Why Climate Change Is Dangerous for Democratic Presidential Candidates

[MineralMan]

First, it's a huge issue with vast consequences. Any candidate who focuses primarily on Climate Change is going to sound like a forecaster of doom, and that's never a good look for any political candidate.

Second, there is no easy-to-explain solution for the problem. All measures that might mitigate or reverse the situation will be costly, disruptive, and have negative consequences for many people in the short term. Worst of all, there is no assurance that any plans undertaken will actually work. Once again, a candidate focusing on this will quickly saturate the voters' abilities to comprehend and understand the discussion.

Third, Climate Change is a problem that has taken decades, if not centuries, to develop, and will not be solved in less time than it took to develop. Meanwhile, voters have pressing problems that are immediate and challenging. If you're always talking about Climate Change, you can't be addressing all of those short term problems. Those are the issues people vote on. Climate Change is too large an issue to take in and make decisions on.

Fourth, even those studying Climate Change closely and formulating ways to slow it, stop it, and reverse it cannot agree on exactly what measures are needed, which measures will be most effective, nor on how to mitigate the impact of any measures that might be applied. Like all the rest of the problems with taking on Climate Change as a campaign issue, having no guaranteed set of solutions means that you end up predicting doom without real hope for avoiding that doom.

Every Democratic candidate needs to make it clear that Climate Change is hugely important and that it is a top priority, but that issue alone will not be a winning focus. Shorter-term issues will be the key to success in the 2020 presidential election. Frankly, nobody actually has a real, practical plan for dealing with Climate Change that does not introduce immediate additional problems for voters. Nobody. We don't know if there even is a way to reverse the growing problem.

Climate Change is a black hole of a campaign issue. Nothing escapes from it and it sucks in everything.

[Peacetrain]

1. You and I agree on most things MM.. but on this one we do not

No candidate can be just a one issue person.. that I think we both can get behind.. but if we do not address how we are going to manage climate change.. its here.. not somewhere in the misty future if we do not watch out.. its here.. our people are going to have to start talking about how we manage it..

[MineralMan]

2. The problem is that it cannot be explained easily.

Neither the causes nor the solutions can be explained in terms simple enough for everyone to understand.

That makes it a terrible choice for a politician to focus on. People want hope from candidates. I don't see how you bring hope to the Climate Change issue.

Some people have put a lot of work into thinking about and learning about Climate Change, but as a percentage of voters, that number of people is minuscule. Elections are not about issues people do not understand.

Do I, personally think that Climate Change is a critical concern. Yes. But, I don't see it as a campaign issue among Democrats seeking the nomination for President. For them, Climate Change is just a black hole.

[empedocles]

3. In the heat of a political campaign, a clear-immediate-fix, works far better.

[MineralMan]

5. Yes. Political campaigns are about immediacy.

A successful candidate will present immediate solutions for problems that have such solutions. That's what voters expect and demand.

[Peacetrain]

8. You are right.. it is something people want to run from.. but MM

its too late to run.. and even the most clueless among us know it.. they can't admit it.. you of all people understand how politics affects people..I have admired your patience and posts for years..I think if any of our people started talking about we can do this or that to start to manage climate change..and stop asking that inane question I know probably drives you as crazy as it does me.. "do you believe in climate change"..its here.. how are you going to manage what is happening.. and no one.. not one of us. has all the answers.. but I want to hear okay.. how can we start to manage this.. just bypass the question of is it real or not.. that ship has sailed

[MineralMan]

20. In a political campaign, votes are what matter, frankly.

I think you're overestimating the knowledge of the majority of voters. I think you're overestimating their interest in this, as well. That is not to say they should gain that knowledge or be interested, but I think they don't have the knowledge and aren't that interested.

And, yet, they will go to the polls and vote, nevertheless.

If a potential voter's eyes glaze over when you're talking about issues, you're talking about the wrong issues.

That's what I'm addressing here.

Every candidate who wins will be a candidate who holds out hope for voters' most immediate problems. That's the bottom line, really.

[Peacetrain]

24. MM it is here..now

If you are assuming that this is the only issue that I want to talk about.. then that is wrong..but Climate Change is here.. and we need to address the realities of it..and the candidate that starts talking with practicality to people about things we can do to manage changes, will get attention.. we are not stopping anything..but we can make differences.. its how we address the changes.. I am done with explaining to anyone.. it just is.. its now...not ten years from now.. not 29 years from now.. will things get worse ..yes.. especially if we throw our hands up and say .. can't do a thing..its not real.. so forth and so on.. it here..

[MineralMan]

26. Yes, I know it is.

It's been coming for as long as I've been sentient.

And yet, only now is Xcel energy planning to shut down its coal-burning power generation facilities - by 2050....

We've failed to do what needed to be done for decades. We've had some minor successes, like lowering emissions from automobiles, but we have more of them out there on the road than ever before, so that only slowed things down a little and didn't take care of CO2 emissions at all.

We have some EVs out there on the road, but they're pretty much status symbols, since they are unaffordable by most people.

We've done some things, but only in minor ways.

In the early 60s, the spiking human population was pointed out to us. Here in the USA, we did slow our birth rate, pretty much to replacement levels, but population grown continued apace on a global scale. Meanwhile, groups like the Roman Catholic Church and Evangelical Protestants work against contraception and other population growth limiters.

What's the current global population, compared to the 1960s, when I pledged not to reproduce? Well, here's a chart that answers that question and projects into the future. People use energy. Energy use fuels global warming:

[Peacetrain]

27. I have a son.. 31.. and I fully understand what you are saying..

I am one of those with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.. and I worry about that.. that is my focus.. and has been for over 30 years.. (earth day started when we were young) and even more so now..

[mr_lebowski]

28. MM is just saying it's not a path to winning on the campaign trail for a 2020 candidate

if that is their singular, or even if it's a major ... focus of their campaign.

Not that it's not here now, or that we don't seriously need to talk about and focus on it as a World.

[HerbChestnut]

6. Agreed, Peacetrain

Major infrastructural changes will need to be made in the U.S. and other major greenhouse gas emitting countries within the next 15-20 years in order to curb what are likely to be devastating climatic effects on human population centers, especially those near the coast, which is most of them.

[Peacetrain]

12. I was just posting to someone else ..we have to get in the republicans faces..

and I mean we as in the media.. and start asking them how they plan to manage these changes.. stop asking them if the believe in it.. I could care less what they believe in.. what are they planning to do.. and drop the whole pretense as if there is something we can do to stop this.. its here.. its a fact..

[walkingman]

4. No, Climate change is an issue that is being ignored by the government

because dealing with it is HARD. It seems anything that is difficult is brushed aside in hopes of being just ignored in lieu of promising a "chicken in every pot" or some other feel good issue. Time is up! Whether the politicians like it or not. We can cut taxes, start or continue meaningless wars with out any problems but it seems like dealing with issues is TABOO.

Maybe I am different than other voters but I recollect that we have been talking about this issue with very little attention since the 70's - time to deal with it no matter that it is hard. It will just get worse if it is ignored.

Personally I am not impressed with the REALITY TV government we seem to have these days and the 15 sec. attention span of our politicians, regardless of party.

[MineralMan]

7. All of us here are "different" from other voters.

Unfortunately, we make up a tiny fraction of one percent of voters. Politics doesn't care about groups that small.

[walkingman]

13. So is your recommendation that Climate Change be ignored? From what I read it is a BIG issue

for many voters who are not in denial.

[MineralMan]

14. Not at all. I'm suggesting that it be acknowledged and promises be

made to work on solutions. Then, move along to issues that have more immediacy and have practical solutions.

Votes are the issue, as I said. Candidates need them.

[Indygram]

9. Message delivery on important issues matters

I watch all of Beto's town halls where he talks about climate change in a way that ties it into real, tangible things voters understand. He does this in a way that is easy for people to understand. This is one of his biggest strengths and why he was able to sell progressive issues to Texans and nearly win not on a moderate or conservative platform but on the same things he is talking about right now. If he can sell those policies to Texas then he can sell them on a national level.

[Honeycombe8]

10. There are actually things to do that have been shown to work.

They've worked in the past. It can't be totally fixed and turned around. But it can be made better. The Repubs have rolled back mileage requirements in vehicles, for instance. More fuel efficient vehicles HAS had an effect on air quality and carbon released into the atmosphere.

It's no more a "doom and gloom" issue than Social Security solvency issues or Medicare solvency issues or protection of jobs. These are all issues precisely BECAUSE there's a problem.

If I were young, that would be a key issue for me. But I'm over 60, so it has dropped in importance.

Social Security and Medicare are my top issues, of course.

[MineralMan]

11. Most of the measures being suggested merely slow it down.

Actual reversal would require measures I don't think are going to ever happen. We've polluted and over-populated our way into a real mess.

That's why I decided in 1965 not to reproduce. We were warned, even then.

[Honeycombe8]

21. Yes. As I said. We can't reverse it at this point, even w/extreme measures.

Not in the foreseeable future, anyway. That's not what the actions would do or be intended to do. That opportunity ended some years ago. But if we don't do some things fast, the climate will get much worse. We can do something about that.

In the meantime, people are being advised to move to areas less affected by climate change (in my case, north), because of increased flooding & hurricanes and extreme heat.

I remember reading warnings about mercury in tuna decades ago. Then, as now, people ignored that. Didn't believe it. I did. It was, after all, a factual thing, easily measured. Fast forward, and now there is mercury in all wild tuna to the point that it's recommended that pregnant women not eat tuna at all, and others limit it to a certain # of ounces/week.

I think young people put climate change high on their list, so any candidate who doesn't address it, is going to have a hard time getting their vote. Of course, the young are the least likely to turn out to vote.

[MineralMan]

23. Well, I think SOME young people have it high on their priority list.

Those people are likely to vote, I think, but possibly not in helpful ways. Too often, they vote based on principles rather than on practicality. My wife and I have a youngish friend in her early 30s. In 2016, she voted for Jill Stein. We asked her why she did that, rather than vote for Hillary Clinton. "To send a message," she said.

These days, she realizes that her message went into the spam folder and was never read. She'll be voting for the Democratic candidate in 2020. She gets it now. I'm hopeful that others will be doing the same, based on their additional experience.

[greenman3610]

15. Warren has a pretty good take

[MineralMan]

16. Yes. She has a good approach.

I still maintain that it's too complex and too dependent on things that might or might not occur, now or sometime in the future.

Before those new jobs are available, a lot of people are still going to be out of work. People understand that. They do. If you work in a polluting industry, even at a basic job, your job is in jeopardy. The new job? Well, it might not be created near where you are, and might not need your skill set.

The key word is "Change." For the average person, change is likely not to be beneficial in the short term. People know that, and it scares the crap out of them.

GM, for example, shut down some auto plants. The corporation is frantically trying to avoid business collapse, due to changing demand by auto buyers and changes to come in the future. Ford is ending production of its sedans, due to changing demand and incredibly strong competition from global auto manufacturers. So, people are getting thrown out of work. What will replace their job? Well, if you live in industrial areas of Michigan and Ohio, probably nothing. Any new jobs that will be created will probably be somewhere else.

People understand the impact of change, and they don't like it.

So, Elizabeth Warren's words about replacing old jobs with new jobs in new industries is pretty meaningless to most people, whose current jobs are threatened in real time, with no replacements visible in that time.

That's one of the reasons Climate Change is a lousy issue for candidates.

[Hortensis]

17. First proof of commitment to fixing the climate crisis is commitment

to getting the enormous power needed to make it happen.

Other candidates merely running to polish their resumes for other offices and other elections also serve by promising America, at the debates and across the nation, that we can and will attack this problem. If that frees some up to speak unhappy truths or to promise what they won't have to deliver, that's more than fine. Raising expectations is a very good thing in this case.

[MineralMan]

18. Yes. Identify the magnitude of the problem, promise decisive action, and move on to

more immediate, gut-level concerns.

Some candidates are getting lost in the complexity of this enormous issue. That's why they're polling at 2% or less.

I just read an article about the problems the Green New Deal folks are having with formulating an actual plan. I'm not surprised.

If you can't promise solutions within the term of office you're running for, you essentially have no solutions to offer, so it's better to get past the issue with a promise of strong action and move on to something you can promise and deliver.

Most people vote based on short-term needs and concerns, frankly. Most people have to do that to live.

[Hortensis]

22. And also hit the many new, good paying jobs and advances

integral to addressing it.

It's intensely complex. Energy, air, fresh water, major regional effects, environment, infrastructure effects, urban design, public health and lifestyle changes, road and housing materials, agriculture, environment, legal issues, it just goes on and on.

Fortunately, experts have been studying for decades now what has to be done and the many approaches that can be chosen among for how to do it. We know so much!

None of those are the newest "Green New Deal folk," of course, who are political activists using the climate issue as part of their broader political platform. But amateurish and opportunistically self serving as their use of this grave crisis is, they've done real (I hope tremendous) service in raising awareness of this problem among previously unengaged Americans and that it must be addressed politically. I suspect they didn't realize the climate part would get by far the most interest, so no surprise they're scrambling to provide "more."

[Turin_C3PO]

25. I disagree with you that

the people pushing the New Green Deal are “amateurish and self-serving”. Most behind it, such as AOC, are truly concerned, rightfully, about our future in regards to the coming climate crisis. I see no reason to believe that they’re doing it for selfish reasons.

Young people are the future, both of the Democratic Party and the world, so it’s best we listen and take seriously their concerns.

[Hortensis]

30. Concern's real. Expertise is not. Last time I checked

them out they were IT experts and political activists.

No one with a background in climatology.

Much less energy, agriculture, water, air, etcetera, public health (yes, that's a big climate issue), etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, every one of them HUGE interrelated issues needing big teams of experts all by themselves.

Don't fall down the giant rabbit hole the Republican political activists dug of denying the value, or even existence, of knowledge and expertise as part of undermining belief in science and solutions.

Btw, Ocasio's not an expert in neurosurgery because she sincerely cares about people with spinal problems and brain tumors. But she does have a bachelor's degree with joint majors in economics and international relations, though never worked in anything related to that. Until now. That might qualify her for an entry position in a firm specializing in economic issues related to climate. Might. Given that the competition would of course have been studying climate economics, it's probably better that she went into politics instead.

As an aware politician, not a climate expert, she's been having outstanding success in not just encouraging climate activism among young, aware people, but also getting the attention of some of those who'd refused to care in spite of the many others who've been trying to reach them all their lives. You know, like the ones who heard Trump say the climate thing was all a hoax created by the Chinese and didn't bother to vote. We'll eventually see if she can help get some of those to the polls. Only the vote counts.

[Turin_C3PO]

32. That's why I support their efforts; to get people to vote.

I understand that they’re not experts in climate science but I do believe that, unlike Republicans, they’ll listen to those that are. The Green New Deal needs to be fleshed out, no question about it. And it’s certainly not the only good idea in regards to climate change. But it is something, and in these days of doing nothing, doing “something” is a big deal, IMO.

[Hortensis]

34. Sure, but their "doing something" is raising awareness.

That's hugely, hugely important. If enough people had cared enough to go to the polls in the 1966 and 1968 elections after Jimmy Carter issued his global warming warning, it would never have happened. But, of course, most people have to be hurt themselves before they start caring, and hurt fairly significantly for a long period before they get upset enough to act on it. That's just human nature, but we're now at that point where a lot of people are listening, which means we need leaders like Ocasio talking to them.

In terms of formulating unbelievably huge and complex policy, though, the group Ocasio's affiliated with doesn't even begin to know what they need to. Formulating policy's not their thing any more than it is yours or mine, so we shouldn't look to them for it. Fortunately, others who do are far ahead of them.

Did you know that many experts ARE activists who've been running for congress and state legislatures for some while now specifically TO work on climate etcetera solutions from seats of power? They're working form inside with their colleagues in all the related fields on the outside.

[Turin_C3PO]

19. You're right.

I wish we could get people to sacrifice and look long term but that’s not human nature. Hell, I’m a hypocrite because I have cystic fibrosis and am more concerned about my SSDI and Medicaid being secured. I should place climate issues first.

[mr_lebowski]

29. I for one agree with you whole-heartedly MM, as is typical ...

It's not a winning issue at the FOREFRONT of one's campaign. Needs to be part of it, yes, absolutely. But it's not going win anyone the primary or the WH in 2020.

Too complex, no short term solution. In fact I'd even argue there's actually NO SOLUTION that doesn't involve about 1/2 the worlds population ... DYING. And a LOT of them in developed countries.

That, or a socialist-style, highly-powerful and extremely science-centric world government that manages the economy, wealth-accumulation, travel, jobs, resources, etc.

There are no real solutions outside those two at this point. We waited too long.

Laissez-faire capitalism ... with it's 'constant growth' paradigm ... for all it's great points and successes ... has caused this problem.

[MineralMan]

31. I think we can partially mitigate global warming and slow it down

somewhat, but as you say, it is a people issue. People use energy. The more people, the more energy required.

That was the position the population explosion warnings emphasized. As the population grows exponentially, the demand on resources grows with it. Population grown has slowed, and the curve of growth is leveling off now, but too late. We're headed for a global population of 9.8 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion by 2100. Despite the leveling off of the curve, the population continues to rise and, with it the demand on energy, food, space, and other resources.

This is what the population scientists in the 50s and 60s warned about. We didn't talk about global warming, then, but the demand on resources, generally was the well-recognized danger.

Something has to give in that equation. At age 73, I'm sure I'll be gone before too much time passes. Maybe I'll have another 20 years, since my parents are both still alive at age 94. I didn't add any more people to the population. I, and the women I married, agreed that there were already plenty of people, so we didn't make any more of them.

Something has to give. More than likely, it will be the population. At some point, there's likely to be a global famine or an epidemic of some terrible disease we aren't expecting. When? I have no idea. Probably in the last half of this century, I'd guess.

Global warming is just a symptom of a larger problem, really. It will probably be self-limiting, but not without a great deal of tragedy.

I've been accused of being old and out of touch. Not so. I got in touch in the 1960s and acted on the warnings. I've worked for myself, out of my own home since 1974 so I wouldn't have to commute and add to the pollution load. I didn't reproduce. I still maintain a low carbon footprint. I'm not out of touch, but I don't have any power to change what goes on around me, except for my vote any longer.

My suggestion for the 2020 election cycle? Elect Democrats. Regain control of government. Democrats will do what they can about global warming and about other issues. Which Democrat? One who can win and who will have long coattails. Every Democrat running in the primaries knows that global warming is a critical issue. They'd all do what they could to mitigate it and change things. But, if a Democrat is not elected, we'll get more Trump and Republicans. Now, there's a disaster!

[emmaverybo]

33. Agree with your convincing case, point by point. Our priority should be to put a Dem in office.

All our candidates are committed to addressing climate change. But one of them will first have to win the general to put any policy into effect.
Let’s not use our chance at ousting Trump to recruit Americans as soldiers in a climate change movement.
A new administration can take immediate steps in the right direction and then educate the public while developing and putting forth polIcy initiatives.
Better to educate the public as to how badly this Republican administration has served and represented them in America and the world.
The midterms were not won on climate change.
What do voters want? What do they need, and most important, what kind of America do they want to live in? We need to put forth an alternative vision to the divisive, racist, cruel, nativist, reactionary, dictator-loving and anti-democracy America Trump every day in every way speaks to and for.

[LibFarmer]

35. As long as climate change is seen as a job killer, it is a loser

The successful candidate will stay away from the doom and gloom and the forcible mandates.

If it is presented as a great opportunity to get into new innovation and create jobs, it will be a winning issue.

[MFM008]

36. Has anyone seen the forcast

Civilization will end by 2050 because of climate change?
Its gloom and doom because its gloom and doom.
You cant have anything else without air.
Now how do we address it.

[MineralMan]

37. Please read the thread.

Thanks.