Register for an account

X

Enter your name and email address below.

Your email address is used to log in and will not be shared or sold. Read our privacy policy.

X

Website access code

Enter your access code into the form field below.

If you are a Zinio, Nook, Kindle, Apple, or Google Play subscriber, you can enter your website access code to gain subscriber access. Your website access code is located in the upper right corner of the Table of Contents page of your digital edition.

Environment

With three presidential debates in the can, the loser is...

ImaGeoBy Tom YulsmanOctober 20, 2016 9:07 AM

Newsletter

Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news

Earth was hardly mentioned, and that means the loser is actually . . . us

epic_1b_20161017110609_01.png

NASA's EPIC camera aboard NOAA's DSCOVR spacecraft acquired this image of the home planet on Oct. 17, 2016 at 11:01:20 GMT. The spacecraft was 902,561 miles from Earth at the time. (Source: NASA EPIC Team) The pundits will no doubt be yammering on for days about who won and who lost the final U.S. presidential debate. But I'd say that we don't need the pundits to tell us who the overall loser was. I think it was humanity. During the debates, we heard a lot of shouting, but almost nothing about the most profound, long-term issue all of us confront: How 7 billion of us, probably growing to 9 billion in relatively short order, can live sustainably on the home planet. Perhaps I missed it, but during all three debates, not one of the journalist moderators asked a question related to this question. It took a citizen in a red sweater named Ken Bone to sort of bring up the issue. It wasn't exactly the sustainability question I had in mind. But at least it was in the ballpark. Maybe he should get a Pulitzer. Conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, should have a robust debate about the best policies for responding to the sustainability challenges humanity confronts. These include a warming climate, rising sea level, and increases in extreme weather events. They also include degradation of the ecosystems we depend on for clean air and water, healthy food, and materials to build our homes and economies. But we'll never discuss these issues and work towards solutions if during presidential debates they are deemed off-limits by the journalist moderators. Perhaps they were listening to polls that find environmental issues to be a low priority among voters. But how will these issues ever become a higher priority if we don't challenge politicians to address them? What a missed opportunity. What a deep and abiding shame.

    2 Free Articles Left

    Want it all? Get unlimited access when you subscribe.

    Subscribe

    Already a subscriber? Register or Log In

    Want unlimited access?

    Subscribe today and save 70%

    Subscribe

    Already a subscriber? Register or Log In