If you’ve been following the media coverage around the election — or even caught snippets of political ads, rallies and debates online — you’re probably familiar with the major issues of this election season. 

But amid the relentless chatter about abortion and immigration policies, we seem to have let a major contender slip away — climate change.

Let’s start with one of the most central events of this election season — the presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. When asked about their stances on climate change, neither candidate could help but steer the conversation away from the issue.

After voicing her desire to invest in clean energy, Harris contradictorily turned to boast the Biden-Harris administration’s increase of domestic gas production to record levels. Rather than discussing clean energy policies, she proudly emphasized the administration’s opening of factories around the world and the creation of manufacturing jobs. 

A speaker for the Sunrise Movement was disappointed Harris “spent more time promoting fracking” rather than speaking about climate change initiatives, according to PBS News. 

It certainly didn’t help that Trump continued to derail the conversation by speaking only about manufacturing businesses and the economy. While this might not be surprising considering the former president called climate change a “hoax” during a keynote speech, Trump did not even mention the issue throughout the debate.

Each candidate treated climate change as a mere segway to an endless debate about the economy. Avoidance of this issue seems to be an unfortunate trend throughout most of the major campaign events this election season. 

During the Democratic National Convention, all Harris had to say was Americans are deserving of “the freedom to breathe clean air, and drink clean water and live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis.” With a vague one-liner hidden in the depths of her speech, Harris clearly backed away from real discussion on the topic.

Unsurprisingly, Trump’s stance at the Republican National Convention was infinitely worse. Not only did he call the Green New Deal a “Green New Scam,” but he also promised to overturn the electric vehicle mandate. 

To be fair, we cannot rely upon Republican politicians to advocate for climate change. After all, only 12% of Republican and Republican-leaning individuals reported officials should take policy action towards climate change, according to a 2024 survey by Pew Research Center.

But it seems that Trump’s despicable comments towards climate change are the only remarks about the issue we are hearing these days.

It is likely politicians are forcing climate change to take a backseat this election season as a political tactic — climate change policies are costly and the economy is the top issue for Americans this voting season, according to the Pew Research Center. 

For instance, the Green New Deal’s environmental policies can cost from $423.9 billion to $5.7 trillion depending on how many of the proposals are accepted, according to the American Action Forum. Advocating for a plan that will dramatically expand federal debt is certainly not the best way to gather immediate voter support, even if long-term economic and environmental benefits would follow.

An article by Brookings claims that the economic burden amongst young voters — who make up 29% of the electorate — has been ballooning since the Covid-19 pandemic. The article states voter turnout amongst young people will depend significantly on the candidate’s commitment to a brighter economic future. 

Climate change — a more gradually developing issue — simply does not feel like a pressing issue compared to public hysteria over economic crises. A professor of psychology at Harvard University told The Guardian that climate change is not occurring at a pace that is fast enough for people to give more attention to the subject. 

As a result, advocating for climate change would be a marketing disaster for politicians focused solely on collecting votes and winning the election. 

But the effects of climate change are already here, contrary to what voters may believe. Hurricanes have been escalating since the 1980s, floods and extreme heat are continuing to increase, sea levels are rising and pollution is negatively impacting health outcomes, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The report also found extreme climate events cost the US $150 billion every year. 

The effects of climate change are not as localized as one might imagine and under-resourced communities are faring the bulk of the damage, according to the report. 

It does not seem likely politicians will address these threats in the days leading up to the election, but it is important that we keep climate change at the forefront of our minds as we head to the polls on Nov. 5. 

While it might be easy to ignore climate change due to its seemingly localized effects, we must take action before it’s too late. Giving short-term issues our complete attention will prove to be detrimental to the future of our planet. 

The first step we can take is to think twice before casting our vote — while Harris at least wishes to solve the climate crisis, Trump does not believe in its existence.

But even after the election, we have to press our representatives — whether that be our next president or our local leaders — to take action before the climate problem becomes as immediate as our economic crisis. It is up to us as citizens to become vocal about climate change. Remember, our representatives answer to us — not the other way around.

 Let’s keep climate change in our conversations and treat it with the urgency it deserves. 

Aanika Parikh ([email protected]) is a junior studying molecular and cell biology and health policy.