2020 Presidential Candidates Take Stances on Climate Change

2020 Democratic debate during the primary voting season. How candidates view climate change is an important issue for many voters. Photo credits: Nathan Dorn

Climate change is a global issue that has potential ramifications in every city, state, and region of the United States, as well as abroad. It is also an increasingly important issue for voters when considering which candidate to vote for: ranking first among liberal democrats and fifth for all registered voters, according to a survey from Yale and George Mason.

Molly McGuire, Natural Resource Planning major and the president of 350-Stevens Point: a climate change group on campus.
Photo courtesy of Molly McGuire

Molly McGuire, Natural Resource Planning major and 350 Stevens Point President, believes that climate change is important for this election.

“Our window of opportunity to largely decrease the effects of climate change is quickly closing. Soon it’s predicted that we will have positive feedback cycles and have minimal control over carbon released into the atmosphere. This is also the first election that climate change has been a key topic in debates and campaign efforts,” says McGuire.

With the 2020 Presidential primary date of April 7 for Wisconsin approaching fast, knowing where top democratic candidates stand on climate change – compared to each other, and President Trump – will be vital for choosing a candidate.

One such issue is the Paris Agreement on climate. This 2016 agreement brought the efforts and ambitions of all nations together to combat climate change.

Among top Democratic candidates, all would have the U.S. rejoin the Paris Agreement, though with varying terms.

Joe Biden, former U.S. Vice President and Delaware Senator, was in office with then-President Obama when the U.S. joined the Paris Agreement. In addition to recommitting the U.S. to this landmark global agreement, his plan as president calls for a 100 percent clean energy economy. By 2050 at the latest, the U.S. would reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions: the driving force behind global climate change.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders calls on the U.S. to rejoin the agreement and then meet its fair share of emission reductions, as determined by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This includes reducing U.S. carbon emissions by 71 percent, as well as providing support for less-industrialized countries with their emission reductions, by 2030.

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, who recently dropped out of the presidential race, had a similar stance to Biden. In addition to rejoining the agreement, Warren’s plan included reducing carbon pollution, roughly in half, by 2030. Warren also aimed to have the U.S. at net-zero emissions by 2050.

Michael Bloomberg, businessman and former mayor of New York City, also recently ended his bid for president. However, Bloomberg’s plan called on the U.S to rejoin the agreement and cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030. He also stated that the country would be at 80 percent clean power by 2028.

Hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as “fracking”, is a controversial extraction technique used for oil and natural gas. There is disagreement between some candidates about whether this practice should be allowed or not.

Hydraulic fracking site in Wisconsin. Fracking is controversial and remains an important environmental issue.
Photo Credits: Carol Mitchell, Flickr

As opposed to banning it nationwide, Biden calls for limiting and regulating the practice. This regulation would include evaluating current fracking operations to determine potential dangers and impacts. Biden also opposes new fracking operations on public lands. Additionally, his plan would limit methane pollution, a major greenhouse gas, for both new and existing operations.

As president, Sanders would place a ban on all fracking in the U.S. Among many reasons for this position, Sanders states that the practice is dangerous to water and air, while contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.

Under Warren’s climate change plans, fracking would have been banned nationwide. On day one as president, Warren planned to sign an executive order that, in addition to banning fracking, would have eliminated new fossil fuel leases for both offshore and public land drilling for fossil fuels.

Similarly to Biden, Bloomberg called to limit and regulate fracking. In areas with adequate health and environmental protections, strict guidelines, and responsiveness to stopping methane leaks, fracking could continue. However, Bloomberg supported phasing out all fossil fuels over time while increasing the production and use of renewable energy.

Federal subsidies for fossil fuels is another important aspect of climate change discussions.

These subsidies contribute to climate change by decreasing the price of fossil fuels, thus supporting and encouraging production and consumption. For example, an analysis published in Nature Energy found that continuing current U.S. fossil fuel subsidies, around $20 billion a year in direct subsidies, could lead to an increase in oil production and carbon emissions over the coming decades.

On this issue, top candidates hold the same main stance.

As president, Biden proposes eliminating federal government fossil fuel subsidies. These billions of dollars of funds would then be reallocated into clean energy infrastructure investments.

Sanders calls for the elimination of direct fossil fuel subsidies, stating that these funds will save taxpayers billions over the years. Sanders states that the fossil fuel industry will pay over $3 trillion for their pollution; part of this large sum in the form of federal subsidies.

Annalise Keaton, Senior Biology major at UWSP

Annalise Keaton, Senior Biology major, says that she plans to vote for Bernie Sanders in the upcoming election. Part of the reason, says Keaton, is Sander’s views on the role of corporations in regards to climate change.

“Amongst the Democratic candidates, Bernie seems the most willing to demand financial support from the large corporations responsible for climate change,” says Keaton.

According to Sanders, funds from the fossil fuel industry would go towards funding the non-binding Green New Deal resolution. This resolution, introduced in Feb. of 2019, has drawn attention from politicians and citizens alike.

Keaton says that Sander’s strong support and proposed adoption of the Green New Deal is a main reason for her support.

“What I like most is that the Green New Deal has great potential to create many jobs for educated Americans passionate about the environment,” says Keaton.

Warren supported eliminating these fossil fuel subsidies as well. In the past, Warren had co-sponsored bills like the American Energy Innovation Act and the Close Big Oil Loopholes Act, which would have gotten rid of federal subsidies for fossil fuels.

These subsidies would have been eliminated under Bloomberg. He stated that tax breaks for drilling new oil and gas wells and well production, as well as deductions for fossil fuel royalties paid in other countries, would have been eliminated.

Another important consideration with respect to climate change, as well as public health and energy, is nuclear power. This energy source has drawn opposing views from many, including those seeking how to transform the U.S. energy system.

On nuclear power, Biden’s views are not entirely clear. His plan supports research that would consider the costs, safety, and waste disposal systems of nuclear power. As Biden’s climate change plan seeks low- and zero-carbon technologies for energy production, nuclear power appears to be on the table.

Sander’s plan calls for phasing out nuclear power and no new construction of nuclear power plants. Additionally, he supports a temporary ban on renewal licenses for existing nuclear power plants in the U.S. Sanders seeks a solution to the issue of nuclear waste. He states that risks from the toxic waste byproducts that come from nuclear power generation are not worth the benefits. To that end, other renewable energies says Sanders, are proven and more cost-effective.

McGuire says that out of all the top candidates, Sander’s climate change plan is strongest.

“Personally, I think that Bernie Sanders has the most impactful and diligent plan for tackling climate change. Senator Sanders has provided a detailed plan for tackling the crisis through transitioning to renewable options while providing job opportunities for previous fossil fuel works,” says McGuire.

Warren’s climate change plan included phasing out nuclear power and no future construction of nuclear power plants. Warren said that nuclear power would have been phased out, and then replaced with renewable energy. She hoped to replace nuclear energy by 2035 or earlier.

Under Bloomberg, the U.S. would not have built any new nuclear plants. His plan called for moving away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible; and nuclear energy, which accounts for 20 percent of current U.S. electrical output, would have been included in that transition. Bloomberg also stated that the vast majority of energy investments would have been in wind and solar energy, as well as energy storage.

Climate change under the current administration has not been a priority. Under Trump, the U.S. has successfully undone or delayed many regulations and past executive actions related to climate change and emissions reductions. According to Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, the federal government under Trump has taken 131 actions towards climate deregulation.

One such action of opposition to climate change was U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under Trump.

Another example is President Trump’s support for nuclear power. The president’s budget proposal for 2021 included $1.2 billion for nuclear energy research, development, and programs.

And while the current administration has looked to dominate global energy supplies, including by means of fracking and continued Arctic fossil fuel exploration, environmental costs have largely been ignored.

The upcoming presidential election carries with it important consequences for how the U.S. will address climate change in 2020 and the years that follow. While voters consider a variety of issues to determine their desired candidate, climate change is a pressing issue that many already hold as a priority. Learning where the candidates stand and what their plans are will assist in that decision; where they stand on climate change is important moving forward.

More information on each candidate’s views and plans, climate change and otherwise, can be found on their websites, respectively.

About Nathan Dorn

Avatar

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*