1st 2020 Presidential Debate

The fist presidential election debate of 20 Democratic candidates took place last week and while it was notable that climate change was a topic (a first in itself), the questions and answers left a lot to be desired.

Granted, the format of 60 seconds with sporadic 30 second followups, didn't allow for much depth.  By my count, half the candidates did manage to say say something about climate change.  Six said it would be top priority or biggest threat (Warren, Inslee, O'Roark, Castro, Hickenlooper).  Some spoke of the urgency.  "Existential threat" said Harris and O'Roark.

Senator Sanders said,

The scientists tell us we have 12 years because there’s irreparable damage to this planet. This is a global issue. What the president of the United States should do is not deny the reality of climate change, but tell the rest of the world that instead of spending $1.5 trillion on weapons of destruction, let us get together for the common enemy and that is to transform the world energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency, and sustainable energy. The future of the planet rests on us doing that.

Senator Harris said,

Well, first of all I don’t even call it climate change. It’s a climate crisis. It represents an existential threat to us as a species. And the fact that we have a President of the United States who has embraced science fiction over science fact will be to our collective peril. ... And on this issue it is a–it is a critical issue that is about what we must do to confront what is immediate and before us right now. That is why I support a Green New Deal. It is why I believe on day one and as President will re-enter us in the Paris agreement because we have to take these issues seriously and frankly, we have a President of the United States we talked about you asked before what is the greatest national security threat to the United States? It’s Donald Trump. And I’m going to tell you why. And I’m going to tell you why because I agree climate change represents an existential threat. He denies the science.

Governor Inslee was given 60 seconds on his signature issue:

Look it, look it, we are the first generation to feel the sting of climate change, and we are the last that can do something it. Our towns are burning. Our fields are flooding. Miami is inundated.

And we have to understand, this is a climate crisis, an emergency (OFF-MIKE) this is our last chance in the administration, next one, to do something about it. ....

But the most important thing on this, in the biggest decision for the American public is, who is going to make this the first priority? And I am the candidate and the only one who’s saying this has to be the top priority of the United States, the organizing principle to mobilize the United States, so that we can do what we’ve always done, lead the world and invent the future and put 8 million people to work. That’s what we’re going to do.

Time has a good editorial on how the Democratic candidates failed to deliver even passable answers in the first round of debates.  The Debates Showed America Still Doesn't Know How to Talk About Climate Change

...[the candidates had] answers that were either evasive, meandering or dry. Climate change was a subject at the debate, but it was not a subject of debate.

"That’s not just a problem for these candidates but also for voters and activists who care about climate change and the current and future generations who will have to deal with it. Until America learns how to have a serious conversation about climate change and the solutions needed to address dealing with the issue will remain frustratingly out of reach."

It goes on to say that the moderators contributed with poor questions, that the mainstream broadcast media has failed to address the issue, and how the candidates should focus on the urgency rather than bicker over policy differences.  Still....

It’s hard for a crisis that moves at a decade-long timespan to compete with President Donald Trump’s daily tweets. But given the urgency of the issue and the strong public interest now may be the time to invest in trying. America will never have a thoughtful conversation about climate change if networks and candidates can’t find a way to debate it.

So what do we take away from this debate?  My personal opinion is that the eventual nominee must do a better job at awaking the apathetic voter, the one who hasn't given much thought to the urgency of of climate change action.  Lay it out in simple, but compelling terms.  The other voters have already made up their minds.