On Tuesday, the non-partisan ScienceDebate.org released answers to 20 science-related questions it had posed to the four leading presidential candidates. Only three of them responded: Democrat Hillary Clinton, Green Party nominee Jill Stein, and Republican Donald Trump. Libertarian Gary Johnson apparently couldn’t be bothered.
The questions covered a wide range of topics, from research, food and water to public health, education and energy. Climate change was on the list, too. As expected Clinton and Stein gave lengthy responses, laying out action-oriented plans for dealing with what is probably the greatest planetary crisis since modern humans emerged from Africa 10 millenniums or so ago.
And the Trumpanzee? The guy who once said climate change was a Chinese-fabricated hoax designed to undermine U.S. manufacturing? I’ll get to him in a moment.
Clinton told the group the science of climate change is crystal clear. She would, she wrote, set a floor of three goals “that we will achieve within ten years of taking office” to make the United States “the clean energy superpower of the 21st century.” The three are generating half U.S. electricity from clean sources, with half a billion solar panels installed by the beginning of 2021; cutting energy waste by a third and making U.S. manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world; and reducing U.S. oil consumption by a third with clean fuels and more efficient boilers and vehicles, including ships.
She also said she would “launch a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge to partner with those states, cities, and rural communities across the country that are ready to take the lead on clean energy and energy efficiency, giving them the flexibility, tools and resources they need to succeed.”
Stein said she will offer a Green New Deal, a proposal that was first made concrete by the New Economics Foundation, a British think tank in 2007. Stein said she would “initiate a WWII-scale national mobilization to halt climate change” that creates 20 million new jobs in a transition to 100 percent clean energy by 2030. This would be achieved by “investing in public transit, sustainable agriculture, conservation and restoration of critical infrastructure, including ecosystems.”
She also supports climate justice through a Just Transition that focuses on communities most harmed by climate change and provides assistance to fossil fuel workers who lose their jobs because of the transition. She would redirect government research money away from fossil fuels toward renewables and energy conservation, “enact energy democracy” with community and worker ownership of the energy system, end subsidies to nuclear and fossil fuel-fired power plants and phase these operations out, end extraction via mountaintop removal, hydraulic fracturing and off-shore drilling, support more environmentally sustainable agriculture, and seek environmental justice legislation that prevents the poor and communities of color from being disproportionately affected.
A lot to like from both these women although many climate hawks say neither of them goes far enough. Indeed, Clinton would be wise to merge some of the ideas Stein and the Green New Dealers have proposed into her own proposals.
As far as The Donnie’s answers, here is every word he said:
There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of “climate change.” Perhaps the best use of our limited financial resources should be in dealing with making sure that every person in the world has clean water. Perhaps we should focus on eliminating lingering diseases around the world like malaria. Perhaps we should focus on efforts to increase food production to keep pace with an ever-growing world population. Perhaps we should be focused on developing energy sources and power production that alleviates the need for dependence on fossil fuels. We must decide on how best to proceed so that we can make lives better, safer and more prosperous.
As you can see, it’s another small pile of the usual mushy generalist ramble, punctuated with four “perhaps” and strong hints throughout—starting with the first sentence—that he remains a stubborn and profoundly disinformed climate-change denier. He’s clearly determined to avoid—as we shall no doubt see in the debates—offering even the teensiest specific. Because he has none.
For this (and so many other nothingburgers Trump lays out every time he pretends to get serious), I have just two words for him: Bite me.