The US Election Coverage: Are They Thinking Globally?

While back in the United States visiting family for the holidays, I had the opportunity to see the coverage of the presidential races for the democratic and republican candidates for president in 2008. My personal view on which candidates I like aside, in the first New Hampshire debates and in overall election campaigns, it has been interesting to see how global environment and sustainable development have been addressed. 'Change' is the big word on the election trail, especially on the democratic side and everyone is postulating as to who is best suited to bring about big change.

But what is the change being addressed? While the some environmental issues has landed finally as important to voters, and in some ways and some times as a non-partisan issue. The republican candidates (the conservatives) were asked on energy issues, for example, and several advocated reduced dependence on fossil fuels, reduced emissions standards, and investment in cleaner energy and technologies. The positions put were framed that the "Great Nation of America" can innovate solutions much like it landed a person a moon a half century ago. As much as I actually like some the candidates and the discussion taking place (not the republicans even though most of them would be a lot better than Bush, no matter what) there are some basic issues that have me very concerned over the US and the prospects for sustainable development.

In fact, the word "sustainable," was not mentioned once in the debate. In the UN and the development and environmental communities the word "sustainable" is all over seemingly every agenda, document, initiative, etc. When it comes to global change and the future, everyone think globally radio talks to would answer that, in some form or another, sustainability is the answer. What "sustainable development" actually means and will entail is the big question, but generally being more sustainable is what everyone wants to do or at least seems to talk about. Yet, in the news and debates in the US so far in 2008, the word never comes out. Renewable energy, energy independence, even GHG reductions and reduced carbon emissions are all discussed, yet nothing about sustainable development. In terms of international issues, much more time is spent talking about global Islamic Radical terrorism threats than resource/climate issues.

Why is sustainable development not ever mentioned as part of holistic change? Of course, I don't know, but to speculate (and I love to speculate) is that genuine talk about sustainable development is not electable. Politicians in the US can not try to sell any talk about people changing lifestyles. That can not speak of transforming business. People want WASHINGTON to change (a very natural reaction to Bush with which I concur), and feel that the world or at least their country is off track. But the big changes in individual behavior that people in the environment and development communities are refering to when they discuss a sustainable future is not what anyone is discussing. According to a facebook poll of debate viewers, (which draws a younger and 'hipper' demographic) more viewers thought the economy was underrepresented in the debates than the environment. And this carried on to the second democratic debate that took place a couple days ago, where the environment was barely mentioned. Important issues for sure were debated: poverty, health care, the war in Iraq; but the environment faded to the back.

I guess I like everyone we want the same thing: for other people to change.

/josh