Trump and Biden can’t ignore costly climate impacts in tomorrow’s debate 

More than 260 million Americans suffered last week under an unprecedented early summer “heat dome,” with indices over 100 degrees — even in New England, where dozens of locations hit record temperatures.

This climate change-fueled heat is just part of a larger pattern of epic flooding, massive wildfires (there are two dozen raging right now) and debilitating droughts, imposing large burdens both on average Americans and the U.S. economy as a whole. 

Yet even as climate impacts increasingly undermine public safety, health and quality of life, the issue is ignored in our presidential debates.  

The first presidential debate of 2024, scheduled for tomorrow in Atlanta, must be different. It is time for both the debate moderators and the presidential contenders themselves to address climate disasters in a detailed and serious way.

Three-fifths of Americans now report that climate impacts and costs are undermining their quality of life, public safety, health or family finances. It is little wonder, since last year the U.S. suffered a record 28 separate billion-dollar weather disasters of greater severity due to record-high temperatures.  

More than $800 billion in extra U.S. health care costs each year can be attributed to climate and pollution. A new Senate report finds that flooding made worse by climate change is costing Americans between $180 billion and $500 billion every year. Hundreds of thousands of homeowners around the country are being priced out of insurance because insurers either refuse to provide coverage or have increased premiums due to climate costs. As insurance giant Lloyd’s CEO John Neal recently said, “You’ll never find an insurer saying ‘I don’t believe in climate change.’” 

Yet when it comes to presidential debates, moderators and the candidates have ignored these huge climate costs. Not a single question on climate change was asked by any moderators in the three 2016 presidential debates, even though Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton had diametrically opposite views on climate science and policy. The same total silence occurred in the previous debates in the 2012, 2000 and 1996 elections. In 2020, only a single question was asked, and it falsely implied that climate science was in doubt.  

Terrifying new climate science shows this to be unbelievably irresponsible. In the last few years, global super-heating due to still-increasing greenhouse gas emissions has intensified to a record 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit global average temperature above preindustrial levels. These rising temperatures mean that the natural systems that stabilize the earth’s climate are at risk of being converted into destabilizing forces. Climate tipping points in danger of being crossed include the collapse of ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic, thawing of permafrost, disappearance of Arctic Sea ice, global forest diebacks, and collapse of ocean currents — all of which can cause further warming through impacts like methane releases from tundra. 

These dangers have been underestimated by political actors of all types because there is a widespread misconception that the climate problem is linear — that slightly greater emissions will mean slightly more warming. This does not capture the tremulous dynamics of the climate system. Instead, many climate-induced shocks in natural systems are likely to occur suddenly and overwhelmingly, drastically changing conditions and in turn destabilizing other natural systems.  

But there is good news: We know how to prevent the worst of climate impacts.  

The most important actions are cutting super climate pollutants, including methane, hydrofluorocarbons, black carbon and tropospheric ozone. Reducing these emissions will most effectively limit near-term temperature increases and stave off the worst tipping points.

At the same time, we must cut carbon dioxide to limit longer-term temperature increases.  

This year’s presidential nominees have taken starkly different approaches to climate policy that should be fully examined during the debates. Joe Biden has made limiting climate impacts a central focus of his administration, putting in place legislation and regulations to cut methane and reduce fossil fuels and carbon dioxide emissions through clean energy. Biden has also emphasized that the U.S. can’t act alone, attempting to force China and other major emitters to cut coal and methane. 

Former President Trump, on the other hand, has made attacking Joe Biden’s climate actions central to his 2024 campaign. Trump has called renewable energy “a scam business” and derided the need to limit emissions, instead proposing a deliberate doubling down of a fossil fuel economy, and asking the oil industry for a billion in contributions. Trump has vowed to overturn climate policies, including clean energy incentives, as he did from 2017-2021. 

Given the stakes involved in climate protection, CNN debate moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bash should make the issue a key topic. And both candidates should provide clear plans for how they plan to protect our people, our economy and the world. 

Paul Bledsoe is professorial lecturer at American University’s Center for Environmental Policy in Washington. He served as a staff member in the U.S. House, U.S. Senate, Interior Department and the White House Climate Change Task Force under former President Bill Clinton.