Who Had Substantive Climate Discussion on Their Debate Bingo Card?

Paul Kitagaki Jr./ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Who expected a fairly substantive climate discussion in the first presidential debate, moderated by none other than a Fox News anchor? 

President Donald Trump too did not seem prepared. Asked point blank whether he believes in man-made climate change, Trump equivocated, glossing over a record where he in fact has insisted it’s a hoax.

“I think a lot of things do” contribute to climate change, he said. “But I think to an extent, yes. I think to an extent, yes.”

Trump then immediately pivoted to a topic he’s more comfortable with, but way off on: forest fire management. Trump also insisted “we have to do everything we can to have immaculate water and do everything else we can to plant a billion trees.” This is a dodge. Despite Trump claiming he’s helped clean the air and water, his point doesn’t stand up to facts. More Americans now live in counties with unhealthier air than when Trump took office. The disparity is even starker in communities of color. 

Joe Biden, meanwhile, reiterated the points of his climate platform, such as weatherizing 4 million buildings and installing 100,000 new charging stations. 

Climate change wasn’t on the pre-debate list of topics for Fox News’ Chris Wallace, so the fact that it was a focus of first debate shows how far it’s climbed as a substantive issue for the electorate. It also drives home how vulnerable the president remains on the issue. Recent polling by Climate Power 2020 shows battleground voters prefer Biden’s stance by a whopping 27 points.

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate