Edit: After reading the comments, I thought I should add a sentence here summarizing the diary: “Global cooperation is necessary to effectively combat climate change, and Hillary Clinton’s unparalleled foreign policy experience makes her the best candidate to maintain and strengthen the Paris Climate Accord.”
Climate change is by far the most important issue to me personally, and I support Hillary Clinton. That’s why the League of Conservation Voters endorsed her:
“When it comes to fighting the climate crisis, the stakes couldn’t be higher—and we are confident that Hillary Clinton is the right person for the job,” said Gene Karpinski, President of LCV Action Fund. “With her proven history of leadership, strong environmental record, and a campaign committed to building a clean energy future, Hillary Clinton is without a doubt the most effective leader to stand up to Big Polluters and push forward an aggressive plan to tackle climate change and get it done.
At its core, climate change is a global issue. The US is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, but more than 84% of total emissions are produced by other countries (that estimate includes only the burning of fossil fuels and certain industrial processes. Emissions from other sources, such as agriculture and forest clearance, are much higher in other countries). Therefore, the most important thing by far a president can do to fight climate change is to build international cooperation by maintaining and strengthening the Paris Climate Accord. It was very hard to bring China and India to the table, and it will be a challenge to maintain their cooperation in the future. Hillary Clinton is an experienced diplomat with the skills to do just that.
Of course, it would be ideal if the Paris Climate Accord contained enforceable provisions, but I do not think it will matter that much in the long run, assuming strong diplomatic pressure is maintained. The sole reason that no enforceable provisions were included is that they would necessitate approval by the US Senate to come into effect. That requires 67 votes. It is mathematically impossible to get that many votes in the next four years (If you disagree, please provide a list of Republican Senators + Joe Manchin that will be defeated this fall and in 2018, or persuaded to support such a treaty. To help, here is a list of Senate seats by class: en.wikipedia.org/...). This means that diplomatic pressure is the only thing keeping the accord together, and no one has more foreign policy experience than Secretary Clinton.
Yes, domestic policy also plays a major role. By enacting cap-and-trade or a carbon tax, the US could reduce its own emissions and send a strong signal to the rest of the world. I freely admit that Bernie Sanders has a stronger plan (though if there were any chance it could pass Congress, I’m sure Hillary Clinton would support a cap-and-trade plan). I wish Bernie’s plan could be enacted, but I do not see how it is possible for it to pass Congress before 2020. In 2009, when Democrats had 255-179 majority, the Waxman-Markey Bill only passed by 219-212. Now, the Republicans hold a 246-188 majority which is pretty much baked in until 2022 because of redistricting. If you disagree, could you provide a list of Republican Congressman you think will be defeated this fall, or persuaded to vote for a carbon tax ? It is even less plausible that such a bill could pass the Senate. The Waxman-Markey bill didn't even make it to the floor when there were 59 Senators on our side the the aisle, and now there are only 47. The most optimistic projections for 2016 have Democrats picking up 6 seats bringing them to 53. In the 2018 Senate elections, only eight Republicans are up for reelection, and all but two are from solidly red states. So how do you get to 60 by 2020? This is not something I am happy about, but it is a fact. Climate change action is urgently needed and cannot wait until the next time we have a a Democratic supermajority in the Senate. That’s why it is imperative that the next president maintain and strengthen Obama’s executive actions, and appoint an a replacement to Scalia who would uphold the Clean Air Act as currently interpreted. Sanders and Clinton are identical on this.
The effective domestic policy differences between potential Clinton and Sanders administrations on climate change are minuscule compared to the difference between them and the Republicans. Any of the Republicans would end Obama’s executive actions, and effectively eliminate the chance for international cooperation on this most urgent of issues for the foreseeable future. That’s why electability matters. To me, it’s clear that Hillary Clinton would have a much better chance in the fall. The prediction markets, many objective political scientists, and almost all Democrats holding elected office agree. I know many Bernie supporters disagree, but that is a discussion for another thread.
In conclusion, Secretary Clinton is the best candidate to address climate change as president because of (1) her unparalleled diplomatic skills and foreign policy experience , (2) her [to quote League of Conservation Voters official Gene Karpinski] “proven history of leadership, strong environmental record, and a campaign committed to building a clean energy future,” and (3) her chances of defeating the Republicans in the fall. I don’t expect this will convince any Bernie supporters, but if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, I urge you to support her this fall so our country can continuing leading the world on this most urgent of issues.
P.S. I started writing this as comment to this diary, but it got too long.