Commentary: Energy policy differences for presidential candidates

Americans are faced with two flawed presidential candidates, and besieged by “news” and conjecture focused on the perceived character shortcomings of the candidates to the almost complete exclusion of the positions they have proposed on real challenges facing the country.

Character attacks are nothing new, having been a part of the American democratic process since the beginning. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, after all, accused each other of just about everything short of cannibalism.

Nevertheless, good citizens should try to take issues into account along with personality. We should make the effort to identify those relatively few objective and tangible positions the candidates have taken on the issues and try to evaluate those positions in terms of their potential for improving or worsening the problems facing us and generations to come.

One issue that defines the candidates is climate change and what should be done. Those concerned about passing along to our offspring an Earth at least as habitable as the one we inherited should ask themselves whether there are significant, tangible differences between the two presidential candidates on matters relating to the health of the planet.

Given the special vulnerability of Florida to climate change and sea-level rise, the positions of the candidates on those matters are of particular importance. And the candidates do not disappoint as they offer relatively clear and dramatically different positions.

On one hand, Hillary Clinton states clearly her conviction that climate change is real and a serious threat to our well-being in the short, medium and long terms. On the other, Donald Trump has on several occasions variously labeled climate change a hoax and a Chinese plot to get us to ruin our economy. Presumably he is referring to doing what the Chinese are doing themselves -- reducing dependence on fossil fuels.

In a more serious vein, both candidates were invited to submit their views (Scientific American, Sept. 13) on science, including on the reality of climate change and its implications for our well-being, as well as on what actions they intend to take to deal with climate change.

Clinton reiterated that climate change is not only real but a defining challenge of our times. Her website lists many pages of proposals for dealing with the problem, primarily along the lines of shifting toward renewable fuels, which do not emit greenhouse gases, making more efficient use of energy, etc.

Trump argued that “much needs to be done to investigate climate science” and that other problems may be more urgent, such as clean water for all, elimination of malaria, etc. He suggested the U.S. cannot afford to address more than one of these problems at once. In other forums he has suggested he would withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement on climate change, which 195 other nations have endorsed, and he would undo domestic efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He has pledged to bring coal back from its decline, apparently regardless of economic trends against it.

So the time is coming for voters to decide whether climate change and the candidate positions on it should figure in their decisions when voting. Are they convinced by sources as varied as national academies of science, major universities and professional associations all around the world, the U.S. defense and intelligence communities, and even Exxon scientists dating back many years, that the threat is real, a menace to the well-being of our children and grandchildren, and requires urgent remedial action. Or are they persuaded that the accumulated science is a hoax?

Do they believe that the U.S. is incapable of dealing with more than one of the existential crises that face us or do they believe that we should muster the will to deal with most or all of them as has been the case until now? Can our children afford for us to engage with only one or two such issues?

These are key substantive differences between the candidates, and we shall be responsible to our offspring for how we respond.

These views are those of the author, not positions of Audubon of the Western Everglades or Audubon Florida.

Keller assisted developing countries in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East and Africa for 35 years in policymaking relating to population dynamics, economic development, environment and establishment of reproductive health services.