On Climate Change

There is one topic that should come before all others in the 2016 elections. This issue directly affects the lives of every single person currently living on planet Earth, as well as everyone who is born between now and the end of the world. Incredibly, the preceding statement is not even slightly hyperbolic. While there are undoubtedly many other important issues, no other issue affects the entire world to the extent that climate change does. Climate change is real, and we need a president (and congressional representatives) who is willing to take bold steps to mitigate the damage already done.

Climate scientists resoundingly agree: climate change is happening, and humans are the main driving force of it. NASA agrees. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees. The European Union Commission agrees. Business Insider agrees. The EPA agrees. And so do 97+ percent of climate scientists. Scientists' agreement on climate change is similar to their agreement that cigarettes can kill you. And for anyone who wants to cite one of the few scientists who deny that climate change is human-caused as evidence that it isn't real, you can also find scientists who will argue that gravity isn't real.

The effects of climate change will be far-reaching and swift. NASA has some good pages that show some of the effects (overview and US regional effects; sea level rise; images of change; and a "time machine") , as does The Nature Conservancy. Ice caps and glaciers will melt, which will lead to sea level rise, which could flood the homes of millions people worldwide. Weather patterns will change, with more extreme weather becoming more common. Events like Hurricane Katrina, superstorm Sandy, the flooding in South Carolina and now Texas, Hurricane Patricia, and the California drought will not be as large of outliers as they currently appear. Old agricultural techniques may become less effective.

Exacerbating the issue is the fact that climate change is disproportionately affecting the people who are in the least position to do anything about it, and who are also contributing to climate change the least. Poor people directly dependent on agriculture for their livelihood don't need to be told by scientists that climate change is real--they see it in action and have to adapt their lives because of it. The governments of influential nations (which are overwhelmingly industrialized and are large polluters) have a responsibility to their own people, as well as the people of other countries, to not poison the world we all live in.

This should not be a partisan issue. While I am sure conservatives and liberals will (and do) disagree about what is to be done about climate change, there should be consensus that it is real and human-caused, and that something must be done to slow or reverse it if possible. Why might a politician deny this, choose to ignore it, or fail to act on it? I can think of only three reasons: (1) Ignorance. If this is the case, it is unacceptable in a presidential candidate; the "leader of the free world" cannot afford to be ignorant on such an important issue. (2) They are corrupted by and sold out to big oil, coal, and gas companies. If this is the case, then the politician is willing to put the short-term profits of corporations (often run by old men who won't be around to see the worst of climate change but will see the short-term profits) over the long-term well-being of the world. (3) Someone who ran for president as a Democrat (Al Gore) was one of the first vocal advocates for climate accountability. If a politician is not willing to lead his or her party into consensus on a decided issue that affects everyone in the world, they should not be president. Being wrong on climate change is not something anyone should hold their ground on. Partisan politics should have nothing to do with climate change. Whatever the reason for a candidate's refusal to act on climate change, he or she is unfit for the Oval Office.

I cannot vote for a candidate who is either ignorant enough or corrupt enough to push policies that do not try to mitigate climate change, or worse, actively support actions and corporations that make it worse. The future of the world is not worth mortgaging for the short-term profits of fossil fuel companies, a few thousand jobs, or even short-term economic health and growth. As candidates on both sides of the 2016 presidential race like to remind us, America must be a global leader, and the world can't handle 4 years of a climate-blind America.

Some useful links about climate change, its effects, and what is being done to combat it:
UNICEF Climate Change Report
1o5C (group to try to keep temperature rise below 1.5 degrees Celsius)
Food Security in the Pacific
Pole to Paris (awareness group)
Empowering the Poor in a Changing Climate (UN Development Programme publication with 12 case studies of poor people who have adapted to climate changes)
Checklist of where 2016 presidential candidates stand on climate change (at bottom of article)
More thorough examination of candidates' stances on climate change (for some reason lacking Ben Carson--you'll have to go to his personal campaign page on the site)
EPA suggestions for limiting your carbon footprint
Canada's suggestions for limiting your carbon footprint