On today’s BradCast: With all the knives out between all of the 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates at Wednesday night’s debate in Las Vegas, you may not have noticed that there was actually a rather substantive policy debate within it over how to deal with our intensifying climate emergency. But we noticed. [Audio link to show follows below.]
It’s rare enough that climate and environmental issues are raised at all by Presidential Debate moderators, much less to allow for substantive discussion of differences between the candidates. And, in the few instances that it happens, the conversation is often buried at the end of the forum, and/or otherwise completely ignored in post-debate coverage which tends to be overwhelmed by electorate politics and horse-race discussion. That is an extraordinary disservice to the electorate, especially given that, as a number of recent polls both nationally and in early primary states reveal, climate change is now among the top issue for voters, often this cycle coming in second only to health care and ahead of both economic and foreign policy issues.
So, before Wednesday’s debate gives way entirely to Saturday’s Nevada Caucuses and next week’s South Carolina Primary and then Super Tuesday in 14 states just three days later on March 3rd, we thought many still-undecided voters might be well-served by some expert help in unpacking some of the key differences between the leading candidates on climate action policies. Unlike Donald Trump and the Republicans, who treat the matter as a joke, all of the Democrats claim to understand the existential threat posed by global warming. But the differences in their responses to questions on the matter — which are sometimes much larger than you may have noticed — is both telling and informative.
To that end, we are joined today for a sharp review of the climate crisis portion of Wednesday’s debate by LEAH STOKES of UC-Santa Barbara and DAVID ARKUSH of Public Citizen to break down the candidates differing positions for and against fracking bans; on taking on the fossil fuel industry and its executives politically, economically and, yes, criminally; on killing the filibuster; on carbon taxes; on a Green New Deal; on which of the candidates are climate champions (and which are not); and much more!
Both Stokes and Arkush are excellent and unabashed climate policy communicators with long and impressive track records of advocacy on these matters, including with elected officials. Neither of them pull any punches (unlike a number of the candidates on Wednesday night on this issue) and one of them even notes that fossil fuel industry executives could be, perhaps should be, not only prosecuted for fraud, but even “for homicide”…depending on who becomes the nominee and if they can take back the White House (and the Senate!) this November…
(Comments are now closed.)