Why Won't the Democrats Hold a Climate Change Debate?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

WASHINGTON — The Democratic National Committee is facing a growing backlash in the wake of its refusal to host a 2020 presidential debate focused solely on solving the climate crisis.

Last week, the DNC not only dismissed the idea of hosting a debate on the existential threat of our time but vowed to bar any 2020 candidate who participates in a non-DNC climate debate from participating in future official debates, according to Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who was the 2020 Democratic candidate to call for a climate-only debate. Inslee called the DNC’s decision “extremely disappointing” and the blacklist “totally unacceptable.”

Confronted by party activists in Florida over the weekend, DNC Chair Tom Perez defended the committee’s decision by saying that it was “not practical” to hold a debate on a “single issue” like climate change. He said the candidates knew the rules going in at the start of the campaign, which included not devoting any of the DNC’s 12 sanctioned debates to a single topic.

“Once you have one single-issue debate, then every debate leads to become a single issue debate in order to address the concerns,” Perez told the activists. “And frankly, as someone who worked for Barack Obama, the most remarkable thing about him was his tenacity to multitask, and a president must be able to multitask.”

But Perez’s justifications have only inflamed an increasingly agitated group of liberal activists, environmental leaders and several 2020 candidates who say Perez is badly misguided.

Climate change and other environmental issues received a pathetic five minutes of discussion in the three 2016 general-election debates and pressure has been building since the start of the 2020 race to elevate the issue, especially as more and more voters (of all parties) rank climate change as an issue of great importance to them.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/climate-change-debate-democrats-2020-primary-846376/

[enough]

1. Because if candidates started actually talking about what would actually have to be done,

voters would start screaming and running for the exits.

[humbled_opinion]

12. I don't buy that logic

Allowing the big Oil lobby also known as the GOP to spread misinformation on this issue is the problem, why can't we implement goals to get to zero emissions ? Look I like to tell people if the rich actually had to pay to use fossil fuels they would be the first ones coming up with alternative solutions. i.e., Government controls all Oil and gas production and the sales are based on a persons ability to pay, when the rich are paying 10k per gallon for gas there will quickly be enough money to subsidize everyone getting on OTC (other than Carbon) energy.

[NNadir]

29. This is decidedly true. Regrettably, there is almost no technical consideration of the reality...

...on our side.

There's a lot of mumbling about so called "renewable energy," of course, the only problem with that being that it didn't work; isn't working and won't work to address climate change.

If I had to choose a candidate tomorrow, I would choose either Warren or Booker, because deep inside their voting records, not discussed much, are hints that they both actually get it, although they certainly wouldn't be permitted to say so during the primary season without sabotaging their chances.

Of course, Booker has no chance, but Warren increasingly intrigues me as someone who might make it. She's a policy wonk, and as such, has a mind capable of drawing the correct conclusions, much as Obama did when he hired Steven Chu.

Climate change is the most serious issue before humanity, but regrettably, in our party, there are too many people who are in the position of - I use this analogy a lot - of expert diagnostic oncologists who can tell you that you have cancer, and then recommend as treatment, a visit to a Shaman in Peru.

[George II]

2. Why should they? When was the last (first?) time a debate was held on one issue?

[JoeOtterbein]

6. Maybe cause CC could kill everything? nt

[emmaverybo]

13. So could nuclear proliferation. And we would not have to have a war. We sit on a powder keg.

I’d like to know what Dems have to say about foreign relations and policy, particularly in regard to the Middle East, China, Russia, and North Korea.

[JoeOtterbein]

15. Yes, so don't debate a clear and present danger like CC?

Uh?

[emmaverybo]

23. What I am saying is that CC is not the only clear and present danger to the world or in it.

At one time liberals prioritized the possibility of nuclear war or disaster. Did we have a one-issue primary debate on that life and death issue? Should we now?
CC will be debated, and is the subject of debate now as candidates lay out detailed policy stances.
What I think people lobbying for a CC-dedicated debate hope to do through it is to educate
Americans as to the urgency and resolve we need in confronting CC and to make it a publicly acknowledged priority.
But in the end, voters will focus on the issues they themselves see as most important, while no
instant policy initiatives are going through in 2020.
All Dem candidates agree that CC must be addressed at a global level as well as within the country.
For that to happen, we must have a candidate who can lead AND be a world team player, a man or woman who listens to experts and can process input.

[qazplm135]

32. there are going to be double digit debates

they can debate climate change in every single one of them.

[pnwmom]

8. When was the last time we were facing a 10 yr. deadline for preventing planetary disaster?

[George II]

17. I thought it was 12 years, and the "deadline" was not for solving the problem but....

....beginning to solve the problem.

Whatever.

[pnwmom]

22. We'll have lost another 2 years before the next President takes office, after going backwards

for the duration of DT's time.

During the next administration, we have to do a lot more than begin acting on climate change. We have to hit the ground running, and for that we need to have the public with us. A debate devoted to the issue would help.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/23/opinions/one-year-to-tackle-climate-change-opinion-mountford/index.html

But there is a problem with this timeline: We don't have 12 years to jump-start action on climate change -- we have just one.

According to an article in the journal Nature, global greenhouse gas emissions must peak no later than next year and rapidly decline thereafter for us to have a good chance of preventing increasingly severe consequences from the climate crisis -- everything from imperiled croplands, flooded communities and widespread disease. Delaying any longer will push us toward an ecological tipping point, with no way for humanity to claw its way back out.

Next year is also a critical point because it is when country leaders agreed to put forward new climate plans when they adopted the Paris Agreement in 2015. They knew that the climate action commitments in Paris would not be enough, and so they agreed to come back in five years to step up their efforts. We will soon find out if prime ministers and presidents will stand by their word. Collectively, these revised plans will point humanity to a future that is either bright or bleak.


https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/would-gw-stop-with-greenhouse-gases/

If we immediately stopped emitting greenhouses gases, would global warming stop?
Not right away. The Earth’s surface temperature does not react instantaneously to the energy imbalance created by rising carbon dioxide levels. This delayed reaction occurs because a great deal of the excess energy is stored in the ocean, which has a tremendous heat capacity. Because of this lag (which scientists call “thermal inertia”), even the 0.6–0.9 degrees of global warming we have observed in the past century is not the full amount of warming we can expect from the greenhouse gases we have already emitted. Even if all emissions were to stop today, the Earth’s average surface temperature would climb another 0.6 degrees or so over the next several decades before temperatures stopped rising.

The time lag is one reason why there is a risk in waiting to control greenhouse gas emissions until global warming becomes worse or its effects more serious and obvious. If we wait until we feel the amount or impact of global warming has reached an intolerable level, we will not be able to “hold the line” at that point; some further warming will be unavoidable.

[mtnsnake]

3. Maybe because it's one topic that all our candidates agree on

The time to talk about climate change should be during the general election, and if we don't stress it at that time, it would be a fatal mistake.

[pnwmom]

9. They agree on the problem but they DON'T agree on the solutions.

And the handful of debates in the general is certain not to cover the issue in any depth.

Since we're having 12 debates, we can afford to spend one on the life-and-death issues involved in climate change.

[George II]

18. If they all agree on it, why do we need to debate it?

[emmaverybo]

24. So every one can do her wonky thing and laypeople can pick the candidate with the best plan,

which actually, lay people can’t do.

[JoeOtterbein]

4. Front-Runner fear? nt

[jalan48]

7. Yep.

[emmaverybo]

27. Front-runner envy?

No, of course not. You care about the issue, so you don’t engage in personal baiting involving a fellow member’s current candidate preference. That would only detract from your urgency about CC.

[Eric J in MN]

5. The DNC should end the rule against unofficial debates.

Then it won't affect the DNC if people want single-issue debates on other subjects. That will be up to other groups to stage a debate on or not.

[mopinko]

19. this. this is where i get pissed off.

why the hell not let there be other debates?

i can see a great deal of value in letting whatever candidates are interested participate in someone else's debates.

hell, bring them on.
how about a healthcare debate, so they could really flesh out the different plans?
how about a reforming the MIC as a debate?
i could go on.
it could be great.

wtf is the point of shutting up our candidates?

[sprinkleeninow]

10. Those who are miffed are bringing it.

DNC: Ya heard??

[left-of-center2012]

11. This again?

[Indygram]

14. Because if they do a special debate for one issue they have to do the same for all

and having debates over single issues is, imo, stupid.

Single issues are more appropriate for Town Halls. My chosen candidate is great on Climate Change and would do great in a special debate...but I am actually growing annoyed with the tantrum over this. Just have a freaking town hall already and stop bellyaching.

[left-of-center2012]

25. OMG !

We agree on something.

[emmaverybo]

28. Good idea. nt

[crazytown]

16. Would that be one climate change debate or two (2x10)?

If one, how is that fair to (up to) 20 candidates currently running?

CNN could hold a series of sequential town halls on climate change like they did for young people in April. 30 minutes each would accommodate 10 candidates.

[DURHAM D]

20. The Democrats do not need to have a single issue debate on this subject.

They are all in basic agreement. However, the general election is very different and I expect a full on blow out attack on Trump on this issue. Hold fire until we can attack the idiots on the other side. Then kill them with science and logic.

[Drunken Irishman]

21. Why won't they hold one on gun control?

This seems just as dire, and pressing of an issue, no?

[left-of-center2012]

26. How about a debate on legalizing marijuana?

[Ron Green]

30. Democrats don't want to acknowledge the collapse any more than Repubs do.

Very few politicians want to be holding the bag while the Big Correction occurs.

[Honeycombe8]

31. This is very disappointing.

I'm VERY disappointed in the DNC's position on this. VERY.

[qazplm135]

33. this is not even conducive to what the intent is

you have one single climate change debate.

Everyone agrees it's a problem.

Most everyone agrees with varying degrees on a solution.

The debate ends, and guess what...

no one talks about climate change again for the rest of the primary debates.