The debates and town halls are over, and Election Day nears. Spectacle may have detracted from the uniquely high stakes of this election with pressing concerns over the COVID-19 pandemic, economics, police relations, and climate change. Deciphering facts and parsing detailed plans from empty promises can be overwhelming. Was there even any substantive discussion on the hot button topics at all?

 

The issue of climate change has notoriously received little attention in past elections. This election saw a slight improvement on this pattern with 10 minutes on the topic in the first presidential debate, hosted by Fox News’ Chris Wallace on September 29, and 12 minutes at the second debate, hosted by Kristen Welker on October 22. 

 

Global climate change deserves any election attention it gets. Empirical data reveals the extensive damages associated with a warming planet, ranging from billions of dollars in lost wages, to worsened flood events, to thousands of extreme temperature deaths. If the United States is to have any hope in preventing irreversible damage from climate change, the country must employ cleaner energies and elect officials that can focus sound efforts to achieve climate and energy objectives. 

 

President Trump consistently evaded the climate change question in debate appearances. Although he eventually relented “I think to an extent, yes” to Wallace’s prying Trump if he believes in the impacts of human pollution and greenhouses gases on climate change, most of his responses hinged on blaming poor forest management for catalyzing the California forest fires, and claiming that green energy regulations are tanking the economy.

 

Despite publically evading the topic, Trump’s official website boasts backing out of the Paris Climate Agreement, rolling back Obama Clean Power Plan regulations, and the incentivizing pipeline construction. Trump’s energy policy was reinforced at the second debate. Although President Trump has said to want “immaculate air and water”, climate change is not a priority for him so long as a climate-first approach has perceived negative economic or manufacturing implications. Or, potentially more likely, as long as an adopted climate first approach would harm campaign funding.

 

Joe Biden has been more vocal about his environmental vision, proposing a bold $2 trillion investment in energy, infrastructure, and conservation. Key tenants of the ‘Biden Plan’ include 500,000 electric car charging stations, weatherization of 4 million buildings for improved energy efficiency, net zero carbon emissions by 2050, and rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement.

 

On the debate stage, President Trump claimed that Biden’s plan is simply the Green New Deal, while Biden denied the accusation. The Green New Deal. is a plan submitted by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey, cosponsored by 101 other elected officials, that outlines environmental, economic, and social justice concerns associated with climate change and energy production. Although the Biden Plan certainly embraces some notable elements of the Green New Deal, they differ on the logistics of their implementations.

 

Despite Biden’s striking energy and climate plans, some vague promises may require further explanation. For example, Mr. Biden stated that he plans to compel Brazil to cease deforestation of the Amazon. Though largely applauded for its intent, the feasibility has been questioned and a thoroughly detailed agenda is absent. Additionally, Biden has been known to evade questions about hydraulic fracturing for natural gas. He seems to view fracking as a segue to energy independence and means to develop superior energy technologies, but is somewhat vague on this, and it receives scant attention in his plan.

 

Voters own the burden of self-education on political candidates’ agendas, and so they are often limited to emotions rather than facts to influence voting on issues like climate change. But it is imperative that voters use any information they do have to base their decisions on what they and their preferred candidates are are agreeing to when they enter the voting booth.

 

Unfortunately, the climate change and energy production dilemmas are unlikely to be solved by one election or country. They are on far too large a scale. But having leadership with a clear agenda is a critical step if the United States is to overcome these crises. Arguably the greatest power Americans can demonstrate in holding elected officials accountable on climate solutions happens now at the polls.