Podiums stand in the debate hall ahead of the Democratic presidential candidate debate in Miami, Florida, U.S., on Wednesday, June 26, 2019. Twenty Democratic presidential contenders will meet Wednesday and Thursday for the first debate of the 2020 campaign, a high-stakes event for the biggest and most diverse field ever of would-be party nominees. Photographer: Jayme Gershen/Bloomberg
© 2019 Bloomberg Finance LP
The Miami Democratic Presidential debates paid lip service to climate issues. In the first round on June 26, climate change was discussed for 7 of the 80 minutes (8.75% of the speaking time). The top issues in the first debate were economy/inequality, immigration, healthcare, gun control, and foreign policy together accounted for 57 of the 80 minutes (71.25% of the time).
When asked about the most important geopolitical threat facing the country, only 4 of the 10 candidates listed climate change: O’Rourke and Warren singled it out, while Booker and Castro listed it along with nuclear weapons and China respectively. Inslee, the most vocal climate advocate, identified Donald Trump, not climate change, as the most significant geopolitical threat. Interestingly, when Booker and Warren spoke, they did not talk about climate change.
In the June 27 debate, climate change got 8 of the 80 minutes (10% of the speaking time). In this round, the top issues were immigration, healthcare, civil rights, and foreign policy; they accounted for 38 of the 80 minutes (47.5% of the time).
The second debate started off with the moderator posing the first question to Sanders (“will taxes go up for the middle class in a Sanders’ administration? And if so how do you sell that to voters?”). Although he has endorsed the Green New Deal and is vocal about it, Sanders did not mention the Green New Deal even once! He remained focused on the signature issue of his previous 2016 campaign, inequality.
In the second debate, the candidates were asked to identify the first issue they would tackle as the President. Only Bennett and Hickenlooper identified climate change. In this debate again, many did not mention climate change at all during their speaking time (namely, Gillibrand, Williamson, Swalwell, and Yang).
In both debates, even when the candidates talked about climate issues, their responses tended to lack depth. For example, Biden drawing on this own climate plan released earlier in the month spoke about 500,000 new public charging stations for electric cars without elaborating on how electricity will be generated, how these stations will be financed, or how will he ensure that these electric automobiles are manufactured in America.
What happened to the Green New Deal?
This lack of focus on climate issues is surprising. The Green New Deal resolution introduced by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) was co-sponsored by several Presidential candidates serving in the Senate and the House: Sanders, Gillibrand, Harris, Warren, Booker, Klobuchar, and Swalwell.
Furthermore, the media buzz around the Green New Deal seemed to only increase over time. Most would agree that the Green New Deal has generated tremendous political excitement (along with scorn). It seemed to have captured the imagination of climate activists and outlined a new theory of change for climate politics. Even Senator Mitch McConnell found it so important that he called a Senate vote on it.
But somehow the zeal to proclaim support for the Green New Deal was missing during the Miami debate. Harris mentioned it in passing only, and Hickenlooper criticized its promise to offer a government-funded job to everyone.
Why the Political Neglect of Climate Issues?
For many, climate change is the defining challenge of our time. The Green New Deal has mobilized a large number of young liberal activists. Furthermore, the Presidential debates were held in Miami, a city which is suffering visibly from climate change. Even the debate moderators invoked Miami’s climate problems.
And yet, climate issues did not bubble up to the top.
Why? We speculate that climate change does not (yet) have the bread and butter appeal of say income inequality and healthcare. Nor does it have a sense of immediacy and emotional dimension of immigration reform. Arguably, had there been a major climate disaster in the previous week, climate change might have received more attention from the Miami debaters.
What is the way forward for climate activists?
Green New Dealers need to generate policy momentum. They could focus on a subset of issues where policy progress is possible in the short term. For instance, several states have established goals for carbon-free electricity. Maybe the first step is to make this a national target and focus on faster and quicker uptake of renewables.
Inslee had demanded that the DNC should organize a special debate on climate issues, and 15 Presidential candidates had endorsed this call. But the DNC Chairman Tom Perez rejected the request, noting that the DNC had received 50 requests for debates on specific issues.
While the DNC might not hold a climate debate, perhaps the activists should step in here. For example, they could organize a climate debate in early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina and invite the presidential hopefuls to attend. After all, some polls suggest that climate change is very important for Iowa Democrats, and Presidential hopefuls ignore Iowa only at their own peril.
The neglect of climate issues in Miami should be a wake-up call for climate activists. America faces many challenges. If we want politicians to devote attention and eventually resources to tackle the climate crisis, its policy salience needs to improve. It must become costly for politicians to ignore climate change and beneficial to focus on it. Clearly, this sort of political cost and benefit calculus has not yet kicked in for Presidential candidates. Climate activists need to think carefully about how to change it.
