Oria Daugherty
Joe Biden is one of the few politicians who has carved out a place not only in Washington D.C., but also in pop culture. His vice presidency under Obama rocketed him to a fame that most presidential candidates could only dream of before the primaries. But his plans for climate action—when compared to those of his closest competitors Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren—fall short. For brevity’s sake, I won’t dive into the various plans of other candidates, as they are all polling well below the top three contenders and, barring any massive changes in the next few months, will likely not be the democratic nominee.
Climate change is one of the biggest issues immediately facing the country and the globe, and one that impacts all other facets of government in some way. The fact that a town hall solely focused on candidates’ climate policy plans was hosted by CNN and broadcasted live to the entire nation is, in and of itself, a success. But that success loses most of its value if voters do not use these plans to compare candidates and inform their vote in the primaries, and of course next November. Polls show any of the top three democratic candidates defeating Trump in 2020, so democratic voters should not be concerned with “winnability” of the candidates. If they win the primary, they will likely win the presidency. So the question becomes: “which of the three is best?”
I’m not here to tell you which candidate is most qualified overall. I haven’t done the mental calculus to decide which candidate is most qualified in all areas for myself yet, and I would surely reach a different conclusion than many others based on my own values. But it is clear that on the specific issue of climate policy, Biden is the weakest of the three candidates for several reasons.
Most obviously, Biden’s performance at Wednesday’s town hall left much to be desired. He admitted to planning a fundraiser with Andrew Goldman, a co-founder of the natural gas company Western LNG. While this doesn’t directly violate the agreement he made to not take money from the fossil fuel industry (the actual agreement was worded more specifically), it clearly contradicts the spirit of the agreement. Compare this to Sanders’ and Warren’s commitments to not only refuse money from the fossil fuel industry, but to raise money exclusively through small donations, and there is a clear disparity.
This is, however, only an anecdotal example of how Biden has failed to lead in climate advocacy. The League of Conservation voters scores candidates based upon their votes on climate-related legislation throughout the time they have been in office, as well as for their most recent term. Biden has a lifetime score of 83 percent, while Sanders and Warren have 92 percent and 99 percent, respectively. Notably, Sanders and Warren have both received a 100 percent for 2018, but Biden was not applicable because he was not in office. Greenpeace also rated Biden’s climate plan a 72/100 (6th place of all candidates), while Warren’s is 84/100 (second place) and Sanders’ is 87/100 (the highest of the candidates) .
The point of all of these ratings and percentages and fundraising issues is simple: Biden’s plan for climate action falls short. The United States has the responsibility to take big steps in reversing the effects of climate change after the 2020 election — and hopefully before — and I encourage everyone to keep this issue at the front of their minds as we go through another important election cycle.