1/17/16 Democratic Presidential Debate
Bernie Sanders has been the most vocal of the candidates in addressing the need for environmental action. During the first debate, when asked what the greatest national security threat to the US is, he firmly stated “climate change.” He backed up his answer, which differed with the other candidates’ foreign policy related responses, with the CIA-backed argument that climate change is making all other cascading threats even worse. I was thrilled to see the issue receive some much-needed attention, after watching the first Republican debate, which (unsurprisingly) omitted the topic of climate change entirely.
Yet last night, environmental issues seemed almost as insignificant to NBC as it is to the GOP. The topic appeared promising at first, introduced with a clip about the fossil fuel industry from YouTube channel MinuteEarth. However, only one question was asked following the clip, directed at Sanders and allowing O’Malley a 30 second response. Clinton tried to respond, but was cut off for a commercial break. This was extremely disappointing because environmental protection is a multifaceted issue; there are so many aspects of it that could have been discussed. At the very least, the current frontrunner could have been given a chance to say where she currently stands, considering she’s infamous for her inconsistency, one time even saying, “I’ll take a stand on keystone when I’m president”. (Ironically, she has since backed down on this stance, and has come out against keystone.)
Sanders and O’Malley both responded well considering their lack of opportunity to do so. The moderator asked Sanders “how do you convince Americans that the problem of climate change is so urgent that they need to change their behavior?” He responded by saying Americans are already aware and trying to change, especially the younger generation. I disagree with this and would have liked to hear him offer an actual proposal on how to make it clear to all Americans. However, what he said next, although not a direct answer to the question, was effective. He alluded to the people of Vermont and how they are finding the unpredictable weather patterns disruptive. He showed his knowledge and expertise by stating that he is on both the Environmental and Energy Committees and has the most comprehensive legislation in the Senate to transform our energy system. He also touched on the money influences preventing Republicans from accepting science and taking action, as well as the fact that his environmentalist initiatives would provide millions with jobs. Overall, the only things I found to be missing were details as to what he actually plans to do and a bolder statement as to why we must make environmental protection a priority. O’Malley, in his 30 seconds, briefly introduced his plan to move us to a 100 percent clean, electric energy grid by 2050.
The lack of time given to the topic of environmental issues during the debate led me to take it upon myself to look further into where each candidate stands. I was pleased to find a very comprehensive plan on each campaign’s website. O’Malley and Sanders both have lists of exactly what they plan to do, O’Malley’s as a bulleted list and Sanders’ as a paragraph for each initiative. Sanders and Clinton both detail their history in environmental issues; O’Malley does not. Clinton’s position focuses more on the economic side of things, and includes something I found intriguing: the “Clean Energy Challenge,” which forms a partnership with states, cities, and rural communities and offers prizes and awards for leading jurisdictions. Sanders’ plan is by far the longest and most comprehensive, covering everything from the need to help low income communities (because climate change and pollution hit them the hardest) to the need to become a global leader in environmental action.
Overall I was very impressed by all three of the candidates’ plans. However, the one thing that all three of the candidates’ proposals fell short on – by a long shot – is the problem of animal agriculture. The meat and dairy industries contribute more to climate change than all cars, planes, trains, and ships combined; and they are the number one incentive for deforestation and the destruction of the Amazon rainforest. These industries bear an obscene amount of political and economic control, very similar to that of the fossil fuel industry, which Sanders avidly fights against. Yet not he nor Clinton nor O’Malley included even the slightest mention of these industries. Sanders is not the type of guy to back down such industries because it’s the simple and easy thing to do, so it’s my hope that as of now he simply is unaware of the drastic problem. Even within the environmental community, this issue remains largely hidden; GreenPeace is only now beginning to acknowledge it publicly. With the knowledge of the enormity of this issue, I do believe that Sanders and his team would incorporate animal agriculture-centered proposals into their plan. Regardless, I will be excited to see any one of these candidates get elected and put their proposals into action. Hopefully during the next debate, the Democratic candidates will be given the time necessary to elaborate on their thorough environmental plans and express just how crucial it is that we elect a president dedicated to protecting and preserving our planet.