A Memo from NextGen Climate: Donald Trump, Climate Change, and Grading on a Curve

To: National Media
From: Jamison Foser, NextGen Climate, Senior Advisor
Date: September 16, 2016
Re: Donald Trump, Climate Change, and Grading on a Curve


With much of the news media obsessing over how much Donald Trump weighs and how much water Hillary Clinton drinks, you may have missed a far more important story: A bipartisan group of 25 military and national security experts issued a forceful statement: “The effects of climate change present a strategically-significant risk to U.S. national security.” Navy Rear Admiral David Titley (retired) explained: “The national security community has focused on the intersection of climate risk and security for over a decade. The conclusions are clear: climate risks are accelerating in their likelihood and severity. The next administration, whomever is elected, has the duty and obligation as Commander in Chief to manage this risk in a comprehensive manner.”

That warning comes the same week as a new policy survey completed by the Trump and Clinton campaigns in which, according to Time, “Climate change stands out as perhaps the most egregious area of disagreement between the two candidates, given its stakes and the significant scientific consensus that humans have caused it. Trump, who has previously called global warming a ‘hoax,’ referred to climate change in quotation marks and suggested that ‘there is still much that needs to be investigated.’ Clinton offered an abbreviated recap of her plan to address the issue and called it ‘a defining challenge of our time.’”

The difference between the candidates on climate change is, indeed, enormous. Donald Trump says climate change doesn’t exist and wants to expand the use of fossil fuels that cause it; Hillary Clinton correctly identifies climate change as an urgent crisis and has a plan to prevent damage to our climate. Unfortunately, that’s where media coverage of the topic usually stops, if it gets even that far. What’s missing is any real examination of the consequences of the candidates’ positions.

Imagine what would happen if Hillary Clinton said terrorism doesn’t exist — and that, in fact, we should give ISIS nuclear weapons. This would rightly be treated as a scandalous position and an indication that Clinton is dangerously unfit for office and that her election would endanger us all. If Hillary Clinton had a plan to give ISIS nuclear weapons, we wouldn’t merely see the occasional news report focusing on the disagreement between Clinton and Trump over whether terrorism exists. We’d see relentless coverage of the consequences of Clinton’s position.

But Donald Trump simply is not subjected to coverage like that, and the public’s understanding of the consequences of his policy positions suffers for it. Scientists, medical experts, military leaders, and economists have made clear that climate change is an urgent threat to our health, security, economic prosperity — and our very existence. Donald Trump has a plan to expand the use of fossil fuels, which will increase the speed and severity of those impacts. It’s time for news organizations to stop grading Trump on a curve and start scrutinizing the consequences of his dangerous climate stance.

New polling released by NextGen Climate this week shows that millennials care deeply about climate change — and are eager to hear more about issues that affect their lives. But many do not yet see a difference between Clinton and Trump on those issues, in part because the news media covers their weight and water consumption habits more eagerly than the consequences of their policy positions. With only 53 days before polls close, it’s time for that to change.