Why the debate didn't cover global climate change
“This is another example of an important issue that doesn’t make it in,” said David Saad, 19, a University of Florida junior from Jersey City, N.J.
Saad added that if one of the candidates had a stronger stance on global climate change, he would give that candidate stronger consideration. But as of now he doesn’t know their platforms.
Eric R.A.N. Smith, a political science professor at University of California - Santa Barbara, explained that since global climate change is not a top priority for voters, the reporters moderating the debates left it out in favor of questions concerning jobs and the economy.
In many of the major polls done this year on voter issues -- including those done by Pew, The New York Times and CNN -- global climate change didn’t make the cut.
President Obama debates with Mitt Romney as moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS looks on at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla. last night.
Issues that are consistently ranked highly include jobs, the economy, health care and the budget deficit.
“It really does come down to polls, and the moderators go by that,” Smith said.
Another dilemma is that bringing up global climate change could be potentially hazardous for both candidates. Smith explained that while Mitt Romney might evade the issue because he’s skeptical about global climate change, President Obama has failed to pass legislation, which makes his leadership look weak.
Jon Krosnick, on the other hand, said he believes that bringing up this topic during the debates would’ve been a great way to help voters contrast the two candidates.
Krosnick, a professor in communications, political science and psychology, and a senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University, explained that including a question on global climate change in the 2008 debates between Obama and Sen. John McCain helped to clarify their stances.
“On their sites, they both seemed explicitly green,” he said. But at the debate, only Obama promised a “new energy economy.”
While Krosnick said he was slightly surprised that global climate change didn’t make it into these debates, he didn’t feel it was a necessary question to include. He said that both candidates made their stances very clear during their nomination speeches -- Obama, who affirmed that he still wanted to reduce global climate change, and Romney, who included one skeptical “throwaway sentence."
But although other issues seem more pressing, Smith argues that it’s crucial to include global climate change in the dialogue because it’s “incredibly important.”
“Climate change will be doing damage to the U.S. and the world,” he said.
Some organizations urge that it’s already doing damage. The Nature Conservancy writes on its website that, “Around the globe, seasons are shifting, temperatures are climbing and sea levels are rising.”
Besides increased storm damage, risk of drought and heat-related illness, it is also believed that global climate change will leave a quarter of Earth’s species headed toward extinction by 2050.
University of Pennsylvania senior Lucia Xiong, 21, from South Lake, Texas, said it’s a “shame” that the U.S. hasn’t taken the lead on resolving environmental issues.
Xiong, who is doing her thesis on water management, said the U.S., “should take greater agency in managing climate change issues.” However, she realizes that it’s not as noticeable as when people lose jobs.
“It’s too long term for our four-year presidential cycle,” she said.
But if you do care about how the candidates stand on global climate change, Smith recommends checking out Vote Smart and reading the newspapers.
“Voters who care about an issue can’t be victims of what does and doesn’t come up during debates,” Krosnick said. “They should take responsibility.”
Laura Cofsky is a Fall 2012 Paste BN Collegiate Correspondent. Learn more about her here.
This story originally appeared on the Paste BN College blog, a news source produced for college students by student journalists. The blog closed in September of 2017.