be economically possible to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and bury it underground, reducing its concentration to the level before we began burning massive amounts of fossil fuels, restoring the World’s environment to its healthy state.
Right now, the Earth is at the highest carbon dioxide concentration in the last 3 million years, when there were trees and animals living in Antarctica.
1
@james jordan
Two problems: burying the carbon just sets up a problem for the far future. Beamed solar power from orbit is another name for the ultimate weapon of mass destruction and no one could be trusted not to use it for world domination.
Transferring industry into orbit is almost as good and safer.
@Philip Brown
Thank your for reading my comment.
There is already plenty of naturally occurring liquid carbon dioxide in the lithosphere. With the geology that I am familiar with it occurs in a pure state and can be used to carbonate soft drinks when it is tapped. The concept that we are working on is to pump the stuff for absorption by certain types of rocks. Also, it is a good substance for making lots of industrial materials.
Beamed solar power comes from generators in geosynchronous orbit (GEO) not Low Earth Orbit. The satellites will be difficult to shoot down but I agree that this must be an international effort because it would be easy to use this as a weapon of War. When you do any of the alternatives that we can think of at scale to meet the needs of 10 Billion people it takes a huge amount of ground space. Australia must participate along with the all of the other advance countries to make this happen. Space solar is 24/7 and if the system is launched cheaply, like with Maglev, the space solar electricity can be distributed at a very low price per kilowatt-hour about 2cents in current dollars US. One stunning fact: there are about 1 Billion members of our species that don't have any electricity.
Is it just me, or does it seem to be patently insane to discuss the ideological underpinnings of not accepting reality. It is not a left or right issue, sorry it is the moral obligation to creation to change. Sadly humanity at this juncture is not even close to being intelligent.
14
Obama actually did a lot on climate change in his second term and made it the issue a top priority. Most notably, he along wit John Kerry were able to get China and then India to join the developed countries in reducing emissions. This led to the Paris climate agreement which is central to any hope of successfully addressing climate change. To get China and India on board Obama ordered the EPA to create the Clean Power Plan to reduce emissions from coal and perhaps more importantly to show China and India that the US was serious about reducing emissions. With regard to politics it is revealing that Obama waited until his second term in office when he couldn't run again to make climate change a top priority of his administration. I would like to see a Democratic debate on climate change. We have a climate crisis and it could even be called a climate emergency. We have just about run out of time to stay below 1.5C and even 2C. It is extremely likely that catastrophic climate change will occur globally. I think Jay Inslee in particular has been able to develop a campaign that reflects the urgency of the situation. The world is on track to reach around 4C by the end of this century and to higher temperatures beyond that unless effective action is taken. Already some drastic effects are occurring. The Democrats can't solve the problem alone but they need to say what they plan to do about it.
9
I'll start taking the democrats seriously on the climate issue when they advocate for nuclear power which would go a long way toward solving the CO2 problem. They won't do that of course because they want the issue to use against republicans, many of whom DO want to consider nuclear power.
5
@George Fisher. I'm not anti-nuclear, but the facts are that only one state (GA) is building any nuclear in the entire country. It's five years delayed and it's cost has gone from $14 Billion to $28 Billion. And it's not done. GA Power could have procured 10-14 MW of solar for that and it would have been finished years ago. Three state: TX, Kansas and Nebraska, could generate enough wind energy to power entire country (source: Project Drawdown). Batteries are getting cheaper and cheaper. Economically, we are better off using renewables and batteries. I'm not anti-nuclear (it's zero-emissions), but it's not practical at this point in the US. We don't know how to build nuclear cost-effectively, but we are really good at building renewables when we want to.
6
@George Fisher I will support nuclear power when someone decides how to handle the waste and achieves agreement on that plan from the future generations who will have to deal with it, and designs a reactor that cannot be destroyed with an airplane. We waste so much electricity that I can't justify creating nuclear waste that will remain life-threateningly toxic for longer than agricultural has existed on the planet.
1
@Pete All the problems you have stated have been addressed and can be solved, including nuclear waste. In fact, it is not waste at all, it is fuel, since only 5% of the fuel is burned in present day reactors. China, India and Canada are building new reactor types that will cost a fraction of current reactors and can burn 95% of waste fuel with no long-lived radioactive actinides, The USA had better get on board with new development or we will miss out on a great export product opportunity.
1
Stop worrying about picking off mythical center or center right voters. Those people are not coming out to vote for democrats. Democrats need to disabuse themselves of this notion. Dems should not make policy worried about scaring off the center right or center.
13
@Bill smith
Democrats cannot possibly win in most constituencies, including the presidency, without centrist voters. The Electoral College system practically guarantees this but the left flank of the party refuses to acknowledge this reality. Like the purist environmentalists who opposed Obama's green initiatives because they didn't go far enough, the party's left flank effectively undermines any progress by their ideological intractability. There should be a climate debate - this is an emergency and any ideas for progress on fighting climate change are very welcome. The first step for real action is tossing as many climate-denying Republicans out of office as possible. For that to happen centrists cannot be written off.
6
@Lucy
Centrists are really neoliberal, Rockefeller Republicans who lack any real convictions - as demonstrated today by Biden's reversal on the Hyde amendment. They swing with the wind. They either do not bother to vote or just vote the way their pastor tells them to. Republicans cannot win without them because the party is so small. Democrats can win without them, but they need to energize the base to do it. Centrists don't energize anyone, not even themselves.
1
Who are these “centrists”? Most Americans want Medicare for All, free community college or vocational education, $15 minimum wage, money out of politics, and action on climate change
1
"The party has always made that most basic of political calculations — which voters does this issue get us that we don’t already have? — and come up with the answer: none."
That calculation is callous and wrong. If they took climate change as seriously as they should, there would be no Green Party, and the Democratic Party would stop losing 1% of the vote in Presidential elections.
13
@Todd
I believe the calculus is that should the democrats publicly move towards a greener solution they would lose more votes than they would win. This is probably a result of polling.
Too many of the leaders of the Democratic Party have no soul, only political calculations where a heart used to be.
2
Why is your lede against the democrats? It isn't the democratic establishment by now that is the problem. After all, in 2000 Ralph Nader was complaining about Al Gore's environmental record. AL GORE. That was bad enough. Bush for two terms was bad enough. Bush reversed his own opinion on climate change to serve the GOP. Next we get Bernie Sanders and his supporters screaming about Hillary's environmental record. Trump's energy policies were right there on his website for all to see. We have to stop Trump. Right now. We can't afford four more years. It doesn't matter which candidate is elected -the purist insanity must end. Or else we on the left are going to have to accept responsibility for the mess we helped make.
15
@Sasha Stone I don't disagree at all with what you say - but we also need the one major political party that still believes in science to start taking the lead on making this issue a priority nationwide. Because while any Democrat will be better on this issue than Trump, we're past the point where "better than" is enough.
7
@Zach
As Bernie says, There is no middle ground on climate change.
3
@Zach but I don't understand what you're saying, Zach. If we KNOW an extreme progressive CANNOT win (Nader, Sanders and now it will be Warren or Sanders again) why would we risk it all just because it isn't perfect? I agree with that in every sense except when it comes to who can win and where they can win. We HAVE to understand that something is better than nothing.
I agree, Mr. Gillis, that the environment and climate change should be front and center of any and all political debates during the 2020 campaigns.
However -- don't you think it's a bit rich to haul the Democrats out for a grilling over this issue when the vast majority of Republicans are screaming loudly that the issue is a hoax and fake news? If you want a party or parties to grill, I might suggest that the GOP and big business are much worthier targets and much better marinated for grilling.
14
@Jimbo
The Democrats need to be pushed on this issue. The Republicans won't do anything to stop climate change (and actively pursue policies that will exacerbate the problem), so we need the Democrats to be strong advocates in fighting against climate change. If they continue to sit on their hands then they cede the debate to the Republicans and allow the planet to descend into ecological catastrophe.
9
I agree. This is one of many articles I have seen over the last several weeks where Democrats are taken to task, either for their fractiousness or something like this climate control issue. The Wall Street Journal in particular has sought to place Democrats in the target zone - not a surprise- but they do it regarding issues where Republicans need to listen closely. This is particularly interesting after David Brooks wrote a piece on the coming apocalyptic awakening required for the GOP, after they realize that in a few years minority groups will be in a majority in this country. But here is another essay where the writer waits until the end to modify his assault on the Democrats and then introduces the complications regarding this issue. And by the way, in passing the writer fails to talk about the major environmental advances during Obma’s term in office.
2
@Jimbo the fact that Republicans do not believe in science is exactly why Democrats need to be given a grilling here. We already have one party that wants people to believe up is down - we desperately need a party that's willing to grab the electorate by the lapels and say to them, "Guys, your house is on freakin' fire. We have to do something about it, and we have to do it yesterday."
Seeing that there will be 12 scheduled Democratic Party debates, why not make each of them about a single topic, beginning with climate change? The debates are next to useless, as they are intended to reduce thoughtful exchange to quotable sound bites, with candidates vying for the one that can garner the most media attention, rather than eliciting truly substantive discussion through which the electorate can discern a candidate's actual positions, ideas, and solutions. There are, indeed, "dozens of issues of importance" to be debated and discussed. Devoting each of the 12 scheduled debates to a single topic would give us a far more insightful and accurate way of choosing a candidate. The DNC's policy and response to Governor Inslee merely demonstrates that fearful, reductive, and corrupt thinking isn't limited to the Republican Party, the current occupant of the Oval Office, and his vile and specious administration.
12
@Paul Barnes
Years ago, the League of Women Voters moderated the debates. They asked substantive questions and gave equal time to all candidates. That approach was deemed too boring, so the debates were turned into a high school quiz show.
Are we that dumb? If not, why do we go along with it?
2
@nora m Thanks, Nora M. Good reminder. And, yes- absolutely. The election of Donald Trump is apt demonstration of what this devolution has led our country to.
Jay Inslee's track record as governor makes him one of the most qualified candidates. We need someone with executive experience who can bring a consensus and end the logjam in Congress.His track record on top Dem issues is excellent. And Washington state has been in the front in suing and stopping Trump's executive rampage.
Assigning a topic to each debate would make the Dems stand out from the GOP.Inslee is right of priority of climate change as an issue.
13
Better than a debate on climate change would be pointed interviews with each candidate on the subject, interviews conducted by someone (or several people) knowledgeable about alternative approaches to energy.
While I admire Gov. Inslee's focus on this issue, his proposals strike me as too casually tossed off. Sen. Warren, by contrast, emphasizes the need to fund R&D to determine the best ways forward. Her plan to simultaneously boost manufacturing while working to thwart climate disaster comes across as well considered and specific.
4
What might be more informative than a debate on climate change in which all parties agree with each other would be a debate on how we got to this point. I think the solutions are pretty obvious: upstream carbon taxes, not gas taxes and the like, so they won't cause resentment like they did in France; clean energy; and a jobs program that can fuel the energy transition.
2
There are a lot of deeply frustrating organizations in politics, but I think it might behoove us to take a much closer look at the DNC. Between this, its previous use of the superdelegate system, its lack of basic cybersecurity, and the mind-boggling decisions made by Donna Brazile in 2016 to send resources to Chicago and New Orleans instead of, say, Michigan and Wisconsin... all this smacks of the behavior of an organization that's got some major problems. I'm sure we could think of a hundred more, too, if we looked a little farther back.
To be clear, I support the left. But the left can't succeed if the organization running it is out of touch and incompetent.
25
The Democrats must realize climate change and immigration are closely related. As the farming countries get warmer, their production of food goes down, already happening from Guatemala. Immigration must have a strong plan to prevent America from becoming one large, refugee camp.
There are not enough low paying jobs for the many immigrants that will be at our borders.
The wall could possibly be a 'not to popular' solution. although a necessary one. The wall part of a system to directly help these countries with their problems, more education and security.
The world is definitely changing, the climate is the greatest force. We must be open to all solutions.
We, all of us, must be willing to change.
12
The Democratic party, and the DNC specifically, is run by a number crunching consultocracy every trying to burnish the democratic brand by adopting the center of carefully selected poll-tested issues. They even resuscitated the 1984 Republican Natl. Convention and called in their zeal to offend no one. That Dems can't keep a congressional majority for more than two terms and now we have the Human Cheeto in the White House - still the strategy never changes.
Public opinion on climate change has been steadily moving in the right direction over the last decade. What's needed is for the party to make it salient because the effects are obvious to every voter. Every month that goes by brings a reminder of its crisis proportions, but Democrats by are content to fiddle with gossamers like "national dignity" and the never ending drama on our southern border.
7
The various plans seem to include:
"We have this disaster starting to appear & projected to get far worse & stay that way, look at how many jobs we can create fighting it!"
If something is a disaster, we probably do not need to sell people on "job creation". D-Day did not happen with a promise to create jobs in munitions factories. If we start programs for the environment to create jobs, few in charge of such programs will want those jobs to go away. The only way to ensure that happens is if the problem that motivated those jobs is never actually fixed.
Carbon taxes are also likely to fail. Climate change is a global problem - moving pollution does no good. Since other places often have more lax pollution rules, dirtier grids or require more pollution to move goods back to the USA, relocation will usually increase harm (& cost jobs). If one can account for the carbon impact of beef from Brazil or cars from Japan or appliances from Mexico & charge a carbon tariff it might work, but this seems very hard to do well & easy to politicize. For example, does a factory run on a national or regional "mix" of power, or does it run off the most polluting form of power because without the factory total energy demand would be lower?
Some things that can help:
- Change consumer behavior
- Keep all working nuclear power plants (lots of green jobs!)
- Research
- Green up military & government
- Fly on turboprops when possible
None of these win over voters, thus a debate has no upside.
1
Carbon taxes can be fashioned to account for imports. Tariffs can be levied proportionate to carbon inputs.
Will that happen? No. We’ve had decades of moving dirty production abroad to evade existing environmental protection, and absolutely zero effort to tax those products or extend pollution control beyond our borders.
If we impose a meaningful carbon tax, it will be the world’s first. That would be nice for a change.
3
Maybe the answer is not to have a debate, but instead an open forum where all the Democrats show unity on the issue and suggest a collectively agreed-upon solution.
That would be different and effective.
20
@617to416
That would be such an intelligent, civic minded thing to do.
Absolutely.
3
The Democrats have a problem. They want to scare people with apocalyptic climate change future, but they are terrified to tell people what their proposals will cost.
Just as bad, their policy proposals will not appreciably mitigate climate change, but they will hurt the livelihoods of American workers while lowering their quality of life.
So, of course they want to avoid telling the American people the truth about the cost and benefits of their proposals.
3
I have read the NGD which I think will make jobs and lead to better lives for all of us but especially our grandchildren. It’s expensive— but not nearly as expensive as inaction and way less expensive than endless wars for oil.
All opposition to addressing climate change is based on money in the short term, and not science. There is nothing about climate change that needs debating - the deniers are simply trying to make money while they can. Everybody knows the climate is changing. The "debate" should be an explanation of how we transition to renewables and keep everybody in the oil industry employed. Deniers would rather be making money on a dying planet than going broke on one that's already half-dead.
15
@Peter
What needs public debating -- and not just among democrats, are policies that effectively address the reality.
1
That's sort of what I'm asking for, but I'm saying discussion, not debate, and that the reality is money first, environment second. I think framing it as a "debate about climate change" is a mistake. The debate is over, let's work out a solution. I'm sure the tobacco industry would welcome another debate over the health benefits of cigarettes, but we're better off just discussing how to get rid of them.
4
I don’t think the DNC is corrupted by oil money. I agree with others that the DNC looks at polls and is making a political calculation. It’s just the wrong one.
The Democratic leadership seems to think politics is baseball. The rules are set, the players known, and you play the percentages. How dumb is that? The rules and players are fluid, else Jen Bush would have lost to President Hillary Clinton.
In politics, you remake the rules every day. 10 single-issues debates sounds like a capital idea, a way of keeping them focused on Democratic issues instead of tax cuts and the 2nd amendment.
Justin, this column has a distinct air of petulance and naïveté; have you given up on Republicans/Trumpistas? That’s a bad sign, a loser if you will. They, more than Dems & independents are the ones that need to be convinced to even have a debate or put forth detailed policy positions which by the way the Dem candidates (most of them) have done. Climate change policy will be a defining issue in 2020 regardless of whether the DNC has a special debate on it or not; it is also an issue that will be prioritized by voters across party lines. Voters need to do their research on the candidates’ positions, we don’t need yet another made for cable tv ‘debate’ to ‘help’ us decide.
3
I am glad that Mr. Gillis mentions nuclear. It could, and should, be one leg of a climate change solution. There are fourth-generation advanced nuclear power technologies that actually CONSUME nuclear waste rather than PRODUCING it.
One of the most promising advanced reactors is the GE-Hitachi's PRISM. It is a waste-to-energy solution for Climate Change that can provide steady base-load power, and can ramp up or down to compensate for the variability of wind and solar.
Sound good but not convincing? Well, then Google "James Hansen on Nuclear Power" to see what this world-renown Climate Scientist has to say about advanced reactors like PRISM.
7
@Bobcb Nuclear plants are too expensive to build and no safe and effective way to store spent fuel rods. The tax payer has to insure nuclear power plants as no private entity will. If you think they are safe then read Midnight in Chernobyl. I could go on and on.
4
@Wilco Obviously, you did not read my post.
PRISM does not produce nuclear waste, but instead, consumes it. The "waste" that it consumes is the so-called "spent" fuel from today's conventional reactors, thus providing a way to get rid of nuclear waste.
Advanced reactors are "factory built" and are vastly cheaper than conventional reactors.
Google "James Hansen on Nuclear Power" to learn more. Like you say, "I could go on and on."
6
@Bobcb Nuclear is the dirty energy "gift" that just keeps on giving...cancer...environmental disaster areas...later generations of radioactive ground seepage into water...Nuclear is not clean energy. Give it up!
1
Unfortunately but I agree with the DNC on this one. A debate among candidates who agree that global warming is an extremely serious problem, will not likely produce any clear winners, but it will it will likely make the Democrats look like they have no focus on this issue. The problem is that solutions to GW are complex and fluid. We will need to do multiple things to address the problem, and specificity now on how to solve the problem, may tie the Democrats to approaches which will need to be altered down the road. What is needed is action now, not debate.
4
It's obvious that Democrats can never allow any debates on climate change - debates mean questions. You cannot permit questions about something declared sacred. When Jay Inslee was attacked arrogantly by AOC he offered her to debate their positions on that extremely important topic. Of course this also will never happen. Not only this science, in distinction to other sciences, is already settled, the methods to imperilment this science must be settled, too. It's so strange that anybody can expect any other response.
2
As long as the Democrats' funds come from the same place that the Republicans' funds come from, we will hear little differing in their messages.
5
The very thing which powers our civilization is also destroying it.
Definitely seems like something we should spend less time talking about.
3
I agree 100%. Now that Warren has an agenda i'll support her but before that is was Inslee. I don't understand people and not knowing the crisis we are in.
4
Anything we can do to reduce the load on natural resources is great. The Earth's environment is mostly effected by the 26000 year precession cycle. Right now we are in the warm part of the cycle.
1
I spend much of my spare time and money on climate related advocacy, energy efficiency, transport, and political lobbying. Although electing candidates with strong climate credentials in 2020 is the most important task at hand, not one penny will go from me to the DNC until it steps forward on the issue. Instead I'll donate directly to candidates who seem likely to make a decisive difference. The Green New Deal is the first and really only proposal in Washington that comes anywhere near addressing the urgency and the scope of the threat to us and our children. Shame on the DNC!
14
Realistically, in order to get anything done in Washington, you'd have to buy off and co-opt the people who are currently fighting against any meaningful action. For workers in fossil fuel industries, that would probable mean ironclad guarantees that they'll get jobs in solar, wind, etc. that pay at least as much as they're making now. Not vague promises that "jobs will be available," but a very specific program that spells out in advance exactly who would qualify, and how it would work. For owners and investors, it's a bit more tricky. Any program that encourages turning oil rigs into plow shares could very well end up being just another corporate welfare boondoggle. But hopefully someone smarter than I am can come up with something that makes sense.
4
I understand why Democrats don't want to have a debate on global warming. The science on climate change is settled, but the politics isn't. The GOP is disingenuous when they deny the science, but let’s be honest the Democrats are even more disingenuous when they deny the cost. To fight climate change as many Democrats want we will have to increase the price of fossil fuels. The U.S. voters will never go for this. Gas in France is about $6 a gallon. Imagine what would happen in the U.S. if a Democratic President imposed a $3 climate change gas tax? All this in an attempt to lower the temperature of the planet by 2 degrees over the next 100 years to see if it will alter the weather. This, even as every bit of evidence has concluded that China’s international coal plant construction alone makes that absurd goal a total impossibility. Pure insanity. France has one of the lowest carbon footprint for its electricity grid thanks to their nuclear power - so why go so hard on gasoline? Inconvenient truth. When a government tries to enact a green tax to support carbon reduction when income inequality is increasing, people will react to their immediate situations without considering the future. We can't & won't tax our way out of this crisis. Get real. If Democrats try to do this the country will go so far to the right that even Trump wouldn't recognize it. The only way to solve this problem is through innovation and adaptation. Higher climate tariffs or taxes is politically unfeasible.
8
@Bill Brown However, people need to be educated on the fact that it will cost millions to make these changes, but BILLIONS to mitigate the effects with increased destruction of infrastructure in coastal areas with rising seas, great increases in flooding in some places and western fires like seen this year and last, and the list goes on and on. Strong variations of New Green Deal, expensive as they may be, are essential if we are to prevent ecolapse, the simultaneous collapse of the environment/ecology and economy.
6
@Bill Brown Ignoring, excluding, and screaming epithets at scientists who disagree or question the effect of CO2 on the climate does not make the science settled. It simply provides a warm cocoon for people who would like to imagine that to be the case. If the science were settled, then no one would be shrieking when people propose data transparency, independent auditing, or critical review from skeptical scientists.
Unfortunately, however, the Democrats refusal to listen to any dissenting opinions on climate change, their free use of religious expression (believers vs. deniers) to describe a supposedly scientific issue, their equating of scientific disagreement with moral turpitude, and their unchecked conspiracy ideation (people deny the clear science because they want to control resources!) - all serves to convince many of us that the Democrats are firmly in the grips of a religious mania and cannot be trusted to act rationally. To those Democrats, Independents, and Republicans for whom that is distasteful, they are then put into the position of either supporting Trump, or else hoping that the Democrats are not collectively as crazy and maniacal as they seem to be.
For people in this category it would be helpful for the Democrats to debate climate change, because if the AOC position essentially represents all candidates' views, as it appears is the case, then we can choose to hold our noses and vote for Trump with a more clear conscience.
3
The only scientists who disagree are conveniently on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry
1
The Democratic Party has to win an election. Climate is an important matter, but it’s far from clear that it’s a good idea to make climate THE overriding issue. We just saw what that did in Australia. The Democrats will have to win on ALL issues.
I’m not even sure that a special climate debate is a good way to distinguish candidates in a primary. Most climate proposals at this stage are so vague that it’s hard to tell much more than enthusiasm and how much money will be spent. Neither is a really good guide to success.
Democrats have got to get elected. They need a candidate who is committed to addressing climate change. And that candidate has to show the ability to put together real plans to addresses the country’s many issues.
5
Way too many candidates - some "running" just for publicity, or to sell more books. Too many debates. Nobody, but nobody, is going to watch 12 debates. Sorry, but this is turning into a circus.
4
Climate change is likely the worlds most important issue. But I understand the fear of the DNC of making it the number one issue. It's easy to say we need to eliminate carbon emissions. But how. Do you build charging stations in every gas station, do you take millions of acres and build solar farms, do you build hundreds of nuclear power plants , how do you heat the millions of houses that use heating oil, do you put millions of workers of of work that whorl in the petroleum and natural gas industry, do you bankrupt Exxon and other oil companies. How does it all happen. I have yet to hear any answers and I guess the democratic candidates don't know either.
Isn’t there a ticking clock on climate change that will just mean “times up” if the average temperature by 2030 is above a certain level?
My question to the candidates is: “Do you accept the premise that we have only 11 years to get the world’s temperature low enough to avoid catastrophic irreversibility?” If you do, what’s your plan?
It is far from clear that there is a sense of urgency that matches Jay Inslee’s coming from the Democratic Party’s leadership, in light of their decision not to have even one debate dedicated to this issue.
Is everyone so afraid that Trump and the GOP will ridicule any plan to reduce global warming by scaring the voters into believing that the Democrats are coming for your money, your burgers and trucks?
Democrats lose every time when they run scared.
26
@John C
Democrats lose when purists insist that it's McCarthy, Nadar, Sanders, etc., or nothing.
Democrats lose when purists think that electing a Nixon, Bush or Trump will teach the country a lesson and the previously unenlightened masses will then rise up and follow the true and righteous path.
Is it possible that the DNC will again share responsibility for a Democratic loss in a Presidential campaign?
Theoretically, they have a case but with twelve debates they could easily schedule a couple of debates just for key issues, dealing with climate change, foreign affairs (a stone cold killer) and education or health care.
Another way -- have each candidate designate top personnel to participate in a DNC sponsored study, led by experts, to determine a unified stance among the candidates on the proper way for a Democratic administration to deal with climate change.
Biggest issue, to my mind, do we try to do everything at once? Or do we focus on Isiah Berlin's "one big thing", the transition to alternative energy? Manhattan Project II?
3
Shortly after Trump won, I was walking in downtown Boston and was stopped by a young man working for an environmental organization. After listening to about 30 seconds of his pitch, which hadn't yet gotten to the (or any) point, I cut him off. I asked him whether he voted for Hillary. He said "no, but she wasn't going to save the environment either."
People who think that blaming the Dems for not having a strong enough position on the environment is a rational response to our current predicament are not paying attention. I find lots to not like about many of the candidates on several issues but I'm going to vote for one of them, work for one of them and give one of them my money, no matter his or her position any the issues.
Only one thing matters right now, and anything that detracts from accomplishing that does a grave disservice to our country and seriously endangers our future. So stop it.
15
@Yellow Dog Dem
Of course we'll vote for the Democrat, but voting for some Democrats is just like voting for Trump because of the fossil fuel companies' stranglehold.
1
I agree with this idea. By giving climate change a more prominent role in the debates thevDNC would also be controlling the national discourse in a way that greatly favors it and puts the other side on the defensive. It would also raise awareness of an issue that everyone increasingly must deal with and thereby help address it. It seems to me that carbon emissions are much like abortion; we all want to reduce it but we differ on how to do that and some simply claim it's not a problem or that voluntary restrictions and abstinence are viable solutions but most reasonable people know that birth control and clean energy credits are the most effective solutions if we could just get the obstructionists out of the way. We need to spread the word to reach a national consensus on these issues and a debate, as well as a debate strictly about immigration, would pay great dividends and educate AND ENGAGE the public.
9
What is sadly missing from the political discourse so far is leadership and specifics. Most of the Democratic applicants for The Job so far are really running on one or two cosmetic "issues' by which I mean Identity Politics. If the exception - Warren- could up the game in her speeches and inspire people, I think she would be a slam-dunk, but we will have to see. Why NOT push everyone running to come clean on what they are going to do about the real existential crisis our children and grand children face because of our greed? One debate in twelve? I want reporters asking the candidates about this at EVERY debate and at EVERY press conference. the rest is mostly noise and bad rhetoric?
46
@John Anderson
Bernie is as full of conviction and more than capable of inspiring crowds. People come out of his rallies excited and engaged. He doesn't get the press that other candidates do because he is a threat to the powers that be in a way that neither of the cute boys - Beto and Pete - are. Bernie is firmly in favor of action of climate change and it doesn't depend on nuclear energy.
4
@John Anderson Warren is inspiring a ton of people - you just have to listen to her. So is that she needs to "up her game" or that the news media needs to pay more attention?
4
@John Anderson
Warren is our Last, Best, hope. I will vote for her whether she is on the ballot or not. Just so I can live with myself.
Before Mr. Inslee calls himself an environmentalist, he should end resistance to breeching the dams - these dams hold back fish that are the only food source for orcas in the waters of his state. The orcas are starving; their populations are being decimated - because Mr. Inslee is still beholden to the fisheries interests. He is, simply, afraid of fisherman. But humans have many sources of food - cetaceans (dolphins, whales and porpoises) and pinnipeds (seals, sea lions and walruses) can only take their food from the waters. Breech the dams, Mr. Inslee. The survival of the orcas depends on this.
Astrid Forsgren
GI, Nebraska
6
Political expediency always pays a price. This price is an increasingly irreversible one that will further damage, or bury, all those who follow us on the planet.
6
I think that this is an excellent idea, it would allow for a full discussion of this issue and let the candidates show some independence from the DNC.
I get the reluctance to push this issue. When most ordinary people think of climate change and how to combat it, their immediate reaction is "how is this going to effect me, my family and our way of life."
We have to start with where people are right now. While mass transit should be a no-brainer in most urban areas. It isn't. The SUV and the pickup truck are popular because they are practical. With one vehicle you can haul the kids to school then load up the back with all sorts of cargo and even hitch up a trailer and take the family on vacation. Our expectations of what kind of house we want to live in have exploded and with that the amount of carbon spilled into the atmosphere not to mention the heating and cooling bills.
Tell people that their lifestyle is wrecking the planet and you've lost them especially since the other side is telling them they can have all the energy they want from coal, oil and natural gas with no consequences.
On the other hand vehicles and even houses today are much more fuel efficient than they were even as little as ten years ago. Everyone LOVES to save money. Focus on making green energy cheaper than fossil fuels. Focus on the practicality of mass transit.
Finally lay it on the line. "Do you really want to gamble with your kids' future?"
4
Inslee wants a single issue debate on global warming because that is his issue. I am sure each candidate would want a single issue debate on their topic of choice. Not the way to help voters learn about all the candidates and make a choice. The DNC needs to ensure that there will be questions on key topics during the debates and that time allotted to each candidate is fair.
I don't know why a man who claims that he's very, very smart not only doesn't do anything to mitigate climate change, but praises those who support his position. He has gone to China, a country which has, in the past 10 or so years, done a lot to improve the air in there. He clearly hasn't gone to the Taklamakan desert to see what China is doing to improve the quality of the air in that country, a country which is about the same size as ours, but with many, many more people than our sparsely populated country has.
I first took one of China's sleeper trains in 2003 or 2004 on my way to visit Wulumuqi, in the far west of China. As soon as we got into the gigantic Taklamakan desert I was shocked by the thousands and thousands of windmills and solar panels on the ground (and some already installed). I went back there three more times until 2010 and saw that almost all of them had been installed and connected to the electric grids. My Chinese friends told me that the government was planning to do the same thing to six other desert areas. They also told me that the air had improved significantly.
We have about 6 or 7 deserts, and we could do the same thing and stop using oil and coal, if we had the willpower. Do we?
26
@W. Michael O'Shea
And we also have lots of land where people used to grow soybeans. Much of it is relatively close to the industrial areas of the Great Lakes states. Win-win?
5
@W. Michael O'Shea
Care to comment on China's continued expansion of its coal-fired electric infrastructure? Their data is opaque, and they periodically make it look like they have intentions of curtailing coal in the future (meaning reducing the rate of growth), but they keep on building.
2
China intends to become the world leader in renewable energy. Coal use is in fact on the decline
Politicians as well as the populace have been content to play the role of an ostrich with its head in the sand when it comes to climate change. Deny, ignore, inaction will not change the facts. We are headed for an extreme crisis and have just started to see the tip of the iceberg.
Bringing it to debate would be the first step to both building awareness in some. It would also focus the candidates on a clear plan of action. Less likely it might motivate a young or previous non-voter to come to the polls. The DNC is got to get their head out of the sand. Our lives depend on it.
32
Joe Biden's announcement yesterday completely evaporates before our eyes. For those who missed it, he endorsed a rigorous approach to climate change closely paralleling the Green New Deal. His news is a blip on the screen with single issue voters. There are too many immediate issues before us in 2020 to think the Democrats can win on this issue alone.
3
@Sarah
And he reversed his support of the Hyde Amendment too! Yes, he's reading the polls and pandering to them but he has a record, and it is far from encouraging.
5
Sure!
But you can approach every single of those issues with the perils of climate change in mind and find better and life and welfare saving solutions! Climate change isn‘t a „single issue“, think about it!
Um, did you miss the fact that Biden’s new climate statement includes text copied directly (and initially, without attribution) from the brochure of a lobby group funded by both Shell Oil and Peabody Coal? not exactly the leadership on climate that many of us are looking for!
1
I don't think we need a climate debate among Democrats. I think they pretty much all agree already. What Democrats need is to defeat Trump. Then and only then can they implement some sort of agenda to fight climate change.
12
@Marty
Agreed. Such a debate only reinforces the idea that there isn't any agreement on whether or not the climate is changing. One thing Republicans do very effectively is all line up behind an idea. Abortion? Bad. Tax cuts? Good. Climate change? Not happening. Democrats could at least agree on one simple, obvious, scientifically proven fact without needing to assemble the circular firing squad.
4
@Marty
You have their word of honor....
I would like to hear about immigration, the Supreme Court, and healthcare reform. Climate fundamentalism will harm the Democratic Party this year.
5
@Sequel Without addressing climate, there will be no reforms on other issues.
10
@Sequel Global Immigration is part of radical extreme climate change & instability.
1
@Sequel fundamentalism? Climate denial will harm us all.
There must be at least one adult in the room when it comes to climate change. We are told over and over again that this is one of those emotional issues about which rational and evidence based discourse won't get us where we need to go--changing the minds of climate deniers and workers in extractive industries. But right now a majority of people in the U.S. believe climate change is happening and is caused by human activity. They can see it with their own eyes; and it isn't only the two coasts that are threatened. We are in desperate need of action. Even Chuck Schumer, the quintessential Democratic Party insider, has supported bold action in his home state, though not yet endorsed a green new deal. Come on, we can do this. We must do this.
93
@dmdaisy, "We can do this. We must do this." That only works if a Democrat gets elected to the White House. That needs to be the overriding calculation.
2
Other than the fact that the Democrats are not the Republicans, it is difficult to think of a reason to vote for them. Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton have been just as faithful to the bankers and industrial criminals as have the Republicans, and that's the case for most of the elected Democrats. Indeed, the Democrats ofter are able to succeed in supporting the destructive impulses of the capitalist bankers and industrialists better than are the Republicans. Perhaps Ms. Warren or Mr. Sanders might provide some improvement, but one wonders whether the rest of the party wouldn't thwart them and continue to support destructive capitalism.
Want to save the planet from climate destruction? It won't happen so long as the economic system of capitalism continues to treat everything as a commodity in the service of making profits. Hate to say it, but the Marxists were right at the beginning of the 20th Century wench they said that the capitalists would sell the rope with which to hang them.
The kinds of changes that are required to save the planet as hospitable for human habitation are not going to happen with the traditional Democrats in power. As Ms. Pelosi put it, we're capitalists, and that's the end of the story. Capitalism as a force is not capable of changing its destructive stripes. There is no surprise that those who control the Democratic Party do not want read climate debate. They are wedded to the profit motive over planetary survival.
71
@Che Beauchard When people feel like "the system is broken, you can't fight it", it's too easy to tune out - and not vote. I agree that both Dems & Republicans are responsible for creating a system that gives too much control to corporations and other systemic barriers to fighting climate change. But Republicans are clearly way more blame in that department. Citizens United only happened due to a majority of Republican-appointed supreme court justices. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are much more Republican than Democratic party strategies. Many Democrats candidates are passionate about reducing corporate power and policies that favor the future over the present. We need to keep the ball moving in that direction.
10
@Che Beauchard Give me AOC as vice-president to address climate change and then I'll believe that humanity and civilization may have a chance. Just read a respected Australian think tank report on climate change. It suggests without drastic action beyond what has been imagined we are looking at the collapse of civilization by 2050. Yes, that is right--thirty years away. Not in my lifetime but in my children's lifetime. We also have to talk about and address population control. Many smart young people are already self imposing that on themselves. We need the democratic party and candidates to be honest about what we really face and how to tackle the future. There is absolutely nothing more important than climate change. Absolutely nothing happens without addressing this issue.
11
@Steve Bower
"We need to keep the ball moving in that direction." Ah, the solution of sysiphus, move the ball up the mountain only to watch it roll back down again. Until we recognize that a system that worships the profit motive above all else, all we can do is roll the ball back up the hill only to watch it roll back down again. It's well past the time to abandon this system and to build something different that is based on moral values that are not the profit motive. The DNC. will not allow a debate about fundamental change because they are motivated against basic change.
1
The overriding issue is to get the votes to get elected and global warming isn't going to do it; it shouldn't be the focus, higher quality jobs and skills training along with pulling up our disadvantaged areas (growth for companies!) should be.
Environmentally, a better approach is to emphasize the economic/competitive advantages of alternate energy development/conservation and the simple inevitability that we will run out of large scale supply of oil/gas within the next 200 years.
4
Making this an issue is going to loose votes of some Independents and those Democrats to the right of the party. Statements made to help win in the Primaries will be exploited by Russian and GOP trolls and Trump during the run up to the election..
1
Time and again the DNC shows itself to be a crippling obstacle for democrats. It is true that actually talking about the climate catastrophe and rational solutions would hurt candidates like Biden but the fact remains that this is an existential crisis and that time is quickly running out on our ability to confront it in any way that insures our survival. Unless we have leadership willing to stand up to the enormous pressure of corporate influence if doing what needs to be done, it doesn't matter who "wins" the election because we will all lose -- everything. The candidates with the records of doing that are not the DNC choices. The are Sanders, Warren, and Inslee. Let's have that vital debate.
26
@Al M
The people of the DNC have one primary job, which is to see Democratic candidates elected. At least I think so. I have no idea how the organization operates, but my guess is that they have access to every possible avenue of information, probably down to the county level, and maybe even individual streets. One would think that the decisions they make are based on data. Certainly, they are not infallible - although who could have accounted for Russia, Diebold, data-based GOP gerrymandering, and other sinister machinations. The point is they are not flying by the seat of their pants. Hopefully, they aren’t idiots. We as well-informed and well-meaning ignoramuses should have some degree of trust in them.
I like your idea. In fact, perhaps each debate should focus on one theme, e.g., gun control, health care, foreign policy (wars), the opioid crisis, etc.
One or two debates could be a mix of every or any subject, as it is now.
It is an inconvenient truth, but we've got a major, major problem with climate change. And the window to fix it is closing, if it's not already too late, as some scientists claim.
142
@Jim Muncy I, for one, will NOT contribute to the DNC unless and until it recognizes Climate Change as the most important issue on the agenda in the 2020 election. If we can't fix this problem, little else will matter.
15
@Bobcb
I understand your appropriate frustration. We can't let this slide any longer, for our children's sakes.
7
Good idea but in any case we need to have at least one discussion on the climate. Please contact the DNC and let your feelings be known.
3
Single issue debates aren't going to get a democrat elected. Climate change is going to be a major party platform but so are a lot of other issues. This article is shrillness where there is none.
6
@charlie Within the next two years - as climate change begins to manifest more seriously and on a more frequent basis - Americans will be begging to discuss it. The lack of attention on the part of the candidates is despicable.
1
The only politically realistic way to "solve" climate change is to impose a per-unit tax on fossil fuels to fund Carbon Capture Storage of the equivalent amount of CO2, creating a zero-emission cycle. This would not require changing any existing infrastructure or have significant political opposition, but would completely solve the problem.
2
@sdm
The mass of CO2 is 2.7 times the mass of the original coal, assuming it was pure carbon. Pumping CO2 into the ground is not easy, if you want it to stay there. If you pump it into the ocean you drive down the ocean pH.
The one possibility to fix it it is to react it with basalt or other iron-magnesium rich rocks. However, doing this on a huge scale results in huge mines.
3
@sdm It may solve the problem - ultimately - but it will not spare us the 50-75 years of climate disruption that is already baked in (no pun intended).
2