A good discussion of climate change has been totally absent from all presidential debates. This issue cannot be ignored. The next President’s first term will be completely dominated by climate change. It’s important to know where our candidates stand on this and how they will handle it. It’s vastly more important than how they stand on every other issue, with the exception of campaign financing, and only because fixing campaign financing is critical to dealing with this issue.
In case anyone doubts the importance of dealing with climate change, let me remind you that what you often hear in the movies is literally true of what will happen to us if we don’t deal with this: We’re all going to die!
And I don’t mean in our own good time.
So, I propose we have one more debate between the two remaining candidates, and this time it should not be sponsored by a news (I use the term loosely) organization. It should be sponsored by environmental and scientific groups. And it should focus on the environment, specifically on climate change.
Or, what I would call global scorching. (See image above.)
Let me tell you what I think the first question should be.
The First Question Should Be
To each candidate:
Carbon dioxide level in the air was just measured at 404 parts per million. What, specifically, would you do to get it back down below 350 parts per million?
Bonus points for the correct answer:
The first week I was President I’d invite the heads of all the major fossil fuel companies to come meet with me and I’d pose this question to them: “You caused this problem. How are you going to fix it?”
And, if they didn’t give me an answer I could believe in, I’d tell them they have one week to get back to me with an answer that I could believe. Because if they didn’t, I’d perp-walk one of their companies every week after that until they did.
Right now, the ice in the Arctic is starting to melt. By the time the Democratic and the Republican conventions have run their course the American people will know we’re in deep trouble from climate change, because one good picture of the Arctic is going to make it liquid clear to them. And they are going to be demanding answers and action.
Whoever is going to be the President of United States next year had better have a really good answer for the American people on how to respond to climate change.
So, I would like to see another debate, specifically on our survival as a species. Wouldn’t you?
References
Just for reference, even though I know all of you get all the references, the exact information I used to form my question comes from these sources:
350.org: “The number 350 means climate safety: we must reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere from >400 parts per million to below 350.”
New Scientist: “February 2016’s temperature spike is yet another record”
(Published in New Scientist, 19 March 2016, page 6.)
NASA: World map