While we rake over Clinton’s emails and Trump’s late-night tweets, climate has been the elephant in the room, leaving scientists and campaigners asking why there hasn’t been a single direct question about the crisis

Why has climate change been ignored in the US election debates?

Climate change has been the elephant in the room during the past two US presidential debates. Ignoring this issue would be more understandable if this metaphorical pachyderm weren’t about to rampage through the lives of Americans, causing upheaval on a scale not seen since the start of human civilization.



“I’ve been shocked at the lack of questions on climate change. It really is fiddling while the world burns,” said Kerry Emanuel, a leading climate scientist. “This is the great issue of our time and we are skirting around it. I’m just baffled by it.”

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have yet to face a moderator question on climate change during two debates in which time was found to grill Clinton repeatedly over her use of emails and to ask Trump about a series of late-night tweets he sent about a former Miss Universe’s sex tape. Lester Holt, the moderator of the first debate, was reportedly set to ask a climate question but ran out of time.

Wednesday’s final debate is set to retread the same ground, with the debate referee, Chris Wallace of Fox News, planning to prod the candidates on immigration, the economy and “fitness to be president”.

Wallace has also decided to ask about “foreign hot spots”, but it appears unlikely that it will segue into talking about the diabolical heat suffered in Kuwait and India this year.

“It’s like a sort of collective cowardice,” said Emanuel of the omission. Michael Mann, another prominent climate scientist, added: “One has to wonder if television networks are compromised by the millions of advertising dollars they take from fossil fuel interests.”

Where do Trump and Clinton stand on the environment? Republican Donald Trump has ​consistently ​denied climate change exists and would withdraw the US from the Paris agreement ​– a landmark treaty signed by almost 200 nations to clamp down (cut all that in bold) ​on global warming. He wants to scrap the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, which tries to limit carbon emissions by power plants and increase the use of renewable energy. He plans to end a moratorium on coal leasing, while also stopping oil imports from Opec countries. However, he supports exploring renewable energy sources.



Democrat Hillary Clinton has praised the Paris agreement and wants to cut energy waste and methane emissions, reduce oil consumption and invest in clean energy. She wants to create a $60bn Clean Energy Challenge that gives incentives to states to fight carbon pollution. She has announced benefits for coal miners such as health and retirement security. She opposes Arctic drilling and the Keystone XL pipeline, and supports fracking under strict conditions.

Should the final debate also neglect climate, the only question related to the issue across four-and-a-half hours of TV will have come from Ken Bone, he of red sweater and short-lived internet fame, who asked about coal mining policy as the credits were preparing to roll on last week’s debate. Climate campaigners have been unable to contain their exasperation.

“Let’s be clear: a last minute question about energy doesn’t do justice to the threat of the climate crisis,” said May Boeve, executive director of climate group 350 Action, shortly after the debate.

“This crisis threatens our communities, our economy, and the future for our children – we saw that threat with Hurricane Matthew just this week – yet climate change doesn’t get a single direct question in the debate.”

Hurricane Matthew, which resulted in more than 20 deaths, is just the latest example of the type of extreme event, from flooding in Louisiana to a historic drought in California, that will become more common as the world warms.

This year hasn’t exactly been short of climate conversation topics – 2016 is on track to be the warmest on record, beating a mark set just in 2015. The Paris climate accord has been ratified by countries around the world while the Obama administration has attempted to implement its Clean Power Plan in the teeth of fierce opposition from 27 states. Alaska barely had a winter this year while some American communities are already having to relocate due to rising seas.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans say that climate change is at least somewhat important to them personally, according to the Yale Program on Climate Communication, although few people talk about the issue with family or friends.

Americans are broadly in favor of developing clean sources of energy but there’s a clear political divide about how to approach climate change. Polling by the Pew Research Center shows half of Clinton’s supporters care about climate change a great deal, compared with 15% of Trump supporters.

This division is most starkly demonstrated by the candidates themselves. Clinton has talked about installing half a billion solar panels, halting oil drilling in the Arctic and, in sobering evidence of this election’s debasement, proudly told the Democratic national convention: “I believe in science.”

While some liberal Democrats are suspicious of Clinton’s climate credentials – fears were exacerbated by recent leaked emails that show she said those who wanted to shut down fossil fuels should “get a life” – the former secretary of state’s plan cannot be compared meaningfully with Trump’s.

The Republican nominee has called climate change a Chinese hoax and “bullshit”. He has promised to withdraw the US from the Paris climate deal, revive the coal industry while also expanding oil and gas drilling. He has darkly hinted at scrapping the Environmental Protection Agency and resurrecting the controversial Keystone oil pipeline.

“I wish there was a proper battle of ideas that we could judge accordingly,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. Green groups have supported Clinton almost as a default position because she’s the only major party candidate who accepts climate science.

While Clinton and Trump differ on issues such as police shootings, immigration and the economy, both candidates at least accept that these things actually exist. It’s tricky to have a debate on a topic that a participant doesn’t think is real.

Trump’s denial is shared by many members of Congress, who have been lavished with $29.6m in contributions from fossil fuel companies in the 2016 election cycle, according to figures compiled by ClimateTruth.org Action.

Regardless, here are three germane, and pressing, climate change questions that Wallace could ask:



An overwhelming majority of climate scientists say that climate change is real, caused by humans and a growing threat to our way of life. What would you do as president to tackle this clear and present danger?

All of the top 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 1998, the year when many climate skeptics claim that global warming somehow stopped. The world’s top scientific institutions are unequivocal that the burning of fossil fuels is the cause of this warming, with recent research showing this brings punishing drought, extreme weather events, poverty and economic stagnation.

The Pentagon has said that climate change is a national security risk due to the destruction caused by rising seas and displacement of people. What would you do to prepare the US for this?

Millions of people are set to become climate refugees as crops fail and drinking water supplies are sullied by seawater, potentially putting the current refugee crisis in the shade. The Pentagon has warned of the potential for conflict and the need for humanitarian mobilization but the two main presidential candidates have yet to talk about this.

Rising sea levels are already causing Americans to be uprooted and whole cities to be put at long-term risk. What national plan will you put in place to ensure that areas such as New York, Virginia and Florida aren’t inundated?

Incidents of nuisance flooding have more than trebled along US coasts since the 1960s, with most coastal areas set to be inundated 30 days or more a year by 2050. Miami Beach is spending $400m on a system of pumps to ward off the sea for just a few decades, according to its mayor. Climate change is far from an abstract concept for people in towns in Louisiana and Alaska who are being relocated due to the rising seas.