In the midst of the Dust Bowl, Franklin D. Roosevelt warned Americans about one form of environmental degradation: “A nation that destroys its soils destroys itself.”
Eighty-two years later, as the world faces another truly desperate environmental issue, Roosevelt’s sentiment is applicable on a global scale. As sea levels continue to rise and citizens are devastated by increasingly-frequent natural disasters, climate change is becoming one of the most prominent issues in today’s politics. As such, the Democratic presidential candidates are finally gearing up to address the problem head-on.
Most scientists agree that if direct action isn’t taken to mitigate climate change within the next twelve years, its catastrophic effects will become unpreventable. Since the United States is the second-greatest carbon polluter in the world, the actions taken by the U.S. president could greatly affect the livability of the planet for generations.
Since President Donald Trump took office in 2017, he has rolled back virtually all emission standards and energy regulations that Presidents Obama, Bush, Clinton and Reagan had put into place. Trump, who has repeatedly dismissed the existence of climate change, implemented his “America First Energy Plan” during his first week in office. The plan supports and encourages the use of carbon-based energy and fossil fuels. It took the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement, promoted drilling on public land and repealed Obama’s Clean Power Plan. Trump’s actions, which scientists agree have accelerated the effects of climate change, have put this issue at the forefront of the 2020 Presidential Election, prompting Democrats to propose more aggressive climate plans than ever before.
According to a 2019 study by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication over 50% of registered voters said they’d vote for a candidate specifically because of their climate policy. For many young voters, including students at Lick-Wilmerding, climate change is the most important issue in today’s politics. “If we don’t have a planet left to live on, then nothing else really matters,” said Indigo Mudbhary ’22. “[Climate change] is the most imminent threat to me. If we don’t address it, there will be long-term repercussions.”
The Democratic presidential candidates have very similar ideas regarding climate change solutions. All of their proposals call for net-zero carbon emissions at some point in the next 15 to 20 years. Most will ban fracking on public land and establish some sort of “carbon tax” on fossil fuel corporations. Where proposals differ is the amount of resources and methods the candidates plan to utilize in order to reduce emissions and establish renewable energy across the country.
Former Vice President Joe Biden has proposed a $1.7 trillion plan that would continue to execute President Obama’s climate policy. Biden claims that if elected, he would rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement, regulate power plants and begin to implement clean energy on a national scale. Under his proposal, transportation would become fully-electric by 2030 and 500,000 public chargers for electric cars would be installed nationwide over the next decade. Biden advocates for carbon-capture technology, which, as the name suggests, would collect and store carbon dioxide from Earth’s atmosphere. The former Vice President’s proposal is considered to be the most moderate among the rest. The plan’s relatively small budget doesn’t rely on economic reform or tax hikes. Generally, it is criticized by the environmental community for not being harsh enough on fossil fuel corporations.
Senator Bernie Sanders’ proposal, an adaptation of the Green New Deal drafted by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, would invest $16.3 trillion into fighting the fossil fuel industry and implementing renewable energy across multiple sectors. Sanders, whose proposal is the most costly among the candidates, has promised to create 20 million jobs in clean energy and infrastructure, cut the military spending on the global oil supply and tax companies that emit greenhouse gases. The tax revenue and savings these tactics would generate would be directly invested into his climate plan. He has proposed 100% renewable energy for electricity and transportation by 2030 and economy-wide carbon-neutrality by 2050. The Vermont senator would end all exports of coal and ban fracking completely. Sanders has also been vocal about his desire to collaborate with foreign countries to fight this issue. He would devote $200 billion to natural disaster recovery for third-world countries. “The one thing I’ll say about Bernie that sets him apart is that he is a lot more weary of the military industrial complex and I think that’s a major institution in the U.S. that contributes a lot to climate change,” said Connor Nakamura ’20, a strong supporter of the candidate. “Bernie has consistently shown both to be a strong advocate for fighting against climate change and lowering consumption in the U.S.”
Senator Elizabeth Warren’s plan is projected to cost $3.5 trillion over the next 10 years. In coordination with the theme of her campaign, she hopes to undercut corruption and lobbying by making an ambitious investment towards solving this environmental crisis. After Governor Jay Inslee dropped out of the race in August, Warren adopted his signature proposal that calls for 100% clean energy. The Massachusetts senator plans to reduce carbon emissions by 70% by 2035 and completely by 2050. She has emphasized that the majority of carbon emissions are produced by just three industries: electricity, transportation and new buildings. She believes the most efficient way to improve the environment is to achieve net-zero emissions for buildings by 2028, vehicles by 2030 and electricity by 2035. Like Sanders, Warren sees addressing climate change as a “once-in-a-generation” opportunity to create “millions” of American jobs in clean energy and climate research. She would also incentivize American farmers to implement sustainable practices by allocating $1 billion to $15 billion annually for compensations.
Senator Kamala Harris has proposed a $10 trillion plan that would be almost entirely devoted towards limiting corruption in the private sector. Her plan is centered around the theme of environmental justice, something Harris has no shortage of experience with. As the Attorney General of California, Harris launched an investigation into Exxon Mobil and levied a $86 million fine from Volkswagen after they cheated on an emissions test. As a senator, she co-introduced legislation to stop Trump from rolling back emission regulations. She also drafted the Climate Equity Plan, which supports minority neighborhoods that are disproportionately affected by environmental issues. One of her proposals is a tax on companies that emit greenhouse gases, with the goal of ending all fossil fuel pollution by 2030. Her emphasis on environmental justice is relatively unique among the Democrats, since the topic is largely unaddressed by American politicians.
South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg plans to spend $1.1 trillion to invest in climate research, establish new programs and provide ample resources for natural disaster relief. Similar to most candidates, Buttigieg plans to be completely carbon-neutral by 2050. By 2035, he would ensure that all vehicles are electric by raising the tax break from $5,000 to $10,000. The 37-year-old stresses the importance of researching sustainable energy and carbon-reduction tactics. He would quadruple climate research by providing $200 billion in funding. $550 billion more would be devoted to implementing clean energy technology nationwide. Like Harris, the South Bend Mayor is a proponent of environmental justice and accentuates the need to help low-income communities who are most directly affected by climate change. Buttigieg has vowed to provide adequate resources for disaster preparedness and relief for these communities. He would establish a Climate Corps program to help communities “build resiliency and sustainability.” Buttigieg would also create a Global Investment Initiative program to provide developing countries with the technology to fight climate change alongside the United States.
Andrew Yang, an entrepreneur and business executive, has proposed a very technology-centric climate change plan that would require $4.87 trillion. He wants to achieve zero emissions for the electric grid in 2035, transportation sectors by 2040 and the full economy by 2049. He plans to utilize geoengineering, the practice of creating novel technologies in order to reduce the effects of global warming. For example, Yang’s plan would plant carbon-absorbing plankton in the ocean, scatter sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to deflect sunlight and utilize carbon-capture to catch and store carbon dioxide. Also, Yang is the only Democrat still in contention that does not support a complete ban on fracking. He has been very frank about the effects of climate change already experienced by the United States. He urges Americans in coastal states like Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi to move inland as water levels continue to rise. To realize his “higher ground” plan, Yang would spend $40 billion on relocating American citizens and $30 billion on infrastructure like seawalls. While some voters are excited about Yang’s innovative take on climate change solutions, many others are skeptical about his plan. “He seems progressive in so many ways, but he never wants to attack the root of the problem,” said Nakamura. “I really trust the candidates more that are doing what the experts say will work and that will make a difference and impact in the rate at which climate change is progressing.”
Although these proposals have small differences in their policies and goals, the overarching message is the same: something needs to be done to save our planet. The same Yale University study found that 7 in 10 voters would support some form of government action addressing climate change. Americans are ready for their politicians to take direct and ambitious action to mitigate the effects of climate change and ensure a more livable world for future generations. “While it does feel like a moonshot, the very expression ‘moonshot’ came from the fact that we made a moonshot and did it,” said Lick-Wilmerding physics teacher Feroze Munshi. “The structure and mechanisms of government need to reflect the extent to which this is a problem.”
Add a heading
