Climate change deadline is the wrong 2020 litmus test

Candidates for president can win the hearts and minds of voters with an economically and environmentally credible plan of bold climate actions.

Setting America’s climate policy on the right track is vital to protecting public health, our economy and the public safety of communities threatened by floods, droughts, fires, wind and hail.

{mosads}Instead, President Trump has turned a blind eye to how climate is eroding economic opportunity in America. Forty to 60 percent of small businesses never reopen their doors following natural disasters, which are becoming more frequent and destructive due to climate change.

Now that climate change has finally become a voting issue, the 2020 elections offer a critical window of opportunity to put climate at the head of the line for policy action.

However, some climate activists are diverting attention to a litmus test that unintentionally undercuts their message of urgency.

This was on display as Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke recently announced a substantive climate platform centered around a “Day One” executive agenda and a pledge to make a $1.5 trillion climate investment his first legislative priority.

Following Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s all-in commitment to make climate change the top priority of his campaign and Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) recent public lands climate plan, O’Rourke’s announcement should have been a momentum builder for climate activists.

Green New Deal leaders had a different take.

O’Rourke’s plan was not ambitious enough, the Sunrise Movement: “Beto gets the science wrong and walks back his commitment…to move to net-zero emissions by 2030.”

A 2030 deadline is the wrong climate litmus test for any presidential contender. Fixing dates in voters’ minds that are years away is a less powerful call to action than the urgent need to mobilize our economy and get started right away.

The Green New Deal’s 2030 test is also divisive with labor, a vital part of the climate movement. Labor wants to ensure workers in all industries and communities have economic security and jobs with good wages and benefits.

In this, labor is not only a key player in near-term elections, but also a guide to long-term success. Our capacity to achieve big emission reduction results over the next decade — and across election cycles — will be shaped by how well we deliver on the promised economic, social and environmental benefits of climate action.

A better, and more unifying, climate litmus test is to demand that candidates prioritize bold and credible climate actions at the top of their First 100 Days agenda.

If your house is burning, you turn immediately to firefighters, who drop everything to take action. They don’t debate whether the fire is real or not. Nor do they debate how quickly the last ember must be extinguished before they even turn on their hoses. They use the tools they have and get to work.

We need more climate firefighters among the 2020 Democratic field.

Alarmingly, many of the candidates are still bystanders. Some are ducking any credible specifics on their climate platform, according to a survey of candidates by the New York Times.

The Washington Post’s analysis of candidates’ social media posts reveals that climate change has been a “top three” topic for fewer than a quarter of the candidates.

This is especially concerning given the cautionary lessons of the time-limited pull that a new president has to affect big change in their first term. President Obama, who arguably worked harder than any other president to tackle climate change, signed the 2009 stimulus package three weeks after taking office. Four months later, Obama helped Nancy Pelosi pass a climate change bill through the House.

{mossecondads}Then things went bad. The moment was ripe to push forward in the Senate, but the White House decided instead that pursuing climate change legislation might imperil health care reform.  As health care languished in the Senate into 2010, the prospects for climate legislation dimmed. They died altogether when, after health care was won, Obama’s top political advisors again wanted the president to preserve his political capital for other matters.

The lesson is as applicable to executive actions as it is legislation. Political capital can be expended in either pursuit, but it draws from the same finite supply of political will and muscle.

Decades of far-reaching visions and good intentions without adequate near-term political commitment have landed us where we are today.

Jeremy Symons is a consultant at Symons Public Affairs and writer on climate change, energy policy and politics. He previously worked as senior director of climate policy at Environmental Defense Fund and as deputy staff director on the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee.