An argument in support of DNC's opposition to a Climate Change debate.

[brooklynite]

1. It's not the most important issue

It's what SOME people think is the most important issue; some (myself included) think health care is most important; others think immigration. DNC shouldn't be calling out a single issue as deserving of special coverage.

Now, some people will say "why not have a series of issue debates?" Beyond that fact that DNC is then picking and choosing what's important to discuss, this leads to.....

2. Saturation will dilute the debate audience

Either you're taking away open-issue debates to accommodate climate change and other issues, or you're adding events to the schedule. The more debates, the less likely people will watch them, especially if they're issue specific.

3. It won't inform the audience

Every candidate in the Democratic field agrees that climate change exists and is a problem that has to be dealt with. The only real dispute is whether to implement "Green New Deal" or something more incremental. Those answers can be found on each candidate's website; having 5 minutes each to "debate" this point isn't going to provide a lot of information for voters to consider.

[wasupaloopa]

1. None of the candidates are scientists. Only scientists

can realistically debate what should be done.

Presidents do not write law.

Congress will decide what will be done and it will be a bipartisan piece of legislation only if we control Congress.

A presidential single issue debate will achieve nothing but start a ridiculous food fight.

[Magoo48]

12. With all due respect, no.

At this point in time a 16-year-old young woman is as knowledgeable and articulate about the nuances and generalities of the Climate Catastrophe as many of our scientists. Thousands of lay people, the ones who bother to inform themselves, are perfectly capable of intelligently discussing this topic. Every other issue must be viewed through the lens of Climate Change. How many fucking times have we heard Republicans say, “Well, we’re not scientists” as an avoidance tactic? It’s bullshit.

A well informed President can have dramatic influence upon legislation, and who better to address a controlled Congress than a President well versed on the biggest challenge in human history. Rather than a food fight, I see the cream rising to the top.

[wasupaloopa]

24. At this point the only thing that matters to

candidates is to stay in the race. What they say about climate change will be motivated by that. Their advisers will tell them what to say. It will be a ridiculous food fight with nothing gained by it.

[Magoo48]

29. You fear a food fight; I anticipate the cream rising to the top.

Meek and reluctant is not a good stance for Dems—especially with so many young voters fired up about the Climate Catastrophe.

[wasupaloopa]

30. No I do not fear a food fight. It is a waste of time

when we should be talking about how to get rid of trump.

Unless we control Congress nothing will be done about climate.

A single issue debate is another one of the far left’s purity tests. it just won’t happen. Smarter minds prevail.

Also Bernie just makes shit up that is not doable and he would look like the fool he is.

[Magoo48]

31. I believe we put our best foot forward by determining who will accrue broad spectrum support.

Said support can’t happen without a majority of the under 25s and that will come from an intelligent, well designed and articulated plan of action to tackle our Climate Catastrophe.

[Ponietz]

2. And anyway, the Corporate State would rather we debate

which fast food chain has the better chicken sandwich.

This ran on the front page of my local paper yesterday:

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/putting-a-positive-spin-on-oil-exploration-in-the-arctic/article_8b60ab95-bdf7-557a-acb3-2725a47bc796.html

[TwilightZone]

3. Based on exit polls, your #1 assertion is correct.

Health care was the top issue noted in 2018, by a clear margin.

[Me.]

4. WE Will Regret We Didn't Have The Foresight

to know exactly how dire the climate situation is and how it will affect all of our health. Just ask the people of Sao Paulo about this. THe health care issue has received lots of attention but except for Inslee very little focus has been on climate.

[zentrum]

7. Number one issue with

.....young people. Over student debt. Which they feel they will not owe if they're all starving, or on fire or engaged in survival wars.

[Hekate]

5. For a lot of us, Trump is the #1 issue. If we don't get rid of him & take the Senate...

...all other issues will be moot. Climate, health care, all of it.

All true Democrats now running have a record of supporting Democratic priorities. 'Nuff said.

[pnwpolicy]

6. Hear me out

We could use the climate debate as a model to know what our candidates really know about issues. Audiences really don't learn much about a candidate's understanding of an issue and policy from 60-90 second clips in the debate formats. I want to see Biden talk about climate for 5 minutes uninterrupted. I want to see Sanders explain his electrification mandate and have others respond.

Just like I want to hear Harris explain her most current healthcare plan ideas at length and have others respond to it, etc. etc.

I suspect a lot of the resistance is because most candidates can't speak to these issues at length. Which is something we should also know!

[in2herbs]

27. I don't care if a pres. candidate knows a lot or nothing about climate change. What I do care about

and what I'll be watching is whether she is smart enough to put smart people in positions in her administration that do know a lot about the issue.

Way too much has to be corrected after Trump. It's wrong of us to expect one candidate to be expert in all, but not wrong to expect that experts will be put in charge.

[ehrnst]

8. A candidates' forum would be far more effective in letting candidates present their plans

Each candidate gets an hour - 20 minutes to explain their plan, then a panel of independent, not partisan environmental policy experts ask them questions about their plan.

Debates don't let one get in more than a minute or two at a time, and it's much too important and complex a topic.

[brooklynite]

9. So, let's say 30 minutes total per candidate

Ten candidates have qualified for the CNN Town Hall so you have a forum running for five hours. Whomever gets stuck at the end will have nobody watching.

[ehrnst]

10. No - the candidates would be on individually, not together. Separate days.

Here are examples of what Kaiser Family Foundation did in 2008 with health care:

[brooklynite]

11. Far fewer candidates in 2008

And how many people watched a forum that wasn't broadcast on TV?

Very few people would watch night after night.

[ehrnst]

17. Actually, there were both 2008 POTUS Dems and Republicans presenting in 2007

Nine in total. Oddly enough - Obama declined.

https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2007/09/20/candidates-for-presidentin-depth-on-their-health-care-plans

September 24 11 am Sen. John Edwards (D)
October 25 8:30 am Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
October 25 11:30 am Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)
October 31 10 am Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
November 1 11 am Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
TBD TBD Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
TBD TBD Gov. Mike Huckabee (R)
TBD TBD Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM)
TBD TBD Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

And judging by the popularity of watching live feeds of candidates in recent years, it might have an even greater reach.

[Demsrule86]

13. Well said. Healthcare is my choice as most important issue also.

However, no single issue debates...it would be a nightmare...as people accused the DNC of playing favorites.

[dualboy24]

14. Climate change is clearly the most important issue.

The next president/elected government will have the huge task of meeting the minimum goals of the IPCC report to avert catastrophic climate change.

Even if these goals are met we are still looking at 1.5 or 2 degrees increase in temperatures.

With how the current candidate field and government acts now I worry for this world as I have read some scientific predictions of higher temperature changes going into the 4 and 6 degree range would cause the carrying capacity of the world to completely collapse probably leading to mass extinction (which we are already seeing) and of course a major drop in human population.

We need to know which candidates are serious, and willing to allocate the many trillions to create green energy and perhaps even carbon/methane sequestration technologies.

I doubt our future generations would consider any other topic to have been more important than this.

[brooklynite]

15. And yet Sanders keeps focusing on health care and income inequality

[dualboy24]

19. And environmental issues...

He stated going back many years that climate change is the biggest threat to the nation and world.

Also he just released his green new deal implementation.

I think the idea of having to make large changes across the board is correct. Fix healthcare, education, climate change.

[radical noodle]

20. Did he?

I didn't realize that he's been talking about this going back many years. When did he first talk about climate change?

[Autumn]

22. Here's this from 2008. Probably before that, I picked the year 2008 to google because that was

about the time I became aware of him as a politician other than when he endorsed Jessie Jackson for President.

Saturday, March 22, 2008

SOUTH ROYALTON, Vt., March 22 - Senator Bernie Sanders said today that "we can strengthen our economy, create millions of good-paying jobs, protect our environment for future generations, and reduce threats to public health by addressing global warming."

In the keynote address to the annual conference of the National Association of Environmental Law Societies at the Vermont Law School, Sanders (I-Vt.) called for a commitment to reverse climate change commensurate to the space program that put men on the moon.

The need to stop global warming is urgent because "to be blunt, the problem is even worse than many have previously suggested," Sanders said. Earlier this week, for example, it was reported that the amount of long-lasting sea ice in the Arctic declined sharply last year - the steepest yearly decline on record.

The United State no longer leads the world in protecting the environment and reversing climate change, the senator told the lawyers' conference, because President Bush has thrown up legal roadblocks and pursued environmental policies that have been rebuked by the Supreme Court and other federal judges

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-act-now-to-stop-global-warming

[ehrnst]

21. So why do you think that he wasn't as effective as Senator Al Gore

was at raising awareness of it?

And I wonder where he's getting his facts concerning emissions:

“You think we should eliminate nuclear power,” noted Fox News’s Martha MacCallum at a Fox TV “Town Hall Meeting” with Sanders, “which I know they did in Vermont.”

“Sure,” said Sanders.

“But it ended up moving your emissions higher,” added MacCallum.

“Honestly, I don’t think that that’s correct,” said Sanders.

But according to data published by Vermont’s Department of Environmental Conservation, the state’s emissions rose 16.3% between 1990 and 2015, which was twice as much as national emissions rose during the same period.

[LAS14]

16. Climate change has the most impactful consequences of any issue before us, and...

... those who don't agree might change their minds if they got more information. And if the Dem party made a strong statement about its special importance.

[George II]

18. Everyone knows the importance of climate change today. I don't see what a debate....

....will accomplish, particularly with 10 or more people getting 30-60 seconds to talk about each aspect, and each with an eye to attracting voters, not addressing the issue.

[Garrett78]

23. As I wrote in one of the many other threads on this topic...

Climate change poses an existential threat, but even that doesn't call for a single-issue debate.

For starters, our candidates don't differ all that much on these issues. Secondly, a single-issue debate on 1 topic but not another would inevitably piss off a lot of people. Thirdly, I think ratings would suffer. While that may not seem like a really big deal, we want exposure for our candidates and causes, and we don't want a narrative that says "Dem debate proves to be snooze fest."

[Bradical79]

25. It should be a major subject in a future debate, just not right now

Not neccesarily the only subject, but should occupy a decent amount of time.

Not right now though, as I think it's a waste of time with so many candidates on stage. Let them develop and revise their plans more. Waint until we're down to two or three candidates. There's a lot in motion right now with the final draft of a U.N. climate change report on the way later this year, and Brazil's own Fascist scumbag burning down the Amazon.

[Hortensis]

26. 1. It would have advantaged one candidate over others.

That alone was more than enough reason not to. (Just imagine the howls, very much including from the Sanders crowd that the election was "rigged," if there HAD been a climate debate while Gov. Inslee was still in.)

2. The debates are all desperately important in the fight to elect a Democrat president. Apparently our analysts don't feel devoting a debate to climate is the best strategy. Costs, not just benefits.

There are other ways to raise national consciousness on climate that don't interfere with electing Democrats. Such as...letting the hottest summer in history speak to it. Wildfires. Destroyed gardens. Failing agriculture. Floods and crumbling coasts, including around the Great Lakes. Hurricane season -- the updated, expanded estimate is for 14 tropical storms and seven hurricanes, 2 of them major. And winter.

Etcetera includes candidates who wish conduct televised climate town halls, including Gov. Inslee.

[pinkstarburst]

28. It's not that it isn't important

It's that too many things are.

Candidates are also trying to fulfill their duties as senators, mayors, house reps, moms and dads... maybe even occasionally sleep.

A debate just for climate change sounds great on paper. Problem is, where does it stop? There are probably 300 really important issues we could come up with. Do you want to be the candidate who says no to the debate on the opioid crisis? How about the candidate who can't fit in the debate on public education? Gun control. Foreign policy. Church versus state. Abortion. LGBT rights. Education. Disability rights. Actually fixing Medicare. Social security. Health care. It will quickly spiral out of control and anyone who can't make it because of a scheduling conflict suddenly looks like the candidate who is against ___. So I think the DNC may be right on this one.

[Voltaire2]

32. Civilization is facing an existential crisis

best not to talk about it.


WTF.

[NNadir]

33. You really think "health care" is an issue that will be effecting all living things for millions...

...of years?

Um...OK then...whatever.

I disagree.