One of the most alarming signs I’ve noticed with regard to the prospect of a Trump presidency is a tendency among those who may not feel directly affected to not take the threat seriously. In one recent conversation with a friend, a computer programmer living in Florida, I saw this line of thinking first hand. As I encouraged him to make sure he gets out and votes in one of the states that will decide this year’s election, he shrugged off my appeals by asking how a Trump White House would differ from a Clinton presidency in terms of direct impact on him and his co-workers. Unswayed by the specter of mass deportations, religious tests in airports, and disastrous trade wars, he had a hard time seeing the importance of the outcome. As our conversation goes to show, Hillary and the Democratic Party are having far too much energizing those voters that are either on the fence or are professed non-voters.
Indeed, while this election year stands out because of its rise in vocal populist sentiment, it is hardly the first whose outcome could be decided by those portions of the electorate who decide to sit it out. The past three presidential elections have seen roughly 45 percent of eligible voters abstain from voting. Recent research has begun to show that these non-voters are broadly younger and more progressive than the voting public. This indicates that elections have actually been yielding a distorted view of the electorate on many issues. Bernie Sander’s campaign had success attracting these young progressives to his promise of political revolution; Hillary Clinton is going to have much more difficulty winning them over. Many, including my friend, just cannot see how the next president is going to have a major impact on their daily lives. While many are still crestfallen over the outcome of the Democratic primaries, there are more than a few key differences that make the outcome of this election vital.
Donald Trump’s stance on climate change has not gotten all that much coverage, but it could ultimately be the starkest wedge between the two sides and might be the common cause Democrats need to truly come back together. Outside of the extreme right wing, the country has come to a consensus that climate change will have a direct effect on our lives and livelihoods, even for my unconvinced Floridian friend. In fact, low-lying coastal locations like Florida will be among the first to feel the effects of rising sea levels, increased precipitation, and rising ocean temperatures. While those rising sea levels threaten to sink densely populated coastal areas such as Florida or New York, people living away from the coasts will also feel the effects. Florida and the Southeast will be affected by more frequent and intense hurricanes. Agriculture, energy production, transportation, and water resources would be affected for the entire country.
The dangers of climate change have not been lost on the public, with concern now reaching record highs. 64 percent of Americans report being worried “a great deal or a fair amount” about climate change, a number higher than the approval ratings for either presidential candidate. And therein lies the rub: getting those generally progressive non-voters to speak out should be engineered by hammering this very issue. Donald Trump, whose position on climate change includes a pro-coal agenda, supports oil and gas drilling on public land, seeks to reduce the Environmental Protection Agency to a “bipartisan commission”, rejects the Kyoto and Paris agreements, and seeks to cut off funding to the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, is nothing short of a national security threat.
Pundits have pointed out that US leadership is needed now more than ever before, at a key time for global progress on the matter. Plans to put the Paris COP21 Agreement into action are becoming ever more more concrete, with the upcoming COP22 conference in Marrakech this November and the 2017 Expo in Astana, starting in June of next year under the “Future Energy” banner, building on its promises. That a major oil producer like Kazakhstan is putting on a months-long international event dedicated to green and sustainable energy shows just how much global perceptions have changed, but the international consensus remains fragile and strong American leadership is indispensable. The European Union, despite its commitments to reducing carbon emissions, is fraying under financial and security pressures, and India and China still rely heavily on coal to power their economic development. The United States has to remain a world leader on climate change for mankind to avoid the worst of its effects. All that being said, what would a President Trump do? Tear up the COP21 and take America back to the 20th century on energy, with more drilling and fewer rules.
Many potential voters seem to feel they have little to gain from electing Hilary Clinton, but when it comes to the environment and the health of the planet, we all have much to lose from a Trump presidency. His stance on climate change is backwards and frankly terrifying, especially considering that rising sea levels threat to destroy some of the most densely populated portions of the American coastline. Hillary might not be a perfect candidate, but she is at least willing to acknowledge the threat and take action against it. That is something Trump, as a born-again climate change denier, flat-out refuses to do.