Wildfires continue to devastate the West Coast, and both the Arctic and Antarctica are exhibiting dramatic ice loss (CNN, 9/15/20). Given how little time experts say we have to prevent irreversible damage from climate change, this year’s election is truly a crucial one for the future of the planet. And climate disruption remains a top priority for many voters. That means the climate crisis must be a central focus of the presidential debates—the main opportunity for most voters to hear the candidates questioned about their positions on major policy issues.
In 2016, not a single question was asked about climate change during the Trump/Clinton debates. Four years before that, climate went unmentioned in the Obama/Romney debates.
If the past is any indication of the future, the journalists who moderate those debates are unlikely to feel the same sense of urgency. In 2016, not a single question was asked about climate change. Zero questions were asked in 2012 as well. As FAIR’s Adam Johnson wrote in 2016 (FAIR.org, 10/19/16):
In over eight hours of presidential debates spanning four years, there were only four utterances of the term “climate change” on the most important political stage. All by Hillary Clinton, all in passing. All entirely unsolicited.
Prior to this election season’s Democratic primary debates, environmental activists pressed the DNC to hold a single-issue debate on the climate crisis, given its urgency and its place as a top concern of Democratic voters. DNC chair Tom Perez rebuffed them, claiming he had “the utmost confidence” that the subject would be discussed in the debates “early and often” (FAIR.org, 6/18/19). But the moderators failed miserably to center climate, devoting more questions (86 vs. 83) to the utterly useless topic of “electability” than to climate (FAIR.org, 2/29/20).
As I reported in November (FAIR.org, 11/28/19) about the climate questions moderators did ask:
Some have been useless, being too broad (“Explain specifically what your [climate proposal] is”—NBC‘s Chuck Todd, 6/27/19) or too convoluted…. Many have focused on the idea that major climate action is not “realistic,” or that it threatens people’s freedoms to do things like drive gas-guzzling cars or eat meat.
Bernie Sanders, who has pivoted hard toward the climate issue in recent weeks, has been given the most speaking prompts on climate—but not a single unique question. Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker, the only other candidates appearing in every debate who have received higher than a B+ grade from Greenpeace on their climate plans, have gotten one unique question each. Hand-off prompts, under the rules enforced by the media hosts, are generally limited to either 30 or 45 seconds, which means that the candidates with the most ambitious climate plans have been given criminally little time to explain them.
When Joe Biden was asked about the environment during a CNN town hall (9/17/20), most of the questions came from the position that he was too pro-environment—as with this voter, who asked him about “over-regulation.”
The recent media-sponsored town halls with President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden haven’t inspired much hope for the place of climate in the debates. In CNN‘s town hall with Biden (9/17/20), three participants were selected to ask Biden questions about the environment. Two of them pushed Biden to endorse anti-environmental positions—one in favor of fracking, and one against “over-regulation” of farms via climate policies. Both are very much out of step with public opinion in this country: Americans oppose fracking by a large majority, and majorities also believe the government is doing too little to protect the environment rather than too much (Pew, 11/25/19).
In ABC‘s town hall with Trump (9/15/20), zero questions were asked about climate.
Fox News‘ Chris Wallace, the moderator for the first debate, to be held September 29 in Cleveland, today announced the topics he intends to cover–and climate is not one of them.
The presidential (and vice presidential) debates ought to give voters a chance to see the candidates attempt to explain and defend their positions on the most important issues of the day. The Covid pandemic, healthcare and the economy will surely be front and center. But the climate crisis has been and continues to be a top issue for voters as well, and one that can’t be ignored by journalists for another four years.
ACTION: Contact the debate moderators today and tell them to make the climate crisis a key focus of the debates:
- Chris Wallace, Fox News (September 29, Cleveland)
- Susan Page, USA Today (October 7, Salt Lake City–VP debate)
- Steve Scully, C-SPAN (October 15, Miami)
- Kristen Welker, NBC News (October 22, Nashville)
Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your message in the comments thread of this post.
PLUS: RootsAction Education Fund, an online education and advocacy group, has a petition calling on the debate moderators to ask the candidates about climate.
Research assistance: Forest Hunt
Featured image: California wildfire (cc photo: Anthony Citrano)
Nice slight of hand by the reporter. ‘Top priority for many” could easily be 3%. How about some specifics?
Nice attempt at distraction, Tim. In the article, the words “top priority” were clearly indicated as a hyperlink. Did you try following it for the supporting information?
If you do you’ll find an article on a survey regarding the issue. Those conducting the survey included researchers from Stanford University. In discussing the survey results, the article says “The issue public around climate change has grown tremendously over time, the survey suggests. In 2015, the group was 13 percent of the population. By 2020, it had nearly doubled to 25 percent.” (The article explains that an “issue public” is a community that “feels an issue is extremely important to them personally. … That means, for example, making donations to lobbying groups, sending emails to lawmakers, attending rallies — and voting.)
Now, 1 out of 4 might not seem like “many” until you realize it’s 1 out of 4 from tens of millions of people. Not only that, while it might not be a top issue for everyone, the climate crisis is on the minds of the majority. Again, from the article: “Backing for government to do more to deal with global warming, at 68 percent in May of 2018, was at the same level in 2020, according to the survey.”
She couldn’t say 25% with the link? Basically Democrats see this as a top priority. No surprise there. Could the article also have demanded abortion questions? Top priority for many also.
My message to the moderators:
The climate crisis is *the* most important issue facing the US and this planet, as our very survival is at stake. It is no longer acceptable to delay action and put the burden on future generations — unprecedented weather damage is already occurring. Despite denialists and fossil-fuel interests trying to cast doubt, this is not a political opinion but a scientific fact. In the upcoming debates, please ask hard, pointed questions of both candidates that will:
(1) probe their understanding of the severity and nature of the climate crisis; and
(2) reveal the policies and actions they will take to address the problem.
In framing your questions, please acknowledge the overwhelming scientific consensus, the now-daily evidence in the news, and the tremendous costs of inaction.
Dwight, if climate is the most important issue, what are your plans with regard to China and India. Should we go to war with them since they are the largest polluters and are not stopping? Pareto analysis points out that you need to attack the largest contributor to a problem first. What exactly are you doing to prevent this? You have a computer. Obviously you buy plastic, use electricity, probably drive a car, fly in planes, eat food farmed by large tractors, and use metal that is mined. What specifically are you doing and what are you proposing to do to those that aren’t following your beliefs?
Is Dwight going to be in the debate? Why in the hell are you asking him to answer?
Did I imply that Dwight would be in the debate? I am asking him because he thinks it is an important question. Before we start enacting laws, maybe those that want to impose their laws on the rest of us should voluntarily act on what they are suggesting get imposed. I noticed you didn’t answer any of the questions. No answers?
What “debates?” I’d had to be in the room as a K Street, scripted cage match, between 23 ravening kleptocrats & an old guy from Brooklyn (promoting the only plan with any hope of slowing AGW) neglected to mention that the frigging Everglades were on fire, near by? Though GND, universal healthcare, BLM & income disparity were stomped down just as neither our duopoly or their media could gaslight away just how ESSENTIAL Sanders’ platform was? Now, we’re all expected to play along as the party we’d had privatized out from under us, to ensure we’d no say, power or vote is about to blantantly throw yet another “unlosable” election, after lining their pockets? And, if “essential” workers admit to seeing the intentionally obvious… well, we’re kicked off these threads, like in 2016?
This is the message I sent.
Greetings.
Climate change is already making storms more deadly, fires more deadly and is changing ecosystems around the world.
In the upcoming presidential debates climate change must be an issue that you bring up so that voters have an idea of what each candidate might do to reign in greenhouse gasses and move forward with real action climate policies.
If it is not already on your agenda, I urge you to make climate change a major issue that needs to be addressed by Biden and Trump.
The American people need to know where these two stand on the most important issue of our time.
thank you
I assume you are 100% pure in your climate change adjustment plan. What exactly do you still do that contributes to greenhouse gases? Drive, eat, use electricity, larger house than absolutely necessary, fly, buy ANYTHING?
Lots of virtue signalling going on here. Actions speak louder than simple, “we need to stop this. We need to vote in a President, blah, blah, blah” You need to take personal actions like: stop driving a car or getting into a taxi. Don’t ride a bike because of the mining necessary. Don’t use electronics (due to the mining and the petroleum necessary to mine those products). Farm your own food (transportation and tractors cannot be done with electricity). Grow your own cotton to weave your own fabric to make your own clothes (don’t use a sewing machine). Don’t fly anywhere. Sell your large house, buy a small house with some land so you can be fully self-sufficient. Live fully off the grid, but don’t buy an inverter for your solar panels (materials for those things have to be mined and the energy costs and pollutants created to make them exceeds what you’ll save). Don’t have any kids. Don’t go to the doctor unless you can walk there. Make sure he doesn’t use any modern medicine on you that takes factories to create. NEVER go to the hospital (they are all about disposables which are highly reliant on plastics).
This is an old red herring. Things like plastic bottles have to go. Sure. But clearly your sarcastic suggestions are not a realistic future for us. The central issue is changing from fossil fuels to alternative energies at the INDUSTRY as well as the personal level. At the GLOBAL level, not just the local. This will in fact make some industries — petroleum, coal etc — obsolete. Those workers can be retrained and moved into green jobs. Not to mention the countless jobs that would be created if our crumbling infrastructure was to be fixed. What is lacking is the political will. What you are saying is nonsense and, hopefully, you know it. If we don’t alter how industry is fueled, put an emphasis on producing “needs instead of wants,” and practically and unselfishly change the way we live, we’re committing global suicide and future generations, such as they might be, should rightfully damn us. We should adopt the Green New Deal (it answers plenty of questions if you take a look with an open mind!) and then going beyond it. Mercenary bastards like McConnell and trump don’t even consider that because they are whores of industry and finance. If you read the Green New Deal, and do some simple Googling instead of wasting your time with dumb negativity on here, you wouldn’t need answers from any of us. You have your own civic duty. That’s on you and nobody else; and from what you’re saying I get the impression you are doing zero to fight climate catastrophe. That’s not helpful it’s hateful. If you had common sense you wouldn’t even been on here trying to shoot everything down. You’d be hounding your Senators and Rep; joining/supporting climate groups online; protesting; writing letters; calling neighborhood meetings, etc etc etc. And yes, I actually DO these things. But it’s much easier to try and be clever than get off your ass and do anything. You are part of the problem. Wake up and be responsible. As you were.
Marcy, what have you done? How have you made an impact (other than calling your senator or congressman). How do you propose we fly planes without oil? How do you propose we use tractors? How do you propose we mine for all of the minerals needed for those batteries? How do you plan to store all of the energy needed during the night that is created during the day?
Oil is energy dense. Much more so than batteries. It is easily stored until needed. I don’t think you’ve thought that through. Personally, I have solar panels on two of my houses. They don’t produce anywhere near enough electricity. There isn’t enough land to power our economy with solar panels (let alone sun coverage). I’m an electrical engineer and can do the math and the physics. I doubt you are or you wouldn’t have made the claims you have made. You need some training in math and physics to know the Green New Deal is a fantasy. You need some training in economics also.
How petty you are to not capitalize Trump’s name.
This is an old red herring. Things like plastic bottles have to go. Sure. But clearly your sarcastic suggestions are not a realistic future for us. The central issue is changing from fossil fuels to alternative energies at the INDUSTRY as well as the personal level. At the GLOBAL level, not just the local. This will in fact make some industries — petroleum, coal etc — obsolete. Those workers can be retrained and moved into green jobs. Not to mention the countless jobs that would be created if our crumbling infrastructure was to be fixed. What is lacking is the political will. What you are saying is nonsense and, hopefully, you know it. If we don’t alter how industry is fueled, put an emphasis on producing “needs instead of wants,” and practically and unselfishly change the way we live, we’re committing global suicide and future generations, such as they might be, should rightfully damn us. We should adopt the Green New Deal (it answers plenty of questions if you take a look with an open mind!) and then going beyond it. Mercenary bastards like McConnell and trump don’t even consider that because the GND because are whores of industry and finance and don’t give a damn about “ordinary” people. If you read the Green New Deal, and do some simple Googling instead of wasting your time with dumb negativity on here, you wouldn’t need answers from any of us. You have your own civic duty. That’s on you and nobody else; and from what you’re saying I get the impression you are doing zero to fight climate catastrophe. That’s not helpful it’s hateful. If you had common sense you wouldn’t even been on here trying to shoot everything down. You’d be hounding your Senators and Rep; joining/supporting climate groups online; protesting; writing letters; calling neighborhood meetings, etc etc etc. You could even take the initiative and organize an action yourself! And yes, I actually DO these things. But it’s much easier to try and be clever than get off your ass and do anything, I suppose. You are part of the problem. Wake up and be responsible.
It should definitely be a huge priority in the debates and it’s ridiculous that it isn’t.
That said, on a level of combination of ridiculous + climate change + presidential debates, not asking the two corporatist liars their position on climate is much less important and outrageous than not inviting Howie Hawkins and other third parties to debate.
In other words, it’s like debating the threat of serial murder, where the two participants are Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy, while not inviting Gandhi.
Dear Mr Wallace,
As a woman of 71 I have watched our world’s climate change drastically over the decades. It’s apparent that the pace is quickening. The majority of Americans would like to hear what the plan is for the the next four years.
I implore you to bring this question to the debate floor. It is of the utmost importance.
We went from many (25%) to the majority (>50%) in just a matter of days! Why not say everyone on the planet demands to know?
Why not evaluate yourself as a net harm-monger of 71 year old women and your other paid-responses?
If you’re a sociopath, fine. If you have a bit of conscience though, well. With this reply apparently not. To this [theoretical] 71-year old woman, striving for answers.
And uh, like $200/week? Or $10/reply? Or some other fashion of $ compensation? I assume you’re not literally David Brock, for example, so you must be maybe just a jive sucka.
Not even demanding anything. In 1980s me and my sis and mom made $1.13/hour plus gains if polling more people, in summers. We made $3.00/hour doing inventory. And obviously paper routes too. Single mom, two kids.
Here’s Tim though, fake news ****, making more than that per post or total or weekly compensation $ here, on destroying the lives of poor people. What a disgusting person.
So 71 year old women are allowed to make up numbers? Why stop there? Why not say 71 year old women are allowed to steal?
Honesty is important. The difference between the professor and me is that I don’t attack the individual – I attack the opinion and the misstatements of facts.
How exactly am I destroying lives of poor people?
Hi,
Will contact the moderators. Thanks for the great piece!
It is the major issue of the decade!
Hi,
Will contact the moderators. Thanks for the great piece!
TIM: This is an old red herring. Things like plastic bottles have to go. Sure. But clearly your sarcastic suggestions are not a realistic future for us. The central issue is changing from fossil fuels to alternative energies at the INDUSTRY as well as the personal level. At the GLOBAL level, not just the local. This will in fact make some industries — petroleum, coal etc — obsolete. Those workers can be retrained and moved into green jobs. Not to mention the countless jobs that would be created if our crumbling infrastructure was to be fixed. What is lacking is the political will. What you are saying is nonsense and, hopefully, you know it. If we don’t alter how industry is fueled, put an emphasis on producing “needs instead of wants,” and practically and unselfishly change the way we live, we’re committing global suicide and future generations, such as they might be, should rightfully damn us. We should adopt the Green New Deal (it answers plenty of questions if you take a look with an open mind!) and then going beyond it. Mercenary bastards like McConnell and trump don’t even consider that because the GND because are whores of industry and finance and don’t give a damn about “ordinary” people. If you read the Green New Deal, and do some simple Googling instead of wasting your time with dumb negativity on here, you wouldn’t need answers from any of us. You have your own civic duty. That’s on you and nobody else; and from what you’re saying I get the impression you are doing zero to fight climate catastrophe. That’s not helpful it’s hateful. If you had common sense you wouldn’t even been on here trying to shoot everything down. You’d be hounding your Senators and Rep; joining/supporting climate groups online; protesting; writing letters; calling neighborhood meetings, etc etc etc. You could even take the initiative and organize an action yourself! And yes, I actually DO these things. But it’s much easier to try and be clever than get off your ass and do anything, I suppose. You are part of the problem. Wake up and be responsible.
I wrote: Dear moderators,
The climate and nuclear weapons are the great overarching issues. If we don’t solve these existential threats, all other issues are moot. I urge you to do the right thing and ask the moderators if they support SERIOUS climate action such as the Green New Deal, and if not, WHY not. These matters are of the highest urgency and you are in a position of responsibility to see they are addressed.
Message sent on debates
Dear Debate Moderator:
Climate change is here and now. Please be sure the presidential debates comprehensively address it.
Our elected president must embrace a strong national program to curtail global warming if we and the Earth are to survive.
If nothing is done, the world is toast!
Thank you.
Sheila Brady
Chicago, IL
Sab88882003@yahoo.com
So did Chris Wallace listen to us and ask that climate question??