We preface any politic-ish post with a disclaimer: we aren’t focused on politics; we’re focused on environmentalism. It’s a shame that American politics mean the two are inseparable, but all we can do is untangle the mess as best as we can. And with the latest U.S. Presidential debate, there’s some untangling to do. We aren’t able to touch on every topic in a short social media post, so make sure to read the full post on our blog (blog.pixelplanettoday.com).
🌎 We have to start with how the debate went in general. We absolutely LOVED how moderators, in a couple of situations, fact-checked in real time, making it harder for candidates to lie to cater to their audiences. But even still, it’s hard to fact-check while you have a full-time job in front of you. Candidates were quick to interject and talk over others (at first, it was solely Trump, but Harris ended the debate by joining in), making the job for moderators increasingly hard.
But issues with the candidates didn’t stop there. There were several occasions where a question was posed, and in classic politician style, the question was never answered. At least directly. In most instances, it was clearer when Trump was doing this (talking entirely about a different topic or responding to what Harris had spoken about), but there were a couple of times where Harris was also guilty of dodging a question. Questions about abortion, environmental policy, and immigration were some of the few that got the “around the bush” treatment.
🌎 Climate change wasn’t treated as the emergency it really is. Don’t get us wrong, there were SO MANY important topics to cover in the (seemingly only) debate between the candidates, but “climate change” was only mentioned as part of the last question of the night. Nothing about wildlife conservation, plastic pollution, air quality, or environmental projects – just a question on what each candidate will do to mitigate the climate crisis. Even still, Trump didn’t answer at all and used his time to touch on previously discussed manufacturing jobs. But to add further insult to injury, the question was posed as the debate went into overtime (depending on how you look at it). Originally planned to run for 90 minutes starting at 9 PM Eastern, 8 PM Central, commercial breaks and interrupting of the monitors meant the debate went past an hour and a half. It’s unclear if there was a large dip-off at the 1 hour and thirty minute mark, but it definitely wouldn’t have hurt to mention it sooner. 🙄
There’s something else worth mentioning – the verbiage behind the question itself. Moderators started with, “We have another issue that we’d like to get to that’s important for a number of Americans, in particular younger voters, and that’s climate change.” But targeting “young people” in association with concern for the climate isn’t really the case anymore. Research shows that more than a third of all Americans see climate change as one of the three largest issues facing society today. Personally, as a young person, I’m terrified of the worst of climate change, but I can’t say I wouldn’t be as scared simply if I were older.?
🌎 Trump stated that the country isn’t ready for wind and solar, since Germany tried and within a year, they went back to “normal energy plants.” Not sure what this means or is in reference to, but it likely stems from the slowing of gas and oil being imported from Russia since the Ukraine invasion coupled with Germany’s transition away from nuclear power. It was supposed to be a recipe to encourage renewable energy sources, but bureaucratic processes hold up the transition. Germany, while a bit better than the United States, has different parties fighting for different outcomes, making a quick transition near impossible.
We have to add: “normal” energy? Energy sources have been constantly changing as society evolves, but in context, he is talking about nonrenewable energy. It’s a shame that some people are so quick to claim that renewable energy isn’t normal, so we shouldn’t invest in it, rather than embracing its benefits. As climate advocates, it’s our job to change the culture to make renewable energy the new normal (this shouldn’t even be a question).
🌎 Next are Harris’ views on fracking. One question posed asked Kamala if she had switched positions as she previously said she was against fracking, but now supports it. She stated that no, her position hasn’t changed, and she won’t ban fracking. While subtle, there are discrepancies between the two, but they can best be explained by understanding the job of public servants. She may, personally, be against fracking, but as a public servant, she has to cater to the voters to do what is best for the people. Pennsylvania is a key swing state, one that has deep ties to fracking, meaning to be “anti-fracking” could mean losing the election.
That being said, there are two points working against this theory. One is that Pennsylvanians might not be as sensitive about fracking as some think. Environmental groups claim jobs around the industry are overstated and that residents are much more concerned about things like inflation and abortion rights. Polls put between 30 and 50 percent of state residents in support of fracking, so while it may not be THAT big of a deal, if it is, it could be enough to lose votes.
The second is that as a political leader, sometimes the right decision is the unpopular decision. There may be more low-hanging fruit that the country can pick in order to hit some of the country’s climate goals, but that doesn’t mean we should further invest in something that moves the needle in the opposite direction. Strong leaders all over the world must make the difficult decision to transition away from fossil fuels. There are plenty of things that can be done to ease this transition, but continually waiting isn’t going to make anything easier down the line.
🌎 There were some other, smaller mentions of environmental topics. Trump again brought up that he pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord while he was in office; Trump claimed that a solar plant needs “a whole desert to get some energy to come out” (which is obviously not true given all 42 million solar-equipped homeowners aren’t concentrated in the desert); and of course, “THE DOGS!” 😅 We are happy to report that, according to city officials, no Haitian immigrants are eating the cats and dogs of Ohio, meaning that local wildlife should feel safer as well.
You can watch the full debate yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dOgWZsDB6Q
–
UPDATE 10/7/2024:
By this point, we’ve heard from each candidate’s vice-presidential picks as well in their own debate. We decided not to make a full blog post on this debate, but rather make a sidenote to add context. First, the issue of climate change made it to the second question the candidates were posed! That’s quite the promotion, one we’re very happy to see. Second, things remained pretty consistent in terms of energy policies, with neither VP veering far from their nominees’ views. Lastly, and least environmentally oriented: it went surprisingly well! Both remained incredibly respectful, not much drama arose – it makes you wonder where the country would be if there were more respectful debates in general.