Among the most interesting moments of Tuesday night’s otherwise snoozy debate was this sentence, uttered by moderator Dana Bash: “We’ve been asking voters to weigh in on what they’d most like to hear Democrats debate. Among the topics they told us they’re most interested in: the climate crisis…”
Now that is interesting. Climate change was basically a non-issue in the 2016 general election debates, when it got less than six minutes of air time total. Tractor imports got more play than climate change, even though one of those issues is the greatest challenge facing humanity and the other is tractors.
But voters (at least, Democratic voters) do care about climate change, and so this time we’re talking about it.
As for what the candidates had to say about climate change, it was basically what you’d expect: the progressives endorsed the Green New Deal and the moderates did not; Bernie ranted about “taking on the fossil fuel industry” while offering no concrete way to do that; and Buttigieg said that none of it matters if Donald Trump is reelected (and while this is true, the 37-year-old mayor of Indiana’s fourth largest city is probably not going to be the one to prevent that from happening).
Spiritual healer and friend of Oprah Marianne Williamson—the candidate most likely to invite you to her book club and then try to sell you leggings—did not get a question about climate change. But she still managed to stand out by talking about environmental justice, a concept that, broadly, refers to the fact that minority communities are more likely to have pollution problems than white communities, and poor communities are more likely to have pollution problems than wealthy communities.
Williamson brought this up during a question about the ongoing water crisis in Flint, Michigan.
Here’s a transcript of what she said:
My response on the Flint water crisis is that Flint is just the tip of the iceberg. I was recently in Denmark, South Carolina where it is — there is a lot of talk about it being the next Flint.
We have an administration that has gutted the Clean Water Act. We have communities, particularly communities of color and disadvantaged communities all over this country who are suffering from environmental injustice.
I assure you, I lived Grosse Pointe—what happened in Flint would not have happened in Grosse Pointe. This is part of the dark underbelly of American society. The racism, the bigotry, and the entire conversation that we’re having here tonight—if you think any of this wonkiness is going to deal with this dark psychic force of the collectivized hatred that this president is bringing up in this country, then I’m afraid that the Democrats are going to see some very dark days.
We need to say it like it is, it’s bigger than Flint. It’s all over this country. It’s particularly people of color. It’s particularly people who do not have the money to fight back. And if the Democrats don’t start saying it, then why would those people feel that they’re there for us and if those people don’t feel it, they won’t vote for us, and Donald Trump will win.
Dark, but she’s got a point.
Environmental injustice should be a serious issue in any presidential debate. Communities with more people of color have greater exposure to air and water pollution. They are more likely to see industry and toxic waste sites built near their homes. They are more likely to have lead poisoning, and they are more like to be impacted by climate change as extreme weather events displace their communities and they have fewer resources to rebuild them. They’re more likely to become sick because of the environment that surrounds them.
Now, I don’t think Marianne Williamson is the most qualified candidate on that stage—in fact, I think she’s the least qualified—but when it comes to talking about environmental justice, the other candidates could benefit from taking a page from her book.
Just don’t ask her what causes AIDS.
