CLEVELAND -- The delegates to the Democratic National Committee could vote as early as today on whether to dedicate a debate to anthropogenic global warming. They have every reason to vote “Yes.”

DNC Chair Tom Perez has justified his opposition to a climate debate, in part , on the grounds that having a dedicated debate on climate would lead to the party being expected to dedicate an entire debate to assorted other current issues. This line of thinking is profoundly wrong, because environmental issues in general, and climate in particular, simply are not like other political questions.

Jack Turner is a renewable energy entrepreneur working in Cleveland.

Let’s start with the political arithmetic. The most important thing the Democratic Party can do to win the 2020 election is motivate registered Democrats and liberal-leaning independents to show up at the polls on Nov. 3. Among these voters, taking action to slow climate change is not just a, but the highest priority issue, with 96 percent reporting that it is “somewhat or very” important, according to polling done by SSRS for CNN in April. Of those, the share who report it is “very” important was 82 percent. The second-highest priority issue (which has been given much more time in debates of late) was Medicare for all, with 75 percent reporting it was “very important” and 16 percent saying “somewhat important.”

However, it is not just liberal-leaning voters who favor action to address climate change. A wide range of different policy measures to address global warming received more than 70 percent support from all independents, and more than 50 percent support from Republicans, according to a March 2018 poll by the Yale Program on Climate Communication. That makes climate action a consensus position among voters, if not among politicians.

It is wildly improbable that the Democratic Party would lose any current supporters by leaning in on climate action, and they would have a chance to gain support among independents and even some conservatives, whose representatives do not represent them on the issue.

It should be noted that the failure of politicians, particularly Republicans, but Democrats as well (albeit to a lesser extent) to embrace broadly popular solutions to global warming, such as the Green New Deal -- 92 percent support among Democrats and 64 percent support among Republicans, according to another poll by the Yale Program on Climate Communication, this one from December -- is a case of their moving not in accordance with the wishes of their constituents, but with the pocketbooks of fossil-fuel industry elites, who spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year on lobbying and campaign finance.

In 2008, the DNC made the laudable decision to stop accepting donations from federal lobbyists. In 2015, under the leadership of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC reversed its position.

Perez has had plenty of time to go back to the Obama-era policy, if he were so inclined, but has not done so, and so it is possible that he is not advancing his argument against a climate debate in altogether good faith.

One might be tempted to think that the corrupting influence of corporate cash is a necessary evil to fund campaigns, but it is instructive to remember that Barack Obama managed to win two presidential elections without it, whereas, after Wasserman Schultz reopened the doors to donations from lobbyists, the party lost a seemingly shoe-in election. Furthermore, as the Sanders campaign has recently demonstrated, today it is easier than ever to forego raising funds from wealthy elites and make it up with small-dollar donations from ordinary citizens.

Besides the political wisdom of emphasizing a popular issue on which your opponents are out of touch with the public, there is another reason why climate is not like other issues. That is its scale, and its time-sensitive nature. Every aspect of society and the economy is influenced, and will continue to be influenced, by global warming: Immigration, national security, terrorism, infrastructure, health, racism, check, check, check, check, check, check.

What is more, unlike other challenges the country faces, the longer it is unaddressed, the worse it becomes and the less can be done about it. Thanks to greenhouse gases already emitted into the atmosphere, droughts, fires, heat waves, and cyclones have gotten worse, sea levels have risen, and the oceans have acidified, and worsening conditions are unavoidable. Every additional delay makes the situation much worse.

Anthropogenic global warming is not a, but the defining issue of the 21st century. The DNC should act accordingly and dedicate a debate.

Jack Turner is a renewable energy entrepreneur working in Cleveland.

*********************

Have something to say about this topic? Use the comments to share your thoughts. Then, stay informed when readers reply to your comments by using the “Follow” option at the top of the comments, and look for updates via the small blue bell in the lower right as you look at more stories on cleveland.com.