Climate Conversation Not Fully Folded into the 2024 General Presidential Election

By Jade Somoza-Norton

The climate crisis is not just a latent threat but an imminent reality that demands decisive action within the next two years, or less, as of 2024. Nevertheless, in the tragedy of political discourse, climate change is often relegated to the periphery, surfacing more as a bargaining tool for electoral advantage than as a central concern in recent political elections. In the United States, where political polarization runs deep, climate action narratives are steeped in partisanship, with Democrats and Republicans each presenting their own environmental pledges or, sometimes, a notable lack thereof. Even within the Democratic Party—often hailed as the champion of proactive climate policy—a troubling trend of co-opting climate initiatives for voter mobilization persists, rather than genuinely holding the U.S. accountable for sustainable progress.

In recent years, climate issues in political campaigns have gained traction. No longer a sideline issue, climate justice has become a decisive factor capable of influencing voter behavior and potentially swinging states in the presidential election slated for November 2024 [1]. My contention is not with the growing recognition of climate justice in electoral politics, but with the Democratic Party’s performative actions. It appears they have co-opted climate initiatives to secure votes over their Republican counterparts, especially in President Biden’s term, which leans toward virtue signaling. While Biden’s recent climate-related actions may appear impactful on the surface, they lack the depth and genuine commitment necessary to address the climate crisis in a meaningful way.

To illustrate Biden’s term, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act laid a foundation for climate-resilient infrastructure, with a $1.2 trillion budget [2]. This Act allocated funds to state, tribal, and local governments for emission reduction and strengthened transportation infrastructure [3]. The administration also pushed agencies to encourage employment in environmental sectors [4]. Under this framework, the Forest Service will allocate more than $100 million toward reforestation efforts to combat climate change and fortify American forests [5]. However, Biden’s administration contradicts its own climate stance by spending vast sums on the military, with social spending amounting to just 30% of the military budget, which reached $2.4 trillion in 2023 [2]. The U.S. now accounts for 40% of global military spending. Such actions are performative, as they stand in contrast to the U.S.’s stated environmental goals and fail to prioritize social and environmental prosperity.

Achieving a sustainable and equitable future requires prioritizing environmental initiatives and social welfare, creating outcomes that are not only environmentally sound but also socially just. Biden’s administration has neglected a comprehensive approach to sustainability, disregarding key components such as poverty reduction, food security, educational investment, life quality on land and below water, and affordable, clean energy access at all levels [6]. This potential is eroded by a military budget that dwarfs social spending. Consequently, the U.S. is far from leading the global race toward sustainability. While Biden presents himself as environmentally conscious, his administration’s actions fail to foster a sustainable future for constituents.

Has the Democratic Party truly addressed the climate crisis’s urgency, or are their efforts merely symbolic gestures aimed at votes? This question lies at the heart of the current dissonance. While Democratic candidates like Biden propose budgets and initiatives to combat climate change, a disconnect remains between the party’s purported values and its actions. This disparity raises doubts about their commitment to environmental and social justice. The pursuit of sustainability and environmental welfare cannot ignore systemic barriers such as militarism, capitalism, and institutionalized inequities. Neglecting these interconnected issues undermines climate initiatives, perpetuating the systems responsible for environmental degradation. A meaningful commitment to climate justice requires tackling root issues, including poverty, food access, quality education, gender equality, clean water, sanitation, and clean energy [6]. Moreover, militarism must be recognized as a significant barrier to sustainability rather than just a peripheral concern.

Addressing the climate crisis requires recognizing the interconnectedness of societal and global systems, rooting actions in core climate justice and sustainability principles. This recognition necessitates moving away from the current two-party political system. The dominance of this system stifles genuine debate and progress, limiting room for alternative perspectives. Increasing civic engagement and easing third-party candidate restrictions are essential steps toward escaping this binary framework [7]. By opening political discourse to diverse voices, we can challenge the status quo and push for meaningful, substantive change. This shift demands collective action and movement. Your voice, your engagement, and your vote are integral to this process. While change may not happen immediately, it is our best chance for achieving climate initiatives that rise above the superficial battles of current politics.

In conclusion, the urgency of the climate crisis demands bold and decisive action, which remains elusive within America’s bipartisan structure. The Democratic Party’s tendency to co-opt climate justice for electoral gain reflects a broader trend of superficial engagement with environmental issues. To genuinely address the climate crisis, we must transcend partisan limitations and embrace a more inclusive, holistic approach to governance. Increasing civic participation and dismantling third-party barriers are crucial steps toward this vision. Although it may not yield the ideal candidate, it brings us closer to electing representatives who can genuinely drive change on a platform unconstrained by partisan interests. Only by moving beyond the confines of partisan politics can we hope to build a sustainable and livable future for all.

Work Cited