I don’t expect anyone to be shocked that the Green Party is writing an editorial on climate change. I feel this presidential campaign calls for a discussion on the topic more than ever. Throughout this year’s three presidential debates, not one question was asked about climate change or the environment with only passing references made by the candidates.

In spite of this, polls show the environment is more important to voters than either abortion or the national debt, both of which received entire segments in the third debate. Clearly, the debate moderators dropped the ball.

I can see how this might have happened. The moderators can justify the lack of attention given to climate change with the assumption that Americans already understand where the two major parties stand on the issue. Most voters would tell you that Democrats are pro-environment and Republicans – as a result of their pro-business platform – do not support environmentally friendly regulations. But this assumption leaves out one important detail: Donald Trump’s views on climate change are well outside the norms of mainstream Republicans, as well as mainstream Americans.

The standard Republican line on climate change is understandable, even if I disagree with it. Most Republican candidates and elected officials believe that evidence of climate change is inconclusive, and therefore the government should not unnecessarily burden businesses by imposing environmental regulations on them. This way of thinking is based on a factual inaccuracy – the scientific consensus is that climate change is a real, present threat – but I can understand how a politician, with sufficient encouragement from business interests, could arrive at this point of view. Despite this, Donald Trump’s position is strikingly different.

In a 2012 tweet, Trump wrote, “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” His assertion that the Chinese have coerced the scientific community into fabricating evidence for climate change fits well within his campaign’s conspiratorial bent. He has also claimed that Ted Cruz is a Canadian citizen whose father assassinated John F. Kennedy, Hillary Clinton has a history of murdering staffers who know too much, the Clinton campaign has been intentionally starting riots at his rallies and that election boards have been encouraging voter fraud to rig the results of the general election.

There is no evidence to support any of these claims. On the question of climate change, Mr. Trump has offered no explanation as to why China would sign on to the Paris Agreement, which requires countries to limit their greenhouse gas emissions, if climate change was just a myth that their government created in order to gain a competitive edge against the U.S. In fact, the agreement requires China to bear more of the responsibility for reducing emissions than any other country in the world, including the U.S.

However, this shouldn’t be taken as an endorsement of the Democratic Party or Hillary Clinton. Although the Democratic Party has taken important steps like acknowledging the reality of climate change, it has consistently pursued policies that strike voters as too little, too late.

While Hillary Clinton can score points in debates by pointing to Donald Trump’s moronic statements about the environment, she has made no effort to champion the difficult, unpopular policies that could have a substantial impact on the environment.

The Democratic Party has positioned itself as nothing more than the lesser of two evils. It uses environmentalism as a way to differentiate itself from Republicans, despite being unwilling to take the steps necessary to actually address climate change.

Alex Hayes is the Vice President of the Hofstra Green Party

The views and opinions expressed in the Op-Ed section are those of the authors of the articles. They are not an endorsement of the views of

The Chronicle or its staff. The Chronicle does not discriminate based on the opinions of the authors.