2016 presidential candidates on climate change

2016 Presidential Election
Date: November 8, 2016

Candidates
Winner: Donald Trump (R)
Hillary Clinton (D) • Jill Stein (G) • Gary Johnson (L) • Vice presidential candidates

Election coverage
Important dates • Nominating process • Ballotpedia's 2016 Battleground Poll • Polls • Debates • Presidential election by state • Ratings and scorecards

Ballotpedia's presidential election coverage
2028 • 2024 • 2020 • 2016

Join the hundreds of thousands of readers trusting Ballotpedia to keep them up to date with the latest political news. Sign up for the Daily Brew.
Click here to learn more.

See below what the 2016 candidates and their respective party platforms said about climate change.

OVERVIEW OF CANDIDATE POSITIONS
Hillary Clinton expressed support for the Paris Agreement to combat climate change. She also pledged to power at least half of the nation's energy needs with renewable sources by 2030.
Donald Trump supported rescinding President Obama's 2013 Climate Action Plan and canceling the Paris Climate Agreement. Trump repeatedly claimed that global warming was a “hoax.”
Jill Stein described climate change as an "all-out climate emergency."
Gary Johnson said he believed that humans were the cause of climate change, but nonetheless opposed caps on carbon emissions.

Democratic ticket

Hillary Clinton

Politico reported on August 11, 2016, that Hillary Clinton had assembled an advisory team on climate change of more than 100 experts, including former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Carol Browner, former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D), and many former Obama administration officials.^[1]

According to The Hill, “Clinton is open to working with lawmakers on a tax on carbon dioxide emissions if Congress wants it.” On July 26, 2016, Clinton’s energy advisor Trevor Houser said, “Democrats believe that climate change is too important to wait for climate deniers in Congress to start listening to science. And while it’s always important to remain open to a conversation about how to address this issue with Congress, we need a plan that we can implement day one, because it’s too important to wait, and we need to focus on those things as well.”^[2]

Clinton, on January 18, 2016, signed a pledge to power at least half of the nation's energy needs with renewable sources by 2030. The pledge was devised by NextGen Climate, a San Francisco-based environmental advocacy organization that was founded by philanthropist, environmental activist, and Democratic donor Tom Steyer in 2013. The group is affiliated with NextGen Climate Action, a super PAC.^[3]

In response to the Paris Agreement adopted on December 12, 2015, Clinton released the following statement, in part: “I applaud President Obama, Secretary Kerry and our negotiating team for helping deliver a new, ambitious international climate agreement in Paris. This is an historic step forward in meeting one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century—the global crisis of climate change. … We cannot afford to be slowed by the climate skeptics or deterred by the defeatists who doubt America’s ability to meet this challenge.”^[4]

Clinton’s campaign announced on November 11, 2015, a $30 billion plan to benefit coal communities as the nation’s electric grid shifts to cleaner energy sources, Time reported. Clinton’s plan would invest in building roads, bridges, water systems, and airports in Appalachia and other coal areas, expand broadband access, and increase public investment in research and development. She would expand a “major public works project,” according to a campaign white paper, aimed at producing clean energy through hydro power on federal lands. As president, Clinton would also find ways to replace local revenue for public schools lost when coal production facilities disappear, ensuring that workers at bankrupt coal companies keep their benefits. She would also award grants for efficient housing upgrades and community health centers in coal communities.^[5]

Clinton announced her climate change policy on July 26, 2015. She focused on two national goals: installing more than 500 million solar panels across the country by the end of her first term and generating enough renewable energy to power every home in 10 years. In a video released by her campaign promoting her plan, Clinton attacked Republican presidential candidates who “still refuse to accept the settled science of climate change. Who would rather remind us they’re not scientists than listen to those who are.”^[6]^[7]
- After Clinton unveiled part of her climate change policy, she received backlash for using a private jet. On July 28, 2015, an aide to Clinton announced that her campaign would be carbon neutral. "We'll be offsetting the carbon footprint of the campaign and that includes travel," the aide said. Clinton previously pledged to run a carbon neutral campaign in 2008.^[8]

In December 2014, Clinton said, “The science of climate change is unforgiving, no matter what the deniers may say, sea levels are rising, ice caps are melting, storms, droughts and wildfires are wreaking havoc.”^[9]

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Clinton expressed her support for cap and trade.^[10]
Read more of Hillary Clinton's public statements on energy and environmental policy.

The 2016 Democratic Party Platform on climate change

“

Combat Climate Change, Build a Clean Energy Economy, and Secure Environmental Justice

Climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time. Fifteen of the 16 hottest years on record have occurred this century. While Donald Trump has called climate change a “hoax,” 2016 is on track to break global temperature records once more. Cities from Miami to Baltimore are already threatened by rising seas. California and the West have suffered years of brutal drought. Alaska has been scorched by wildfire. New York has been battered by superstorms, and Texas swamped by flash floods. The best science tells us that without ambitious, immediate action across our economy to cut carbon pollution and other greenhouse gases, all of these impacts will be far worse in the future. We cannot leave our children a planet that has been profoundly damaged.

Democrats share a deep commitment to tackling the climate challenge; creating millions of good-paying middle class jobs; reducing greenhouse gas emissions more than 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050; and meeting the pledge President Obama put forward in the landmark Paris Agreement, which aims to keep global temperature increases to “well below” two degrees Celsius and to pursue efforts to limit global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius. We believe America must be running entirely on clean energy by mid-century. We will take bold steps to slash carbon pollution and protect clean air at home, lead the fight against climate change around the world, ensure no Americans are left out or left behind as we accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy, and be responsible stewards of our natural resources and our public lands and waters. Democrats reject the notion that we have to choose between protecting our planet and creating good-paying jobs. We can and we will do both.

Building a Clean Energy Economy

We are committed to getting 50 percent of our electricity from clean energy sources within a decade, with half a billion solar panels installed within four years and enough renewable energy to power every home in the country. We will cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals, and offices through energy efficient improvements; modernize our electric grid; and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world. These efforts will create millions of new jobs and save families and businesses money on their monthly energy bills. We will transform American transportation by reducing oil consumption through cleaner fuels, vehicle electrification increasing the fuel efficiency of cars, boilers, ships, and trucks. We will make new investments in public transportation and build bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure across our urban and suburban areas. Democrats believe the tax code must reflect our commitment to a clean energy future by eliminating special tax breaks and subsidies for fossil fuel companies as well as defending and extending tax incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy.

Democrats believe that carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases should be priced to reflect their negative externalities, and to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy and help meet our climate goals. Democrats believe that climate change is too important to wait for climate deniers and defeatists in Congress to start listening to science, and support using every tool available to reduce emissions now. Democrats are committed to defending, implementing, and extending smart pollution and efficiency standards, including the Clean Power Plan, fuel economy standards for automobiles and heavy-duty vehicles, building codes and appliance standards. We are also committed to expanding clean energy research and development.

Democrats recognize the importance of climate leadership at the local level and know that achieving our national clean energy goals requires an active partnership with states, cities, and rural communities where so much of our country’s energy policy is made. We will ensure that those taking the lead on clean energy and energy efficiency have the tools and resources they need to succeed. The federal government should lead by example, which is why we support taking steps to power the government with 100 percent clean electricity. Democrats are committed to closing the Halliburton loophole that stripped the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of its ability to regulate hydraulic fracturing, and ensuring tough safeguards are in place, including Safe Drinking Water Act provisions, to protect local water supplies. We believe hydraulic fracturing should not take place where states and local communities oppose it. We will reduce methane emissions from all oil and gas production and transportation by at least 40 to 45 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 through common-sense standards for both new and existing sources and by repairing and replacing thousands of miles of leaky pipes. This will both protect our climate and create thousands of good-paying jobs. We will work to expand access to cost-saving renewable energy by low-income households, create good-paying jobs in communities that have struggled with energy poverty, and oppose efforts by utilities to limit consumer choice or slow clean energy deployment. We will streamline federal permitting to accelerate the construction of new transmission lines to get low-cost renewable energy to market, and incentivize wind, solar, and other renewable energy over the development of new natural gas power plants.

We support President Obama's decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline. As we continue working to reduce carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gas emissions, we must ensure federal actions do not “significantly exacerbate” global warming. We support a comprehensive approach that ensures all federal decisions going forward contribute to solving, not significantly exacerbating, climate change.

Democrats believe that our commitment to meeting the climate challenge must also be reflected in the infrastructure investments we make. We need to make our existing infrastructure safer and cleaner and build the new infrastructure necessary to power our clean energy future. To create good-paying middle class jobs that cannot be outsourced, Democrats support high labor standards in clean energy infrastructure and the right to form or join a union, whether in renewable power or advanced vehicle manufacturing. During the clean energy transition, we will ensure landowners, communities of color, and tribal nations are at the table.

Securing Environmental and Climate Justice

Democrats believe clean air and clean water are basic rights of all Americans. Yet as we saw in Flint, Michigan, low-income communities and communities of color are disproportionately home to environmental justice “hot spots,” where air pollution, water pollution, and toxic hazards like lead increase health and economic hardship. The impacts of climate change will also disproportionately affect low-income and minority communities, tribal nations, and Alaska Native villages—all of which suffer the worst losses during extreme weather and have the fewest resources to prepare. Simply put, this is environmental racism.

Democrats believe we must make it a national priority to eradicate lead poisoning, which disproportionately impacts low-income children and children of color and can lead to lifelong health and educational challenges. We will prioritize hiring and training workers from affected communities to clean up toxic brownfields and expand clean energy, energy efficiency, and resilient infrastructure.

The fight against climate change must not leave any community out or behind—including the coal communities who kept America’s lights on for generations. Democrats will fight to make sure these workers and their families get the benefits they have earned and the respect they deserve, and we will make new investments in energy-producing communities to help create jobs and build a brighter and more resilient economic future. We will also oppose threats to the public health of these communities from harmful and dangerous extraction practices, like mountaintop removal mining operations.

All corporations owe it to their shareholders to fully analyze and disclose the risks they face, including climate risk. Those who fail to do so should be held accountable. Democrats also respectfully request the Department of Justice to investigate allegations of corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies accused of misleading shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change.

Protecting Our Public Lands and Waters

Democrats believe in the conservation and collaborative stewardship of our shared natural heritage: the public lands and waterways, the oceans, Everglades, Great Lakes, the Arctic, and all that makes America’s great outdoors priceless. As a nation, we need policies and investments that will keep America’s public lands public, strengthen protections for our natural and cultural resources, increase access to parks and public lands for all Americans, protect native species and wildlife, and harness the immense economic and social potential of our public lands and waters. Democrats will work to establish an American Parks Trust Fund to help expand local, state, and national recreational opportunities, rehabilitate existing parks, and enhance America's great outdoors—from our forests and coasts to neighborhood parks—so “America’s Best Idea” is held in trust for future generations, and all Americans can access and enjoy natural spaces. Democrats are committed to doubling the size of the outdoor economy, creating nearly hundreds of billions of dollars in new economic activity and millions of new jobs.

Democrats will approach conservation of our public lands and waters in a way that reflects the diversity of our country, by actively engaging all Americans in the great outdoors and protecting natural landscapes and cultural sites that tell the story of America's complex history. To help meet these goals, we will work to build a diverse workforce in agencies that manage America's public lands, waters, and cultural sites.

We oppose drilling in the Arctic and off the Atlantic coast, and believe we need to reform fossil fuel leasing on public lands. We will phase down extraction of fossil fuels from our public lands, starting with the most polluting sources, while making our public lands and waters engines of the clean energy economy and creating jobs across the country. Democrats will work to expand the amount of renewable energy production on federal lands and waters, from wind in Wyoming to solar in Nevada.

Democrats oppose efforts to undermine the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act to protect threatened and endangered species.

Because the Bristol Bay drainages of Alaska produce the world’s largest salmon fisheries, we support efforts by the EPA under the Clean Water Act to establish proactively science-based restrictions on discharges of dredged or fill material associated with a potential Pebble mine and urge that such restrictions must apply to potential mines at other metallic sulfide deposits in those drainages.

Agricultural lands account for nearly half of the total land area in America and our agricultural practices have a significant impact on our water, land, oceans, and the climate. Therefore, we believe that in order to be effective in keeping our air and water clean and combating climate change, we must enlist farmers as partners in promoting conservation and stewardship.^[11]

”

—2016 Democratic Party Platform^[12]

Tim Kaine

After Hillary Clinton announced that Tim Kaine would be her running mate in July 2016, Trip Pollard, a Richmond-based lawyer with the Southern Environmental Law Center, told Scientific American, "In terms of the broader environmental track record, both as governor and senator, I do think 'moderate' is an accurate label." Pollard also said, "[F]or a Southern Democrat in a state where most lawmakers still won't utter the words 'climate change,' Kaine could be considered moderate to progressive."^[13]
In his 2013 op-ed, Kaine also backed a phased approach to reducing carbon emissions without fully abandoning carbon-based energy. While governor of Virginia, he supported building a modern coal plant over converting a pre-Clean Air Act coal plant to natural gas. Kaine supported offshore drilling and energy production in the Atlantic and increasing natural gas production by using new hydro-fracturing techniques.^[14]
Read more of Tim Kaine's public statements on 2016 campaign issues.

Republican ticket

Donald Trump

The Trump campaign released a statement on the Paris Climate Accord after it was announced on October 5, 2016, that the international climate change deal would go into effect on November 4, 2016. The Trump campaign called it a “bad deal” that would “impose enormous costs on American households through higher electricity prices and higher taxes.” The statement went on to say, "As our nation considers these issues, Mr. Trump and Gov. Pence appreciate that many scientists are concerned about greenhouse gas emissions. We need America's scientists to continue studying the scientific issues but without political agendas getting in the way. We also need to be vigilant to defend the interests of the American people in any efforts taken on this front."^[15]

Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, said on September 27, 2016, that Trump believes “global warming is naturally occurring” and humans are not the cause.^[16]

Responding to a questionnaire published in Scientific American on September 13, 2016, Trump said, “There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of 'climate change.' Perhaps the best use of our limited financial resources should be in dealing with making sure that every person in the world has clean water. Perhaps we should focus on eliminating lingering diseases around the world like malaria. Perhaps we should focus on efforts to increase food production to keep pace with an ever-growing world population. Perhaps we should be focused on developing energy sources and power production that alleviates the need for dependence on fossil fuels. We must decide on how best to proceed so that we can make lives better, safer and more prosperous.”^[17]

Trump delivered a speech on energy production at an oil and natural gas conference in North Dakota on May 26, 2016. Through the use of untapped domestic oil and gas reserves, Trump said that he would make the U.S. independent from foreign oil providers. If elected, he also pledged to take the following actions in his first 100 days in office: rescind the Climate Action Plan and Waters of the U.S. rule, support the renewal of the Keystone XL Pipeline project, cancel the Paris Climate Agreement, and reform the regulatory environment. The merit of future regulations, Trump said, would be determined by asking, “Is this regulation good for the American worker?”^[18]^[19]^[20]

Politico reported on May 23, 2016, that Trump filed an application to construct a sea wall to protect one of his golf course properties in Ireland from “global warming and its effects.” Trump previously called climate change “a total hoax.”^[21]
Read more of Donald Trump's public statements on energy and environmental policy.

The 2016 Republican Party Platform on climate change

“

America’s Natural Resources: Energy and the Environment

We are the party of America’s growers, producers, farmers, ranchers, foresters, miners, commercial fishermen, and all those who bring from the earth the crops, minerals, energy, and the bounties of our seas that are the lifeblood of our economy. Their labor and ingenuity, their determination in bad times and love of the land at all times, powers our economy, creates millions of jobs, and feeds billions of people around the world. Only a few years ago, a bipartisan consensus in government valued the role of extractive industries and rewarded their enterprise by minimizing its interference with their work. That has radically changed. We look in vain within the Democratic Party for leaders who will speak for the people of agriculture, energy and mineral production.

...

A New Era in Energy
Our country has greater energy resources than any other place on earth. Our engineers and miners, the men and women whose labor taps the forces of nature, are the best in the world. Together, the people of America’s energy sector provide us with power that is clean, affordable, secure, and abundant. Their work can guarantee the nation’s energy security for centuries to come if, instead of erecting roadblocks, government facilitates the creation of an all-of-the-above energy strategy.

We applaud congressional Republicans for doing just that through far-sighted legislation. Both Houses have passed bills that will modernize pipelines and the electric grid, protect the grid from disruption, expedite energy exports, and lower energy costs. A Republican administration will build on those policies to find new ways to store electricity, a breakthrough of extraordinary import. Planning for our energy future requires us to first determine what resources we have in reserve. Thirty years ago, the world’s estimated reserves of oil were 645 billion barrels. Today, that figure is 1.65 trillion barrels. The more we know what we will have in the future, the better we can decide how to use it. That is why we support the opening of public lands and the outer continental shelf to exploration and responsible production, even if these resources will not be immediately developed. Because we believe states can best promote economic growth while protecting the environment, Congress should give authority to state regulators to manage energy resources on federally controlled public lands within their respective borders.

The Democratic Party’s energy policy can be summed up in a slogan currently popular among its activists: “keep it in the ground.” Keeping energy in the earth will keep jobs out of reach of those who need them most. For low-income Americans, expensive energy means colder homes in the winter and hotter homes in the summer, less mobility in employment, and higher food prices. The current Administration, and particularly its EPA, seems not to care. Its Clean Power Plan — the centerpiece of the President’s war on coal — has been stayed by the Supreme Court. We will do away with it altogether. The Democratic Party does not understand that coal is an abundant, clean, affordable, reliable domestic energy resource. Those who mine it and their families should be protected from the Democratic Party’s radical anticoal agenda.

The Democratic Party’s campaign to smother the U.S. energy industry takes many forms, but the permitting process may be its most damaging weapon. It takes an average of 30 days for states to permit an oil or gas well. It takes the federal government longer than seven months. Three decades ago, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) leased 12.2 million acres. In 2014, it leased only one-tenth of that number. Our nuclear industry, cleanly generating almost 20 percent of our electricity from its 99 plants, has a remarkable safety record, but only a handful of plants have been permitted in over three decades. Permitting for a safe, non-polluting hydroelectric facility, even one that is being relicensed, can take many years because of the current President’s hostility to dams. The Keystone Pipeline has become a symbol of everything wrong with the current Administration’s ideological approach. After years of delay, the President killed it to satisfy environmental extremists. We intend to finish that pipeline and others as part of our commitment to North American energy security.

Government should not play favorites among energy producers. The taxpayers will not soon forget the current Administration’s subsidies to companies that went bankrupt without producing a kilowatt of energy. The same Administration now requires the Department of Defense, operating with slashed budgets during a time of expanding conflict, to use its scarce resources to generate 25 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2025. Climate change is far from this nation’s most pressing national security issue. This is the triumph of extremism over common sense, and Congress must stop it.

We support the development of all forms of energy that are marketable in a free economy without subsidies, including coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear power, and hydropower. A federal judge has struck down the BLM’s rule on hydraulic fracturing and we support upholding this decision. We respect the states’ proven ability to regulate the use of hydraulic fracturing, methane emissions, and horizontal drilling, and we will end the Administration’s disregard of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act with respect to the long-term storage of nuclear waste.

We encourage the cost-effective development of renewable energy sources — wind, solar, biomass, biofuel, geothermal, and tidal energy — by private capital. The United States is overwhelmingly dependent on China and other nations for rare earth and other hardrock minerals. These minerals are critical to advanced technology, renewable energy, and defense manufacturing. We support expediting the permitting process for mineral production on public lands. We support lifting restrictions to allow responsible development of nuclear energy, including research into alternative processes like thorium nuclear energy. We oppose any carbon tax. It would increase energy prices across the board, hitting hardest at the families who are already struggling to pay their bills in the Democrats’ no-growth economy. We urge the private sector to focus its resources on the development of carbon capture and sequestration technology still in its early stages here and overseas. American energy producers should be free to export their product to foreign markets. This is particularly important because of international demand for liquefied natural gas, and we must expedite the energy export terminals currently blocked by the Administration. Energy exports will create high paying jobs throughout the United States, reduce our nation’s trade deficit, grow our economy, and boost the energy security of our allies and trading partners.

We remain committed to aggressively expanding trade opportunities and opening new markets for American energy through multilateral and bilateral agreements, whether current, pending, or negotiated in the future. Energy is both an economic and national security issue. We support the enactment of policies to increase domestic energy production, including production on public lands, to counter market manipulation by OPEC and other nationally-owned oil companies. This will reduce America’s vulnerability to energy price volatility.

Environmental Progress
Conservation is inherent in conservatism. As the pioneer of environmentalism a century ago, the Republican Party reaffirms the moral obligation to be good stewards of the God-given natural beauty and resources of our country. We believe that people are the most valuable resources and that human health and safety are the proper measurements of a policy’s success. We assert that private ownership has been the best guarantee of conscientious stewardship, while some of the worst instances of degradation have occurred under government control. Poverty, not wealth, is the gravest threat to the environment, while steady economic growth brings the technological advances which make environmental progress possible.

The environment is too important to be left to radical environmentalists. They are using yesterday’s tools to control a future they do not comprehend. The environmental establishment has become a self-serving elite, stuck in the mindset of the 1970s, subordinating the public’s consensus to the goals of the Democratic Party. Their approach is based on shoddy science, scare tactics, and centralized command-and-control regulation. Over the last eight years, the Administration has triggered an avalanche of regulation that wreaks havoc across our economy and yields minimal environmental benefits.

The central fact of any sensible environmental policy is that, year by year, the environment is improving. Our air and waterways are much healthier than they were a few decades ago. As a nation, we have drastically reduced pollution, mainstreamed recycling, educated the public, and avoided ecological degradation. Even if no additional controls are added, air pollution will continue to decline for the next several decades due to technological turnover of aging equipment. These successes become a challenge for Democratic Party environmental extremists, who must reach farther and demand more to sustain the illusion of an environmental crisis. That is why they routinely ignore costs, exaggerate benefits, and advocate the breaching of constitutional boundaries by federal agencies to impose environmental regulation. At the same time, the environmental establishment looks the other way when environmental degradation is caused by the EPA and other federal agencies as was the case during the Animas River spill. Our agenda is high on job creation, expanding opportunity and providing a better chance at life for everyone willing to work for it. Our modern approach to environmentalism is directed to that end, and it starts with dramatic change in official Washington. We propose to shift responsibility for environmental regulation from the federal bureaucracy to the states and to transform the EPA into an independent bipartisan commission, similar to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with structural safeguards against politicized science. We will strictly limit congressional delegation of rule-making authority, and require that citizens be compensated for regulatory takings.

We will put an end to the legal practice known as “sue and settle,” in which environmental groups sue federal agencies whose officials are complicit in the litigation so that, with the taxpayers excluded, both parties can reach agreement behind closed doors. That deceit betrays the public’s trust; it will no longer be tolerated. We will also reform the Equal Access to Justice Act to cap and disclose payments made to environmental activists and return the Act to its original intent.

We will enforce the original intent of the Clean Water Act, not it’s distortion by EPA regulations. We will likewise forbid the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide, something never envisioned when Congress passed the Clean Air Act. We will restore to Congress the authority to set the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and modernize the permitting process under the National Environmental Policy Act so it can no longer invite frivolous lawsuits, thwart sorely needed projects, kill jobs, and strangle growth.

The federal government owns or controls over 640 million acres of land in the United States, most of which is in the West. These are public lands, and the public should have access to them for appropriate activities like hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. Federal ownership or management of land also places an economic burden on counties and local communities in terms of lost revenue to pay for things such as schools, police, and emergency services. It is absurd to think that all that acreage must remain under the absentee ownership or management of official Washington. Congress shall immediately pass universal legislation providing for a timely and orderly mechanism requiring the federal government to convey certain federally controlled public lands to states. We call upon all national and state leaders and representatives to exert their utmost power and influence to urge the transfer of those lands, identified in the review process, to all willing states for the benefit of the states and the nation as a whole. The residents of state and local communities know best how to protect the land where they work and live. They practice boots-on-the-ground conservation in their states every day.

We support amending the Antiquities Act of 1906 to establish Congress’ right to approve the designation of national monuments and to further require the approval of the state where a national monument is designated or a national park is proposed. There is certainly a need to protect certain species threatened worldwide with extinction. However, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) should not include species such as gray wolves and other species if these species exist elsewhere in healthy numbers in another state or country. To upset the economic viability of an area with an unneeded designation costs jobs and hurts local communities. We must ensure that this protection is done effectively, reasonably, and without unnecessarily impeding the development of lands and natural resources. The ESA should ensure that the listing of endangered species and the designation of critical habitats are based upon sound science and balance the protection of endangered species with the costs of compliance and the rights of property owners. Instead, over the last few decades, the ESA has stunted economic development, halted the construction of projects, burdened landowners, and has been used to pursue policy goals inconsistent with the ESA — all with little to no success in the actual recovery of species. For example, we oppose the listing of the lesser prairie chicken and the potential listing of the sage grouse. Neither species has been shown to be in actual danger and the listings threaten to devastate farmers, ranchers, and oil and gas production. While species threatened with extinction must be protected under the ESA, any such protection must be done in a reasonable and transparent manner with stakeholder input and in consideration of the impact on the development of lands and natural resources.

Information concerning a changing climate, especially projections into the long-range future, must be based on dispassionate analysis of hard data. We will enforce that standard throughout the executive branch, among civil servants and presidential appointees alike. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution. Its unreliability is reflected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy. We will evaluate its recommendations accordingly. We reject the agendas of both the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, which represent only the personal commitments of their signatories; no such agreement can be binding upon the United States until it is submitted to and ratified by the Senate. We demand an immediate halt to U.S. funding for the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in accordance with the 1994 Foreign Relations Authorization Act. That law prohibits Washington from giving any money to “any affiliated organization of the United Nations” which grants Palestinians membership as a state. There is no ambiguity in that language. It would be illegal for the President to follow through on his intention to provide millions in funding for the UNFCCC and hundreds of millions for its Green Climate Fund. We firmly believe environmental problems are best solved by giving incentives for human ingenuity and the development of new technologies, not through top-down, command-and-control regulations that stifle economic growth and cost thousands of jobs.^[11]

”

—2016 Republican Party Platform^[22]

Mike Pence

Mike Pence voted against H.R.2454 - the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, which, among other things, proposed "establishing a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and setting goals for reducing such emissions from covered sources by 83% of 2005 levels by 2050."^[23]
Mike Pence voted for H.R.3409 - the Stop the War on Coal Act of 2012, which, among other things, proposed amending "the Clean Air Act (CAA) to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration, the emission of a greenhouse gas (GHG) to address climate change. Excludes GHGs from the definition of 'air pollutant' for purposes of addressing climate change."^[24]
Read more of Mike Pence's public statements on 2016 campaign issues.

Green ticket

Jill Stein

On June 28, 2016, Jill Stein “said that the proposed deal with Mexico and Canada to go to 50% carbon-free electricity from 2025 is inadequate to meet the climate goals set in Paris,” according to a press release from her campaign. Stein said, "Obama's proposals are a step in the right direction but way too little. We need an emergency national mobilization similar to what our country did after Pearl Harbor at the outset of WWII." Stein proposes transitioning “to 100% clean energy for everything - not just electricity – by 2030 while creating 20 million jobs and avoiding hundreds of thousands of annual ‘excess deaths’ from air pollution.”^[25]

During a February 15, 2016, interview with Chris Hedges posted on TheRealNews.com, Stein said, "[W]e are facing an all-out climate emergency."^[26]

Read more of Jill Stein's public statements on energy and environmental policy.

The 2016 Green Party Platform on climate change

“

III. Ecological Sustainability (2016)

The human community is an element of the Earth community, not the other way around. All human endeavors are situated within the dynamics of the biosphere. If we wish to have sustainable institutions and enterprises, they must fit well with the processes of the Earth. The ideology of industrialism, in both capitalist and communist countries, insists that modern society lives on top of nature and should rightly use and despoil the rest of the natural world as we desire— because any loss of the ecosystems is merely an "externality" in economic thought and because any problems can be addressed later by a technological fix. We are now living through the painful consequences of that arrogant, ignorant perspective. Many of our children suffer from accumulations of mercury and other toxins in their neurological systems, environmentally related cancer is on the rise, and our air and water are increasingly polluted. Meanwhile, our ecosystems are being compromised by the spreading presence of genetically engineered organisms.

Our houses and buildings, manufacturing processes, and industrial agriculture were all designed with the assumption of an endless supply of cheap and readily available fossil fuels. Pollution and despoiling the land were not part of the thinking. The Green Party, however, is optimistic about the alternatives that now exist and that could be encouraged through tax policy and the market incentives of fuel efficiency. We also challenge the grip of the oil, automotive, and automobile insurance industries that have managed to block or roll back progress in public mass transit. The gutting of subsidies for the railroads has meant not only fewer passenger routes but also the addition of thousands of large freight trucks on our highways, decreasing public safety and increasing pollution. We are committed to extending the greening of waste management by encouraging the spread of such practices as reduce, return, reuse, and recycle. We strongly oppose the recent attempts to roll back the federal environmental protection laws that safeguard our air, water, and soil.

The health of the life-support systems— the ecosystems on our continent — is of paramount importance. Inherent in the efficient dynamics of those ecosystems is a vital profusion of biodiversity. Therefore, the Greens call for a halt to the destruction of habitats, which are being sacrificed to unqualified economic expansion. We humans have a moral responsibility to all of our relations, many of which are facing extinction because we carelessly and permanently halt their long evolutionary journey.

The Green Party also supports the spread of organic agriculture and the careful tending of our nation's precious remaining topsoil. We support planetary efforts to slow the ever-increasing numbers of humans pressuring the ecosystems, and we especially support the reduction of consumption of the world's raw materials by the industrialized Northern Hemisphere. We are appalled by our country's withdrawal from serious efforts to limit greenhouse gases that are contributing mightily to global climate disruption. The Green Party strongly urges the United States to adopt an actively responsible position in this crisis and to take significant action to address the problem.

A. Climate Change
OUR POSITION

Greens want to stop runaway climate change, by reducing greenhouse gas emissions at least 40% by 2020 and 95% by 2050, over 1990 levels.

Climate change is the gravest environmental, social and economic peril that humanity has ever met. Across the world, it is causing vanishing polar ice, melting glaciers, growing deserts, stronger storms, rising oceans, less biodiversity, deepening droughts, as well as more disease, hunger, strife and human misery. It is a tragedy unfolding in slow motion.

Greenhouse gases warm the Earth by trapping heat in the atmosphere. Much of that heat is initially absorbed by the ocean, creating roughly a 30-year delay in the impact of that heat at the surface of the planet. Practically speaking, that means that the melting glaciers and expanding deserts of 2009 were the result of greenhouse gases dumped into the atmosphere in the late 1970s, when the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was below 350 parts per million (ppm). To return to a safe level of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere, we must reduce atmospheric greenhouse gases as quickly as possible to levels that existed before 1980, to 350ppm carbon dioxide.

Greens support science-based policies to curb climate change. We have an ambitious plan to make drastic changes quickly to avert global catastrophe. We will expend maximum effort to preserve a planet friendly to life as we know it by curtailing greenhouse gas emissions and actively removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

GREEN SOLUTIONS

1. Strong International Climate Treaty

The climate treaty reached in Paris in December, 2015 is inadequate to address the climate change crisis.

The 195 nations involved pledged to reduce greenhouse gases. The pledges are not mandatory, however. The treaty does not require the phase out of fossil fuels, and it delays higher aid levels for poorer nations until 2025.

We call for legally binding commitments for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by 2020 and a 95% reduction by 2050 over 1990 levels. We also call for the immediate assumption of responsibility by wealthy nations to financially assist poorer countries struggling with the effects of climate change.

2. Economic Policy For A Safer Climate

a. Enact a Fee & Dividend system on fossil fuels to enable the free market to include the environmental costs of their extraction and use. These fees shall be applied as far upstream as possible, either when fuel passes from extraction to refining, distribution or consumption; or when it first enters the United States' jurisdiction. The carbon fee will initially be small, a dime per kilogram of carbon, to avoid creating a shock to the economy. The fee will be increased by 10% each year that global atmospheric carbon dioxide content is greater than 350 ppm, decreased 10% each year it's less than 300 ppm, and repealed entirely when it falls below 250 ppm.

b. Although imported fossil fuel has no more impact on global climate change than domestic, importing petroleum and natural gas has a catastrophic impact on American foreign policy and the American economy. We will enact this same fee on imported fossil fuels a second time to give the free market an incentive to wean America off foreign oil and gas.

c. The Green Party calls for elimination of subsidies for fossil fuels, nuclear power, biomass and waste incineration and biofuels. We must also acknowledge that the bulk of our military budget is, in fact, an indirect subsidy for oil & gas corporations.

d. To prevent perverse incentives arising from higher carbon prices, the Green Party mandates clean fuels in addition to pricing carbon. Otherwise dirty energy sources like nuclear power, biomass and biofuels that are not subject to carbon pricing will become economically competitive.

3. Repay Our Climate Debt

a. Pay for adaptation to climate change in countries with less responsibility for climate change.

b. Provide a carbon neutral development path for those countries that can no longer be permitted to develop in the same way we did—by burning cheap fossil fuels.

4. More Efficiency And Conservation

a. Adopt energy efficiency standards that reduce energy demand economy-wide by 50% over the next 20–30 years. The U.S. can make massive reductions in its energy use through a combination of conservation and efficiency measures. We don't actually need any additional power. Instead, we can and should reduce our consumption of power.

b. Build an efficient, low cost public transportation system. The best incentive we can provide to live closer to work and reduce the use of private vehicles is to make the alternative inexpensive and convenient to use.

c. Adopt a national zero waste policy. The less we consume and throw away, the less we will need to produce and replace.

5. Clean, Green Energy and Jobs

a. Create an inclusive program to train workers for the new, clean energy economy. Focusing on both the environment and social justice, prioritize the creation of green jobs in communities of color and low-income communities.

b. Transition to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050, with at least 80 percent achieved by 2030, using wind, solar, ocean, small-scale hydro, and geothermal power. Renewable energy is technically and economically feasible. The barriers to a renewable energy economy come from economic, political and social interests, and are not technical.

c. End the use of nuclear power. Nuclear energy is massively polluting, dangerous, financially risky, expensive and slow to implement. Our money is better spent on wind, solar, geothermal, conservation and small-scale hydroelectric.

d. Stop "dirty clean energy." Many of the "solutions" offered in climate legislation aren't real solutions. Biomass incineration (trees, crops, construction debris and certain types of waste), landfill gas and many types of biofuels will dump massive quantities of toxic pollutants into the air and water, and some of these energy sources produce more greenhouse gas emissions than coal. Natural gas is primarily methane, which is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Consequently, when pipeline leakage is considered, the clean-burning characteristics of natural gas can be lost, resulting in a fuel with climate impacts as bad as coal. Biomass and biofuels will also increase deforestation, contributing to more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

6. Clean, Green Agriculture

a. Convert U.S farm and ranchland to organic practices. Chemical and industrial agriculture produces 35-50% of climate destabilizing greenhouse gases.

b. Switch to local food production and distribution. Localized, organic food production and distribution reduce fossil fuel usage and enriches soil that sequesters more carbon dioxide.

c. Reduce methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases by rapidly phasing out confined animal feeding operations, and encouraging a reduction in meat consumption.^[11]

”

—2016 Green Party Platform^[27]

Ajamu Baraka

In a Facebook community forum on August 19, 2016, Baraka was asked, "Can you talk about the gravity of climate change and the relationship with impoverished communities and, especially, human rights around the world and here in America?" Baraka replied, "People recognize that climate change is a reality that disproportionately affects people of color more than anyone else both here and around the world. I had a chance to see the consequences of climate change in colombia. I noticed that a beach that I’ve been going to for 20 years has completely disappeared in the last few years as a consequence of the rising ocean. If we don't get a handle on the unrestrained impacts of capital, the real question of whether or not we’re going to have a planet or living conditions that humans can thrive in, is going to be something we have to grapple with. Part of the green new deal is dealing directly with environmental issues and it is a central concern of the green party and a central issue of the Stein/Baraka campaign."^[28]
Read more about Ajamu Baraka.

Libertarian ticket

Gary Johnson

In an interview with the Washington Examiner on July 10, 2016, Johnson commented on the EPA and coal industry, saying, "The role, as far as the Environmental Protection Agency, is to identify health or safety concerns with regard to emissions. I think right now what is happening with climate change, what is happening with the coal industry, is that coal has been bankrupted. It has been bankrupted by the free market. As low as the price of coal is today, natural gas is even lower. So, no new coal plants are going to be built ... Those that exist now are being grandfathered in [under the EPA regulations]. So, coal, the number one contributor to CO2 emissions in the world, is dead. Coal is dead. And the free market did it because we, as consumers, are demanding less carbon emissions.^[29]

In an interview with CNBC on August 22, 2016, Johnson said, "I do think that climate change is occurring, that it is man-caused. One of the proposals that I think is a very libertarian proposal, and I'm just open to this, is taxing carbon emission that may have the result of being self-regulating. ... The market will take care of it. I mean, when you look at it from the standpoint of better results, and actually less money to achieve those results, that's what is being professed by a carbon tax."^[30]

On the questions of climate change and whether or not humans contribute to it, Johnson said on his campaign website: "Is the climate changing? Probably so. Is man contributing to that change? Probably so. But the critical question is whether the politicians’ efforts to regulate, tax and manipulate the private sector are cost-effective – or effective at all."^[31]

Johnson said in a December 2011 interview with NPR that although he believed climate change was human-induced, he did not support cap and trade regulations to lower carbon emissions. He said, "You know, I'm accepting that global warming is man-caused. That said, I am opposed to cap and trade. I think that free-market approach. Hey, we're all demanding less carbon emission. I think we're going to get it."^[32]

Read more of Gary Johnson's public statements on energy and environmental policy.

The 2016 Libertarian Party Platform on climate change

“

2.2 Environment

Competitive free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Governments are unaccountable for damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights and responsibilities regarding resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required.

2.3 Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.^[11]

”

—2016 Libertarian Party Platform^[33]

Bill Weld

In a 2008 Fox News interview, Weld said that "global warming and climate change is an issue that affects absolutely everybody." He also said that the price of carbon would need to be set for "a national, international cap and trade system, [and] climate change legislation" to work.^[34]
Read more about Bill Weld.

Recent news

This section links to a Google news search for the term 2016 + presidential + candidates + climate + change

2016 Presidential Candidates on Natural Resources News Feed

External links

ProCon.org's "Is Human Activity Primarily Responsible for Global Climate Change?"

Footnotes

[1] Politico, "Hillary Clinton's climate army," August 11, 2016

[2] The Hill, "Clinton open to ‘conversation’ on carbon tax," July 26, 2016

[3] NextGen Climate, "HUGE NEWS: BERNIE SANDERS JOINS HILLARY CLINTON IN ENDORSING #50BY30," February 9, 2016

[4] Hillary for America: The Briefing, "Hillary Clinton Statement on the Paris Climate Change Agreement," accessed December 14, 2015

[5] TIME, "Hillary Clinton Announces Plan to Protect Coal Communities," November 12, 2015

[6] The Wall Street Journal, "Hillary Clinton Previews Plans to Combat Climate Change," July 26, 2015

[7] YouTube, "Stand for Reality," July 26, 2015

[8] CNN, "First on CNN: Clinton campaign pledges to be carbon neutral, aide says," July 28, 2015

[9] The Hill, "Hillary Clinton: Climate changing 'no matter what deniers may say,'" accessed February 2, 2015

[10] Time, “The Eco Vote. A field guide to the would-be Presidents," accessed December 17, 2014

[quotedisclaimer-11] 11.0 ^11.1 ^11.2 ^11.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.

[12] Democratic Party, "The 2016 Democratic Party Platform," accessed August 23, 2016

[13] Scientific American, "Tim Kaine's Climate Record Is All over the Map," July 25, 2016

[KaineWaPoEd-14] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named KaineWaPoEd

[15] DonaldJTrump.com, "Trump campaign statement on Paris Climate Accord," October 5, 2016

[16] Politico, "Trump adviser denies climate change is manmade," September 27, 2016

[17] Scientific American, "What Do the Presidential Candidates Know about Science?" September 13, 2016

[18] The Guardian, "Donald Trump would allow Keystone XL pipeline and end Paris climate deal," May 26, 2016

[19] Donald Trump for President, "An America First Energy Plan," May 26, 2016

[20] CNN, "Donald Trump's energy plan: Regulate less, drill more," May 27, 2016

[21] Politico, "Trump acknowledges climate change — at his golf course," May 23, 2016

[22] Republican Party, "The 2016 Republican Party Platform," accessed August 23, 2016

[23] Congress.gov, "H.R.2454," accessed April 2, 2015

[24] Congress.gov, "H.R.3409," accessed April 2, 2015

[25] JillStein2016.com, "Press Release: Obama's Carbon Deal Won't Avoid Climate Change," June 28, 2016

[26] TheRealNews.com, "Days of Revolt: The Problem," February 15, 2016

[27] Green Party, "The 2016 Green Party Platform," accessed August 23, 2016

[28] AmajuBaraka.com, "Community Forum 8/19: Answers to your Facebook Questions," August 20, 2016

[29] Washington Examiner, "Gary Johnson: I'll cut your taxes," July 10, 2016

[30] CNBC, "Libertarian Gary Johnson on 2016: 'This is the demise of the Republican Party'," August 22, 2016

[campaignsite-31] Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named campaignsite

[32] NPR, "Johnson Discusses Seeking Libertarian Nomination," December 30, 2011

[33] Libertarian Party, "The 2016 Libertarian Party Platform," accessed August 23, 2016

[34] Reason.com, "Gary Johnson On Science Policy," June 10, 2016

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

2016 presidential candidates on climate change

Contents

Democratic ticket

Hillary Clinton

Tim Kaine

Republican ticket

Donald Trump

Mike Pence

Green ticket

Jill Stein

Ajamu Baraka

Libertarian ticket

Gary Johnson

Bill Weld

Recent news

See also

External links

Footnotes

Information about voting

2025 Elections

2026 Elections

2024 Election analysis

Trending

Public Policy

Information for candidates

Get Engaged

Services

Additional analysis

SITE NAVIGATION