Night of the living dead

The climate isn't the only thing in crisis.

It was a rough night for Biden, who faced off with a lying Trump in the first presidential debate. Source: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

If preventing climate catastrophe depends on keeping Donald Trump out of the White House, the world may very well be fucked.

President Joe Biden’s performance in Thursday night’s presidential debate was deeply unsettling. It wasn’t that Trump himself did well; the former president spouted a veritable fountain of lies from abortion to inflation to his environmental record (more on that below). 

But while Trump spoke confidently and at least vaguely coherently, Biden displayed a shocking inability to do the same. The president was rambly, mumbly, and wide-eyed like a zombie deer in highlights. He may have spoken truthfully, but he was woefully unable to counter Trump’s lies in even the most minimally effective way. 

This is admittedly an unfair standard. Because Biden had a much more difficult job than Trump during the debate. Trump didn’t have to be careful to hit the right numbers; to include important context; or to communicate nuances. He was just spouting bullshit, which the moderators did not call him on. Biden, meanwhile, had to communicate his own points truthfully while countering Trump’s lies, all while being an 81-year-old with a speech impediment. I see this unfairness all the time in the climate change “debate.” Deniers and delay artists have it so easy. If I could simply make up stuff all day, I’d be great at sound bites too.

But unfair as it might be, it’s the reality of fighting disinformation. Climate experts know this well: If you want to beat a bullshit artist, you have to be better than them at communicating. If you’re not good at communicating, that’s OK—but don’t put yourself in a position where you’re debating them in a huge public forum. Because if you do, and you fail, you’ll ultimately harm your cause—and by extension, the planet. 

Biden harmed his cause very badly on Thursday. But hey: anything could happen before November.

Anyway, here are the climate highlights (or lowlights) of the debate:

• There was one climate question. Discussion lasted less than five minutes. One hour into the debate, CNN moderator Dana Bash noted that 2023 was the hottest year in recorded history. She then asked Trump: “Will you take any action as president to slow the climate crisis?”
  
  

• Trump completely dodged the question. Like he did all evening, the former president started talking about something totally unrelated: his efforts to win over Black and Hispanic voters. It went like this:

  Bash: You vowed to end your opponent’s climate initiative, but will you take any action as president to slow the climate crisis? 

  
  Trump: Let me just go back to what he said about the police.

  When Trump was finished, Bash repeated the question, with only 38 seconds left for Trump’s answer.
  
  

• Trump spent those 38 seconds making wildly false claims about his environmental record. Essentially, Trump said he had the Best Environment Ever. “​​I want absolutely immaculate, clean water. I want absolutely clean air. And we had it,” he said. “During my four years, I had the best environmental numbers ever.” This claim is not true. In fact, the Trump administration rolled back more than 100 environmental protections, including rules governing clean air and water. Under Trump, the Interior Department tried to open up more land for oil and gas projects by limiting wildlife protections. And just last month, Trump asked oil executives for $1 billion in campaign donations after promising he would repeal Biden’s climate policies. The idea that Trump had the best environmental policy is ludicrous.
  
  

• Biden defended his climate policy, but failed to make a strong case. Biden briefly alluded to the Inflation Reduction Act, calling it “the most extensive climate change legislation in history.” This is true, the IRA is the most significant climate legislation in U.S. history. But after that one mention, Biden got caught up in rebutting Trump’s accusations. It was a major missed opportunity for the president, who could have highlighted how the IRA invests billions of dollars in clean tech, renewable energy, environmental justice, and more. Instead, Biden unsuccessfully tried to go on the offensive by pointing out that Trump pulled the U.S. out of the 2015 Paris Agreement—which Biden rejoined when he took office. “The only existential threat to humanity is climate change,” said Biden. “And [Trump] didn’t do a damn thing about it. He wants to undo all that I have done.”
  
  

• Biden also missed an opportunity to mention Trump’s quid pro quo with Big Oil. The omission was particularly glaring, given Trump’s speech about how deeply and sincerely he wants the cleanest environment of all time. “Seems like you want $1 billion from the nation’s biggest polluters much more” would have been a dope rebuttal. But we didn’t get a lot of those.
  
  

• Trump lied about the cost of the Paris Agreement. In his rebuttal, Trump called the Paris Agreement “a ripoff”, saying it would have cost the U.S. “a trillion dollars, and China nothing, and India nothing.” If you had any doubts at this point, this is not true. Wealthy nations like the U.S. have committed to financially supporting developing countries threatened by climate change. But there is no set amount of aid, and the agreement is not enforced—though some experts argue that wealthy nations have a moral obligation to help poorer countries. Regardless of fact, Trump continued to claim the Paris Agreement was a waste of money. “It was a disaster,” he said, which is a lie, but one that could have truthfully summed up the whole evening.
  
  

• Trump used a question about the Jan. 6 riots to claim he made the U.S. energy independent. Instead of answering a question about whether he incited the Jan. 6 riots, Trump said that “On Jan 6th, we were energy independent.” This claim is not true, because the U.S. has never been completely independent of energy imports. Yet, both Biden and Trump have used “energy independence” as a talking point on the campaign trail, in the false equation that a secure America is one where we are self-reliant on fossil fuels. But as E&E News reporter Scott Waldman writes, “Reducing reliance on fossil fuels is a key, often overlooked, step toward energy independence.”
  

---

Catch of the day: Sweet Molly looks as concerned as we feel about how this disastrous debate went, but she thinks that a walk would do a lot to cheer us all up. 

Also cheering is reader Simon, who says that Amy Westervelt’s Drilled has inspired him to research and learn about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We love reporting that inspires our readers.

Want to see your furry (or non-furry!) friend in HEATED? It might take a little while, but we WILL get to yours eventually! Just send a picture and some words to catchoftheday@heated.world.