The Bernie Sanders campaign was the first to strike when, on Wednesday night, it issued a press release that read, "Where is Secretary Clinton’s climate plan?" The memo, written by spokesperson Michael Briggs, accused the former Secretary of State of failing to deliver on a promise to release a plan to stem the spread of climate change.

That evening, the Clinton campaign struck back with a snarky post on Medium written by campaign chair John Podesta. "The Sanders campaign asked where our climate plan was," the headline read. "I Googled it for them." It went on to include the many tweets, articles, speeches, and policy papers that have explained Clinton's approach to climate change over the last several months.

Climate change is a very real threat to the country's stability, but for most Americans, that threat can feel far away.

"While the Sanders campaign pores over those, I suggest that they explain how they plan to back out of the international climate deal that President Obama reached with the rest of the world in Paris," Podesta wrote. "After all, Senator Sanders did come out against it."

That the race between Sanders and Clinton is getting uglier is not surprising. After all, in less than two weeks, Iowa caucus-goers will be asked to decide between the three Democratic candidates once and for all. So it makes sense that Sanders and Clinton, who are neck and neck in Iowa, are pointing their attacks away from Republican opponents and toward each other.

What doesn't make as much sense is that they're skirmishing (Or is it squirmishing?) about climate change, an issue on which their similarities far outnumber their differences. It's a strategy that suggests the campaigns believe voters actually care about the intricacies of each candidate's climate change plan, that their votes hinge on the wonky details of emissions reductions goals or the exact number of solar panels each candidate plans to install.

They probably don't.

Not a Voting Issue

With all the more obvious differences between Clinton and Sanders—from their records on guns to their records on the Iraq War—climate action seems an odd platform to nitpick. It's odder still when you consider that for most voters, environmental issues are fairly low priority.

"It's not a voting issue for most Americans, even Americans who think climate change is an issue," says Dana R. Fisher, director of the Program for Society and the Environment at the University of Maryland. "Most research says unless people have experienced some dramatic weather event related to climate change, very rarely is it a voting issue."

Recent polls show that while the majority of Americans believe climate change is a serious problem, that number is slipping, as is the percentage of Americans who believe the government should do something about it. According to one ABC News/Washington Post poll released in November, just 47 percent of Americans say the government needs to act, compared to 70 percent during the George W. Bush administration.

That figure is much higher among Democrats, but still, Fisher says, voters tend to be far less motivated to vote based on climate plans than they are based on economic or military policies. Climate change is a very real threat to the country's stability, but for most Americans, that threat can feel far away. "It’s relatively abstract, talking about emissions reduction by 2025," Fisher says. "It’s very hard to think about when you go to decide who’s going to represent you in the White House for the next four years."

That fact could not have escaped the notice of either campaign. Which is why, it seems, this debate about climate change isn't really about climate change at all. It's about each candidate undermining the character of the other. For Sanders, it's a chance to cast doubt on Clinton's commitment to her professed values, and for Clinton, it's an opportunity to reprimand the Sanders camp for going needlessly negative.

Either way, the specifics of either candidates' plans get lost in the debate, bringing the country no closer to a constructive conversation on the climate—not that voters care.