On November 01, Ethnic Media Services presented a briefing with influent people involved for action on climate. During this session speakers discussed how Presidential candidates have largely ignored Climate change on the campaign Trail and what’s at stake and how to mobilize communities to think about climate change.

As the 2024 U.S. presidential election concluded, one of the most consequential issues of our time—climate change—was largely missing from the campaign trail. While record-breaking wildfires, devastating hurricanes, and prolonged droughts wreaked havoc across the nation, these climate-related crises failed to occupy a central role in the presidential debates or candidates’ platforms. The urgency of the climate crisis was clear, yet the absence of robust discussion around it during this election cycle revealed a troubling disconnect between the political agenda and the lived realities of millions of Americans.

For the U.S., addressing climate change is not just a matter of environmental responsibility; it is a matter of national security, public health, economic stability, and social equity. Climate disasters cost the country over $100 billion in damage each year on average over the past decade, and the long-term impact on vulnerable communities continues to grow. Despite the staggering toll climate change took on American lives and resources, the major candidates largely skirted the topic, focusing instead on issues like immigration, the economy, and national security. The lack of substantial engagement on climate policy during the election cycle raised the question: why was climate change sidelined, and what does this mean for the nation’s future?

Sissy Trinh, Executive Director at Southeast Asian Community Alliance (SEACA) said: “We’re seeing tens of billions of dollars coming into our neighborhoods and climate investments in Los Angeles, California. That money comes with the opportunity for jobs and that money comes with the opportunity to support our local small businesses through local procurement policies”.

“We’re spending the money every time there’s a disaster and rebuilding must happen. Whether you believe it or not doesn’t matter because we’re spending billions and trillions of dollars to fix the hurricanes, to fix the wildfires, etc.

The High Stakes of Climate Change in the U.S.

Climate change was already impacting the United States in profound ways, affecting almost every region and sector of society. In the American West, persistent droughts and intense wildfires destroyed entire towns, impacted air quality, and disrupted agriculture. The Gulf Coast and Eastern Seaboard faced increasing threats from powerful hurricanes and rising sea levels that endangered coastal infrastructure and displaced communities. In the Midwest, rising temperatures and unpredictable rainfall patterns challenged farmers and food production systems, which had a ripple effect on food prices nationwide.

Beyond the immediate effects, climate change posed significant long-term risks. Unchecked global warming could lead to more frequent and severe climate events, threatening everything from public health to economic stability. According to the Fourth National Climate Assessment, the costs of climate inaction could reach hundreds of billions of dollars annually by the end of the century. Critical infrastructure, from power grids to highways and water systems, was vulnerable to climate-induced disruptions, and failing to address these risks could leave the U.S. more exposed to climate-related catastrophes.

Erik Bendix, an AmSAT-certified teacher of the Alexander Technique said: “A lot of people have moved to Asheville from California to get away from fire and a lot of people have moved from Florida to get away from hurricanes”.

Why Climate Change Was Largely Ignored in the 2024 Race

Despite the scientific consensus on the urgency of climate action, climate change has rarely been a central issue in U.S. presidential campaigns, and 2024 was no different. Analysts pointed to several reasons why candidates were reluctant to address climate change in depth.

First, the topic of climate change was polarizing, particularly in states with economies deeply tied to fossil fuels. Key battleground states like Pennsylvania and Texas had significant oil, coal, and natural gas industries that provided jobs and economic stability to local communities. Many candidates worried that ambitious climate policies, such as a rapid transition to renewable energy, could alienate these voters and cost them critical support.

Second, climate policy was complex, requiring nuanced and long-term solutions that did not fit neatly into soundbites. In a fast-paced campaign environment, candidates often focused on issues that could be more easily communicated to voters, such as tax cuts or immigration reform. Climate change, by contrast, demanded a multi-faceted approach involving transformation across entire sectors of the economy, which was difficult to explain on the campaign trail.

Moreover, while polling data indicated that a majority of Americans were concerned about climate change, it often ranked lower on voters’ list of priorities compared to issues like inflation, healthcare, and national security. For many voters, climate change felt abstract or distant, even as they experienced its effects in real time. The lack of urgency among the electorate allowed candidates to sidestep the issue without significant backlash.

How Presidential Candidates Could Have Addressed the Climate Crisis

If climate change had taken center stage in the 2024 presidential race, it could have transformed the conversation about the future of the United States. Numerous areas existed where candidates could have proposed bold, forward-thinking policies that addressed climate change while creating jobs, fostering innovation, and promoting justice.

• Transitioning to Renewable Energy: Shifting from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources would have been one of the most effective ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Presidential candidates could have committed to expanding solar, wind, and other clean energy sources, creating jobs and reducing the country’s reliance on fossil fuels. Setting ambitious targets, like reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, would have aligned the U.S. with global climate commitments.
• Revitalizing Infrastructure: Climate resilience required a robust, adaptive infrastructure. Candidates could have proposed investments in modernizing infrastructure—such as electric grids, water systems, and public transportation networks—to withstand climate impacts. Investing in “green” infrastructure could also have stimulated economic growth and created jobs across a range of sectors.
• Implementing Carbon Pricing: A carbon tax or cap-and-trade system could have incentivized industries to reduce emissions by attaching a cost to carbon pollution. Several states, including California, had already implemented cap-and-trade programs with success. A national carbon pricing mechanism could have generated significant revenue to reinvest in clean energy projects or offset costs for low-income households.
• Supporting Vulnerable Communities: Climate justice policies could have prioritized support for communities most impacted by climate change. Candidates could have proposed funding to improve climate resilience in low-income neighborhoods, invest in health services for communities affected by pollution, and promote green job training programs to ensure a just transition for workers.
• Strengthening Environmental Regulations: The federal government had the power to set stringent emissions standards for vehicles, industry, and power plants. Candidates could have committed to enforcing and expanding these standards, reversing rollbacks from recent years, and mandating stronger pollution controls to improve air and water quality.

Bill McKibben, Founder of Third Act, which organizes people over the age of 60 for action on climate and justice and one of the US’s pre-eminent environmentalists said: “In many ways, this is the last elections that deeply and powerfully counts for how hot the planet ends up being. One of the candidates in that election, Donald Trump, has announced that beginning day one, he will drill and among other things, he will stop climate change like Wind”.

The Consequences of Ignoring Climate Change

If presidential candidates continued to sideline climate change, the costs for Americans would only escalate. Natural disasters would become more severe and frequent, pushing disaster response systems and insurance frameworks to their limits. Rising sea levels could devastate coastal cities, potentially displacing millions of people and leading to an unprecedented crisis of internal climate refugees.

Economically, the impact of inaction would be staggering. According to recent studies, the cumulative costs of climate-related damages could reduce U.S. GDP by as much as 10% by 2100 if temperatures continued to rise at the current rate. This could lead to job losses, increased inequality, and higher health care costs due to climate-related illnesses.

Looking Ahead: The Demand for Climate Leadership

Voters, particularly young people, increasingly demanded climate action from their leaders. A Pew Research study found that 74% of Americans aged 18-29 viewed climate change as a top issue, underscoring a generational divide that candidates could not ignore indefinitely. For many, the climate crisis was not just an environmental issue but a fundamental concern about the kind of world they would inherit.

The 2024 presidential race presented an opportunity to reshape the national conversation on climate change and prioritize it alongside traditional campaign issues. The climate crisis requires visionary leadership that goes beyond incremental policies and embraces transformative change. With the clock ticking, the stakes could not be higher.