Hate Him or Love Him, Ken Bone May Have Asked The Most Important Question of the Debates

At this point, anyone with an internet connection has witnessed the phenomenon of Kenneth Bone, the red-sweater-wearing, mustachioed champion of the second Presidential Debate. His charming style led to an unprecedented amount of media attention, including a great number of memes honoring him. Shortly after, we all found out that our heroes are human after all. However, as much attention he received for his sweater/mustache combo and his questionable Reddit comments, the question he asked at the second debate deserves the real attention:

What steps will your energy policy take to meet our energy needs? While at the same time remaining environmentally friendly, and minimizing job loss for fossil power plant workers.

Throughout the debates and the entire election cycle, the media has focused most of its energy on immigration, terrorism, and emails. When looking at the big picture however, energy policy will be one of the defining issues of either candidate's presidency, and it has gone entirely overlooked so far this election season. Thank you, Ken Bone, for bringing some light to our energy future.

There is an overwhelming consensus that humans are a major contributor to climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels. The entire scientific community agrees that we need to act as quickly as possible to mitigate the widespread impacts of a warming climate.

While deniers paint it as a vague, distant threat, it is possible to not only see, but quantify the current impact it is having. The southeast US is still recovering from Hurricane Matthew, just one of many devastating hurricanes in recent years. The total value of the destruction from hurricanes in the 1970’s was roughly $6.6 billion. That value rose to $196.4 billion for the 2000’s, and we are on pace to match that number again this decade. Experts believe that a warming climate can cause our storms and hurricanes to become more and more intense.

Climate change can also act as a threat multiplier to existing issues. Increased frequency and intensities of droughts lead to food shortages and rising commodity prices, which some say may have exacerbated and accelerated the Arab Spring. While the region was already politically unstable, “the 2010 global food crisis helped drive it over the edge”. When even the Pentagon recognizes that climate change "poses immediate risks to U.S. national security", it might be time to pay attention.  

In addition to compromising environmental and political stability, fossil fuel extraction and use also directly impacts public health.  Every year, thousands of people die from coal mining. Another estimated 13,000 a year die due to toxic emissions from coal, such as mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. When taking into account mortality, hospital visits, asthma attacks, lost work days, and other side effects, "the total monetized value of adverse health impacts attributable to existing coal plants in the United States exceeds $100 billion per year". Natural gas and oil have their own issues, made evident through the widespread damage done to ecosystems and water supplies by fracking and oil spills.

But it is not all gloom and doom. When you consider the exponential drop of the cost of solar over the past decade as the industry has grown at an equally impressive rate, there is much to be optimistic about. Coal provides 33% of our electricity, while solar only provides 0.6%. However, it might surprise you to learn that the solar industry employs over 200,000 people, which is more than three times the number of coal workers in the US. The wind industry has seen a similar boom, representing over 40% of all new power plants in 2015. Energy efficiency is another massive employer, contributing an estimated 830,000 jobs in the US. A transition to clean energy will improve public health and the economy as much as it will improve the environment. It is a win-win for everyone...except for fossil fuel companies and the politicians they fund.

So, with the two major candidates, there are two roads we can go down. One candidate believes climate change is a Chinese hoax, wants to get rid of the EPA, and touts the virtues of "clean coal" (which have been resoundingly disproved). The other agrees that we need to act on climate change and will support clean power.

Some think this election will only matter for four years, but the impact of the next President’s energy policy will be seen for decades. We can continue on this path of advancing cheap clean renewable power while creating hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs, or we can go back to dirty power and ignore the most pressing issue of this century.