The Complexities of Climate Change in One Debate Exchange

Last week, New York voters overwhelmingly opted for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders in the democratic primary. I like Bernie and his message, but I’m breathing a huge sigh of relief that New York picked substance over grandstanding. The more Bernie talks, the more evident it becomes that he has neither the plans nor the knowledge required to achieve any of his high-minded proposals. I believe Bernie is a fundamentally good human being: transparent; honest; and with a long history of fighting the good fight. But at some point, ideals without substance become dangerous; they coalesce into rigid ideologies bent on preserving their purity rather than engaging with the nuances of the real world and solving problems (for a great example, I suggest you examine the current Republican Party).

This important difference between the candidates was on stark display last Thursday night during their debate in Brooklyn. You can read the entire transcript here, but there is one exchange in particular that stands out; it occurred when Bernie excused Hillary of “exporting fracking.”

Hillary gave a nuanced response in which she laid out some ambitious goals, considered the varied interests of other nations — she mentioned Russia by name — and talked about natural gas as a bridge to help move the world away from dirtier fossil fuels.

Sanders then responded, and I’ll quote him here:

All right, here is — here is a real difference. This is a difference between understanding that we have a crisis of historical consequence here, and incrementalism and those little steps are not enough.

Not right now. Not on climate change. Now, the truth is, as secretary of state, Secretary Clinton actively supported fracking technology around the world. Second of all, right now, we have got to tell the fossil fuel industry that their short-term profits are not more important than the future of this planet.

The real difference is not a misunderstanding of the size of the problem. The real difference is Sanders’ gross naivete about how to address it.

To underscore this I ask you to consider the following nations, just five of the nearly 200 international stakeholders in this global endeavor:

1. Russia, a country that is showing a willingness to use force internationally, and is run by a narcissistic dictator, has an economy built almost entirely on the export of fossil fuels. Consider that just last year, Russia and the world’s second largest economy, China, signed a major deal for Russia to send more energy to China.

2. Saudi Arabia, a US ally — in name if not always in action — and, like Russia, a country whose leading elite are propped up entirely by oil wealth. The Saudis just helped scuttle a would-be OPEC deal to freeze oil production because they’re worried about losing market share to their rivals over in…

3. Iran, a country that just regained access to international markets after years of sanctions, and is poised to start exporting more oil. Iran, of course, is allowed to rejoin the global economy after agreeing to begin dismantling and limiting its nuclear program.

4. Venezuela, another small economy that is almost entirely based on oil exports, and which is experiencing violent social upheaval as its economy crashes because of plunging oil prices.

5. Ecuador, just devastated by earthquake and needing to rebuild homes, lives, and livelihoods using the resources at their disposal. Ecuador’s economy is based largely on oil exports.

Finally I ask you to consider the literally billions of people worldwide for whom climate change is simply not a daily concern because they don’t have access to electricity, running water, or heat in the winter, among other things. People for whom carbon emissions and the standard-of-living benefits they provide would be a blessing.

Each of the considerations I listed above is different, and many of them — in addition to being obstacles to change — do highlight the underlying truth of Bernie’s claim: the problem is BIG. And it does require immediate action.

But there are two important factors that each of those considerations have in common, both of which are conspicuously absent from Bernie’s assertive response:

1. None of the listed stakeholders, again major economies and billions of people, are necessarily concerned with or interested in fixing this “crisis of historical consequence.” Vladmir Putin and the Saudi monarchs are ruling today, and they need oil wealth to do it. Rising tides may affect impoverished people in coastal areas in a few years, but do we ask them to suffer without access to basic needs NOW so that they won’t have to suffer LATER?

2. None of the listed stakeholders represent the American “fossil fuel industry,” which, like big banks, are targets of Bernie’s rhetoric, and seem to be the only stakeholders in this equation he considers. Climate change is not synonymous with “the actions of the American fossil fuel industry.”

The simplicity of Sanders’ response highlights how ill-equipped he is to achieve his own ambitions, and furthermore, exposes cognitive dissonance in other positions. Again, consider Iran, a country recently on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon, a goal that the US and other nations were determined to halt, diplomatically if possible, with force if necessary. Fortunately, diplomacy prevailed, and Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program in return for the lifting of economic sanctions that will allow it to increase its export of oil. How does Bernie’s desire to avoid using military force against Iran and for regime change — and to be clear, if the US were to use force against Iran to prevent a bomb it would almost necessarily have to result in regime change — mesh with the fact that the deal to peacefully prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is contingent on them being allowed to sell oil!?

To be fair, the considerations I’ve listed are just some of the serious stumbling blocks that any president: Bernie; Hillary; even — god forbid — the Donald will have to address, and navigating all these considerations will be a challenge for even the most thoughtful, competent, and adroit leaders.

But Bernie’s wrong about the difference between him and Hillary. It’s not that she doesn’t recognize the enormity of the problem. It’s that she alone recognizes the enormity of the task of solving it, and therefore she alone is capable of achieving it.

#ForeignPolicy