As the 2016 election reaches a fever pitch, I feel compelled as an environmental advocate to reach out to my compatriots across the country in swing states with a plea to vote thoughtfully. This election will have profound implications for the future of the natural world and our environment. Climate change is accelerating, the future of energy production is in flux and top scientists say we are rushing towards a tipping point in terms of humans’ ability to stave off sea-level rise without severe economic and natural upheaval.
While environmentalists might not feel that Hillary Clinton is the tree-hugger that Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein might be, she does acknowledge that climate change is real and needs to be addressed, now opposes the Keystone XL pipeline and has advocated for investment in clean energy like solar (half-a-billion new panels in her first term) with improvements in energy efficiency and cleaner fuels. Donald Trump is a climate change denier and has pledged to undo the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule, which brings more water bodies under federal protection. He also wants to end an Interior Department moratorium on new coal leasing on federal lands. Further, if Mr. Trump should win, he will likely have a Republican Congress that will be more than willing to go along with his horrible plans.
In Virginia, back in 2000, I was young and idealistic and voted for the Green Party’s Ralph Nader. I did not yet have solar panels on my house or drive a Toyota Prius as I do now, but I’d spent my college years commuting by bicycle and working for the Recycling Office at the University of Virginia. George W. Bush was sure to win in Virginia that year and I wanted to support the most idealistic candidate I could and make a somewhat symbolic vote, despite Al Gore’s environmental bona fides.
Meanwhile, that year in Florida, the official tally gave Bush the win by 537 votes; Nader racked up 97,488 votes. While there is some argument about the meaning of this, many feel that had the Green votes gone to Gore, as one might reasonably suspect, Gore would have been President with potentially profound changes for the world and the environment. “Dick Cheney” and “Halliburton” would certainly not be in the common parlance now.
Younger voters and millennials may not remember this well, but need to be very cognizant of what happened in the 2000 election as they cast a vote this year. Many of these voters were strong supporters of Sanders in part for his environmental positions and should be applauded for that support. Many of these voters are supporting Clinton now, but some are sticking with their ideals and planning to vote for the Green Party’s Stein. Let’s be clear here, Stein will not be our next president; it will be Clinton or Trump. This should be a black and white decision for environmentalists.
If you want to “vote the environment” this year, Clinton is your only valid choice. In swing states, a vote for anyone other than Clinton is essentially a vote for Trump whose scorched earth campaign could lead to a literal scorched earth. For the very idealistic out there who insist that a vote must be cast for the Green Party, I have a suggestion to give Stein a vote without imperiling the chances of an overall environmental victory on Nov. 8. Find a friend or relative who plans to vote for Clinton in a state that is “safe” for one of the two major party candidates. Get your sister who lives in Massachusetts or your old college roommate in Kansas to agree to vote for Stein in exchange for you voting for Clinton in your swing state. If the person you contact really wants a Clinton victory, he or she will probably agree in a heartbeat. Everyone wins. Stein and the Greens get a vote, while Clinton gets a vote in a state where she really needs it. And, overall, the environment stands a greater chance of being supported. Every vote counts, so use yours wisely.
Mark Schleupner is an ACC graduate of the University of Virginia and the University of Maryland
