In a year of record wildfires, catastrophic hurricanes and other calamitous natural disasters, climate change could not be ignored in the 2020 presidential primaries. It previously had been a sideline topic, nearly disappearing from debates for two decades until this year. Washington Governor Jay Inslee and Tom Steyer both ran for President this year but never gained much traction though they prioritized the issue of climate change.

There is a lot at stake in the 2020 elections, for the people and for our environment. On Thursday, it was obvious the starkly different visions both candidates held. They discussed their plans for the climate crisis. Here’s what they said… or didn’t say.

The new president needs a vision toward a safe and healthy future that directly confronts corporate polluters. Biden continues support pushing away from oil and transitioning to renewable energy, anticipating millions of jobs to be generated, and getting rid of subsidies for fossil fuels. The President argued that these plans are costly and will harm the economy. These views could potentially sway the oil producing states that both candidates are competing for.

Biden agrees that climate change poses “an existential threat to humanity” and that in eight to 10 years, the country would “pass the point of no return.” “We have a moral obligation to deal with it,” he said. Scientists support this statement saying we must cut greenhouse gas emissions, mostly created from burning fossil fuels, in the next ten years to avoid irreversible damage. Trump withdrew the 2015 Paris climate agreement, a plan to stop the permanent damage to the planet, which Biden would rejoin. Trump says we would “have to spend trillions of dollars” and that he “will not sacrifice tens of millions of jobs, thousands of companies.” He was asked about the disproportionate burden that Americans of color face from exposure to pollution because they live near oil refineries or other toxic substance areas. He replied saying the health risks they face pale in comparison to the wage growth they’d seen from those polluting industries during his time in office. He did not discuss the health concerns of families at risk or the 100 environmental regulations his administration has dismantled, instead talking about jobs and money. Trump downplayed the extremity of environment racism. A 2018 federal report shares that low-income communities are disproportionately affected by climate change and are more exposed to environmental hazards. Biden discussed how the government needs to take action to repress the pollution created from fossil fuels stating that “The fact is, those front-line communities, it doesn’t matter what you’re paying them, it’s how you keep them safe.”

And there’s more… views on the biodiversity crisis

Conservation efforts are also dramatically needed in the fight against the biodiversity crisis. The UN reported that in the upcoming decades, rising temperatures, poaching, overfishing, farming, and logging could cause one million species to face extinction. The UN urges nations around the world to enforce conservation endeavors now. In his time in office, Trump has loosened wildlife protections to put economic activities first like drilling and logging. In Utah, he opened national monument land to allow mining and drilling operations. On the other hand, he signed the Great Outdoors Act, putting money into conservation and national park programs.

However, Biden still seems to be planning more for the environment. In his climate plan, he supported “protecting biodiversity, slowing extinction rates and helping leverage natural climate solutions by conserving 30 percent of America’s lands and waters by 2030.” Scientific American, the oldest and one of the most popular science magazines in America, has never endorsed a presidential candidate until now. They share their beliefs in their policy and ethics article, saying they have been compelled to share their support because Biden is “acutely aware that we must heed the abundant research showing ways to recover from our present crises and successfully cope with future challenges” while Trump has repeatedly rejected science and evidence that has lead to many of his dishonest and inept responses in office.

Learn more about scientific americans endorsement here

Climate disasters are affecting many communities and possibly their votes. There is a voter demand for environmental leadership. These demands and opinions influence policymaking. Politicians will discuss and support what their voters care about. Our society and the planet cannot subdue four more years of an administration that dismisses climate change and factual science. That’s why it’s crucial for you to vote and share your support for environmental leadership.

The environmental reaction of our President could ignite an energy revolution if backed by a plan to oppose fossil fuels and support an equitable green new deal. Greenpeace agreed that our country can accomplish these plans “by halting oil, gas, and coal expansion, phase out existing fossil fuel infrastructure, and center fossil fuel workers and climate-impacted communities in the transition to a renewable energy economy” and “by mobilizing our economy toward 100% renewable energy for all, creating millions of family-sustaining jobs, and securing a better future for communities that have borne the brunt of fossil fuel industry exploitation.”

Greenpeace 2020 candidates on climate

Yet again, the enormity of climate change has been belittled by short-term concerns like the COVID-19 pandemic, jobs in the economy, and healthcare. “Climate is a long-term concern, as opposed to joblessness, which is today, or a pandemic, which is today,” said political scientist Larry Sabato, who heads the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. Long-term interests are often swept under the rug for future generations to find, but that cannot be the case for climate change. We can’t procrastinate the wellbeing of our planet and assume we can fix it later. It takes time and the movement must start now. Each vote for a new administration is a vote toward dealing with this long-term issue; a vote towards our climate and our future.

These next four years of executive action could trigger a vast change in climate ideals and controls, in which could be the last chance we have to fix the damage made to our environment. The decision is up to us.

Please, Vote!

Message From The Educated Consumer

Our teams thoughts towards climate change sway our views in the election. This blog conveys our honest opinion and we made an effort to give a voice to both sides of the conversation. We appreciate everyone who acknowledges the importance of the environment in this election and our team at The Educated Consumer encourages you to go out and vote!