Algae bloom in the Arabian sea. Norman Kuring / NASA
Ocean dead zones quadrupled in size since 1950, while low oxygen sites around the world increased tenfold, threatening large swaths of marine life, scientists warned in a study released on Friday.
"Major extinction events in Earth's history have been associated with warm climates and oxygen-deficient oceans," the analysis published in the journal Science stated.
"Under the current trajectory that is where we would be headed. But the consequences to humans of staying on that trajectory are so dire that it is hard to imagine we would go quite that far down that path," Denise Breitburg, an author of the study and researcher at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in the U.S., told the Guardian.
Human activities are largely responsible for the growth of ocean dead zones. Climate change, caused by fossil fuel emissions, is behind the large-scale removal of oxygen in open waters. Open oceans have naturally low oxygen areas that typically lay west of continents due to the Earth's rotation.
Coastal zones, which provide jobs to 350 million people, are now home to at least 500 known dead zones, though that number could be much higher. According to the study, these areas have increased by an area roughly the size of the European Union since 1950, when there were 50 reported around the world.
In coastal regions, algae blooms are the main culprits behind dead zones. Manure, sewage and fertilizers create these blooms. When the algae decomposes it sucks oxygen out of the water.
"This is a problem we can solve," Breitburg told the Guardian, pointing to the River Thames in the UK and the Chesapeake Bay in the U.S., where improved sewage and agricultural practices helped remove dead zones.
"Right now, the increasing expansion of coastal dead zones and decline in open ocean oxygen are not priority problems for governments around the world. Unfortunately, it will take severe and persistent mortality of fisheries for the seriousness of low oxygen to be realized," Robert Diaz, a professor at the Virginia institute of Marine Science who reviewed the study, told the Guardian.
"No other variable of such ecological importance to coastal ecosystems has changed so drastically in such a short period of time from human activities as dissolved oxygen," Diaz said.
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Contribute
A plastic bag caught in a tree in New Jersey's Palisades Park. James Leynse / Stone / Getty Images
New Jersey is one step closer to passing what environmental advocates say is the strongest anti-plastic legislation in the nation.
<p>The state Legislature passed a sweeping measure Thursday that would ban <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastic-bags" target="_self">plastic bags</a> from stores and restaurants and single-use food and drink containers made from polystyrene foam, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/nyregion/nj-paper-plastic-bag-ban.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The New York Times reported</a>. The ban is noteworthy for being the first in the country to include supermarket paper bags as well as plastic ones.</p>
<p>"This is the single most comprehensive plastics and paper reduction bill in the nation," former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional Administrator and <a href="https://beyondplastics.org/" target="_blank">Beyond Plastics</a> President Judith Enck said in a <a href="https://www.insidernj.com/press-release/environmental-leaders-cheer-nj-legislative-votes-pass-single-use-waste-ban-bill-legislation-now-strongest-country/" target="_blank">statement published by Insider NJ</a>. "Building on the success of local laws adopted throughout New Jersey to reduce plastic pollution, the NJ State Legislature listened to the people and not the polluters and embraced a sensible environmental strategy."</p><p>The bill now passes to Gov. Philip Murphy, who intends to sign it, a spokesperson told The New York Times. The bans on bags and containers will go into effect 18 months after he does so, <a href="https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/environment/2020/09/24/nj-plastic-bag-ban-2020-nj-one-step-away-nations-toughest-ban/3506419001/" target="_blank">NorthJersey.com reported</a>.</p>
<p>In addition to banning plastic and paper bags and plastic food containers, the bill will also limit <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastic-straws" target="_self">plastic straws</a> in restaurants so that they will only be available upon request. There are exemptions for newspaper bags; bags used for loose produce, fish or meat; dry-cleaning bags and prescription drug bags.</p><p>The measure effectively settles a long-running debate about whether plastic or paper bags are worse for the environment by banning both. Plastic bags account for about 12 percent of U.S. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastic-pollution" target="_self">plastic pollution</a>, according to The New York Times. But paper bags need more energy, and therefore more <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate</a> pollution, to make. <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/new-jersey" target="_blank">New Jersey Sierra Club</a> Director Jeff Tittle said the new legislation would encourage people to use more sustainable, reusable shopping bags.</p>
<p>However, the ban on paper bags was also the key to getting an important supermarket trade group to support the bill, NorthJersey.com reported. The organization argued that it would cost stores too much to supply customers with only paper bags.</p><p>"The ban on paper bags is critically important to the success of this legislation," New Jersey Food Council President Linda Doherty said ahead of Thursday's vote. "Without a ban, consumers will simply move to paper single-use bags and we will not address the underlying goal of reducing our reliance on single-use products."</p><p>However, the food council originally opposed any sort of statewide bag ban, <a href="https://www.njspotlight.com/2020/09/sweeping-nj-bag-ban-plastic-paper-restricting-polystyrene-foam-food-containers/" target="_blank">NJ Spotlight News reported</a>. It changed its position after as many as 57 communities passed their own separate bans and it decided it would be easier to deal with a single, statewide law than a patchwork of local ones.</p>
<p>Not everyone has been persuaded, however. American Forest and Paper Association President and Chief Executive Heidi Brock said the bill unfairly targeted her industry.</p><p>"The New Jersey Legislature has undermined an environmentally responsible option for consumers," she said in a statement reported by The New York Times. "Furthermore, the ban on paper bags sends an alarming message in devaluing family wage jobs, which are often union labor, in addition to the indirect jobs supported by the paper and wood products industry in the state."</p>
<p>Republican Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi, meanwhile, argued that the bill would put an additional burden on a restaurant industry already struggling because of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coronavirus" target="_self">coronavirus</a> pandemic.</p><p>"We're essentially kicking them in the head,'' she said, as NJ Spotlight News reported.</p><p>On the other hand, environmental advocates argued that plastic has long polluted New Jersey waterways. In recent years, more than 80 percent of the litter gathered on beaches by <a href="https://www.cleanoceanaction.org/index.php?id=334" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Clean Ocean Action</a> from Cape May to Sandy Hook has been plastic, NorthJersey.com reported. The material has even been found in some of the state's most pristine rivers and creeks.</p><p>"Now, we can all look forward to picking up less trash on our beaches," Clean Ocean Action executive director Cindy Zipf told NorthJersey.com. "There will be less plastics in the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/ocean" target="_self">ocean</a> to cause harm and death to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/marine-life" target="_self">marine life</a>."</p>
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) talks to reporters during her weekly news conference at the U.S. Capitol Visitors Center on Sept. 18, 2020 in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
The House of Representatives passed a sweeping bill to boost clean energy while phasing out the use of coolants in air conditioners and refrigerators that are known pollutants and contribute to the climate crisis, as the AP reported.
<p>The 900-page Clean Energy and Jobs Innovation Act passed the House in a 220-185 vote. The bill, if it were approved by the Senate and signed by the president, would increase the energy efficiency standards for building and boost research and investment in the development of solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric power, according to <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/518102-house-passes-sweeping-clean-energy-bill" target="_blank">The Hill</a>.</p><p>The Clean Energy and Jobs Innovation Act was crafted after negotiations with the Senate. It is full of agreed upon, "practical and achievable clean energy policies that are possible for us to achieve this year," said Frank Pallone, Democrat from New Jersey and chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, as <a href="https://www.utilitydive.com/news/trump-veto-of-house-clean-energy-bill-likely-as-ginsburg-replacement-fight/585625/" target="_blank">Utility Drive</a> reported.</p>
<p>Pallone added that the bill would "modernize our energy system, create jobs and take positive steps towards addressing the climate crisis," as the AP reported. He called it "one of the most impactful steps we can take now to create manufacturing jobs and boost our competitiveness, all while protecting our environment."</p><p>The effort to pass the bill, however, may have been in vain. Earlier in the week, The White House said the president's advisors would suggest he veto the bill. "With the news of Justice Ginsburg's passing, I cannot even venture a guess of how the next few weeks and months may play out," said Rep. Paul Tonko, a Democrat from New York in speaking to a National Clean Energy Week symposium, according to Utility Drive.</p><p>And yet, some in Congress were somewhat hopeful that the bill had a chance of becoming law. The Hill reported that a House Democratic aide believed that if the Senate passes their similar bill, then the respective committees can work together to settle the small discrepancies between the two bills.</p>
<p>The bills that are in the House and the Senate are modest in their ambition, which House Democrats acknowledged.</p><p>"I want to give a clear-eyed assessment: This bill is not going to stop climate change," said Tonko, as the AP reported. "But it is a good opportunity to make good and sometimes necessary changes to programs, which might make it easier to do a bigger, more ambitious bill in the near future."</p><p>The National Resource Defense Council (NRDC), an advocacy group, examined the bill and praised it in a <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/marc-boom/house-bill-would-deliver-needed-steps-toward-clean-economy" target="_blank">blog post</a> as "a needed step forward to ensure future climate action will be built from a solid foundation." It added that this bill is unique from past legislation because it "has opened the door for better ideas on how to spur progress in clean energy innovation."</p>
<p>And yet, the NRDC noted that the funding for clean energy fell behind the money spent for fossil fuels and nuclear energy. "This bill is very promising but it's obvious that it won't provide the transformative change we need to win the fight against climate change and protect our environment," the NRDC wrote.</p><p>House Speaker Nancy Pelosi praised the bill for taking a step to thwart the climate crisis and putting the wheels in motion to start legislation aimed at climate action.</p><p>"It takes actions that scientists, researchers and experts tell us is needed by launching the research and development needed to unleash a clean energy revolution and reduce pollution in our communities, making a bold down payment for future climate action by modernizing America's energy innovation infrastructure," she said, as The Hill reported.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Renewable Energy Could Power the World by 2050 - EcoWatch ›
- Net Zero U.S. by 2050? House Dems Unveil Sweeping Climate ... ›
- Delayed Senate Energy Bill Promotes LNG Exports, 'Clean Coal ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Gov. Jay Inslee on the Climate Crisis: ‘We Cannot Give in to Defeat and Pessimism’
1h
Insights + Opinion
Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington comforts Marsha Maus, 75, whose home was destroyed during California's deadly 2018 wildfires, on March 11, 2019 in Agoura Hills, California. Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times / Getty Images
By Governor Jay Inslee
Climate Week this year coincides with clear skies in Washington state for the first time in almost two weeks.
In just a few days in early September, Washington state saw enough acres burned – more than 600,000 – to reach our second-worst fire season on record. Our worst fire season came only five years ago. Wildfires aren't new to the west, but their scope and danger today is unlike anything firefighters have seen. People up and down the West Coast – young and old, in rural areas and in cities – were choking on smoke for days on end, trapped in their homes.
Fires like these are becoming the norm, not the exception.
<p>That's because as the climate changes, our fires change. Climate scientists tell us that if greenhouse gas emissions continue on their current path, later this century the <em>average </em>year in Washington will eventually be warmer than the single hottest year of the 20th century. The heat leaves our land and vegetation dry and primed for ignition, with blazes for which our landscapes are not evolved to cope. We're seeing more acres burned, and more days with our state swathed in hazardous smoke and ash.</p><p>Rain, cooler weather, and heroic firefighting efforts have finally tamped down the fires and poor air quality; but the burn scars remain, and they are most acutely felt by those who lost homes, businesses, and loved ones in fires this year.</p><p>I have seen the chaos firsthand in recent visits to burned areas both east and west of the Cascade Mountains. As communities in Malden, Bonney Lake, and Graham, Washington, recover from the damage done this month, it's not enough for us as leaders to help our towns recover from one devastating event after another. We need a plan to stop these increasingly ferocious natural disasters from becoming uncontrollable. The situation demands that <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/t/climate-change/" target="_blank">climate change</a> be front and center in this plan – because it is the root and stem of the new challenges we face in disaster response.</p>
<p>While wildfires are the most recent, and some of the most visceral images of climate change, they are unfortunately just one manifestation of a <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/t/climate-crisis/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">climate crisis</a> with far-reaching implications.</p><p>From the woods and prairies to the oceans, rivers and streams, we see the damaging effects of climate change. West Coast marine waters are acidifying at twice the global rate, our streams are becoming too warm to support salmon, and our agricultural productivity is falling as a result of record heat.</p><p>But we cannot give in to defeat and pessimism. This is not a lost cause.</p><p>There is broad consensus on what we need to do to slow and turn back the effects of human-driven climate change: all hands on deck for a global decarbonization that grows jobs and protects communities.</p>
<p>Every year, Climate Week gives us the opportunity to highlight this urgent need. But we need every week to be Climate Week. Given the science, knowledge and tools at our disposal, it is unacceptable that more has not been done to address the terrifying implications of climate change in the 21st century. We have no more time to waste.</p><p>We face a powerful oil and gas industry that has sunk its claws into Congress and numerous state governments, and a presidential administration backed by a major political party dedicated to protecting polluters and spreading lies and confusion about the science. On the flip side is the urgent and painfully clear scientific consensus, coupled with the fact that the majority of Americans support action now on climate change.</p><p>This is a battle that we can – and must – win, beginning with our votes in November.</p><p>And winning the fight won't just protect our communities from the dangerous effects of climate change. It will create enormous new economic opportunity.</p>
<p>The latest jobs report from E2, a national nonpartisan group of business leaders and investors focused on sustainable energy policies, shows there are already more than 3 million clean energy jobs in America today. If we can find the will to massively accelerate the development of renewable resources, we can create millions of more jobs.</p><p>If 2020 has taught us anything, it's that facts are stubborn things, and denial can be fatal. The federal government's failure to accept the reality of the Covid-19 crisis once again demonstrated why aloofness is no replacement for proactive leadership.</p><p>While we know this administration would be wise to change its destructive path – by bringing our country back into the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, by putting in place strong clean car standards, or by restoring key environmental protections razed by Trump's cronies – we know they won't. However, public opinion is clear even after years of misinformation and downright lies. There is not enough oil money in the world to stop the American people from rising up for what's right, and it's time to hit back.</p><p>Let this Climate Week be a reminder not merely of the long road ahead, but of our own power to make that journey together. Start now, so that in Climate Week 2021 we'll have a little less distance to cover.</p>
<p><em>This story originally appeared in</em><em> <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/" target="_blank">Rolling Stone </a></em><em>and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Vote as if the Climate and the Future of Humanity Depend on It—Because They Do
2h
Insights + Opinion
Four more years will be enough to cement in place Trump's anti-environmental policies and to make sure it's too late to really change course. Enrique Meseguer / Pixabay
By Bill McKibben
To understand the planetary importance of this autumn's presidential election, check the calendar. Voting ends on November 3—and by a fluke of timing, on the morning of November 4 the United States is scheduled to pull out of the Paris Agreement.
President Trump announced that we would abrogate our Paris commitments during a Rose Garden speech in 2017. But under the terms of the accords, it takes three years to formalize the withdrawal. So on Election Day it won't be just Americans watching: The people of the world will see whether the country that has poured more carbon into the atmosphere than any other over the course of history will become the only country that refuses to cooperate in the one international effort to do something about the climate crisis.
<p>Trump's withdrawal benefited oil executives, who have donated millions of dollars to his reelection campaign, and the small, strange fringe of climate deniers who continue to insist that the planet is cooling. But most people living in the rational world were appalled. Polling showed widespread opposition, and by some measures, Trump is more out of line with the American populace on environmental issues than any other. In his withdrawal announcement he said he'd been elected "to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris"; before the day was out, Pittsburgh's mayor had pledged that his city would follow the guidelines set in the French capital. Young people, above all, have despised the president's climate moves: Poll after poll shows that climate change is a top-tier issue with them and often the most important one—mostly, I think, because they've come to understand how tightly linked it is not just to their future but to questions of justice, equity, and race. </p><p>Here's the truth: At this late date, meeting the promises set in Paris will be nowhere near enough. If you add up the various pledges that nations made at that conference, they plan on moving so timidly that the planet's temperature will still rise more than 3 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels. So far, we've raised the mercury 1 degree Celsius, and that's been enough to melt millions of square miles of ice in the Arctic, extend fire seasons for months, and dramatically alter the planet's rainfall patterns. Settling for 3 degrees is kind of like writing a global suicide note. </p>
<p>Happily, we could go much faster if we wanted. The price of solar and wind power has fallen so fast and so far in the last few years that they are now the cheapest power on earth. There are plenty of calculations to show it will soon be cheaper to build solar and wind farms than to operate the fossil fuel power stations we've already built. Climate-smart investments are also better for workers and economic equality. "We need to have climate justice, which means to invest in green energy, [which] creates three times more jobs than to invest in fossil fuel energy," United Nations Secretary General António Guterres said in an interview with Covering Climate Now in September. If we wanted to make it happen, in other words, an energy revolution is entirely possible. The best new study shows that the United States could cut its current power sector emissions 80 percent by 2035 and create 20 million jobs along the way. </p><p>Joe Biden and Kamala Harris haven't pledged to move that quickly, but their climate plan is the farthest-reaching of any presidential ticket in history. More to the point, we can pressure them to go farther and faster. Already, seeing the polling on the wall, they've adopted many of the proposals of climate stalwarts like Washington Governor Jay Inslee. A team of Biden and Bernie Sanders representatives worked out a pragmatic but powerful compromise in talks before the Democratic National Convention; the Biden-Harris ticket seems primed to use a transition to green energy as a crucial part of a push to rebuild the pandemic-devastated economy. </p>
<p>Perhaps most important, they've pledged to try to lead the rest of the world in the climate fight. The United States has never really done this. Our role as the single biggest producer of hydrocarbons has meant that our response to global warming has always been crippled by the political power of Big Oil. But that power has begun to slip. Once the biggest economic force on the planet, the oil industry is a shadow of its former self. (You could buy all the oil companies in America for less than the cost of Apple; Tesla is worth more than any other auto company on earth.) And so it's possible that the hammerlock on policy exercised by this reckless industry will loosen if Trump is beaten.</p><p>But only if he's beaten. Four more years will be enough to cement in place his anti-environmental policies and to make sure it's too late to really change course. The world's climate scientists declared in 2018 that if we had any chance of meeting sane climate targets, we had to cut emissions almost in half by 2030. That's less than 10 years away. We're at the last possible moment to turn the wheel of the supertanker that is our government. Captain Trump wants to steer us straight onto the rocks, mumbling all the while about hoaxes. If we let him do it, history won't forgive us. Nor will the rest of the world.</p>
<p><em>This story originally appeared in</em> <em><a href="https://www.thenation.com" target="_blank">The Nation</a></em> <em>and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
A woman marks down her vote on a ballot for the Democratic presidential primary election at a polling place on Super Tuesday, March 3, 2020 in Herndon, Virginia. Samuel Corum / Getty Images
By Oliver Milman
The climate crisis is set to be a significant factor in a U.S. presidential election for the first time, with new polling showing a clear majority of American voters want decisive action to deal with the threats posed by global heating.
<p>Seven in 10 voters support government action to address climate change, with three-quarters wanting the U.S. to generate all of its electricity from renewable sources such as solar and wind within 15 years.</p><p>Nearly two-thirds of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who supports the complete shift to clean energy, with a further seven in 10 voters supporting US involvement in the Paris climate agreement, which commits countries to tackling dangerous heating. Two-thirds of voters said climate should be a priority for whoever wins the election.</p><p>"There may be a divide on Capitol Hill but the large majority of us are worried about climate change and want to see leaders deal with it," said Ed Maibach, director of George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication. "This is the first election where climate change has featured heavily. It's unlike anything we've seen in American politics before."</p><p>Over the past decade, the crisis has become a sharply partisan political topic as Republicans embraced denial and obfuscation of the escalating crisis. Donald Trump called climate science a "hoax" and his administration set about dismantling every policy put in place by Barack Obama to reduce planet-heating emissions.</p><p>However, the new polling, on behalf of the Guardian, Vice Media Group and Covering Climate Now, by Climate Nexus, the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, shows that the political landscape among voters appears to be shifting.</p>
Do you support or oppose each of the following policies as part of the recovery from the coronavirus pandemic?
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQzODcyMC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNjg4MzY4OX0.B-bt9mltOhK0MHFbzK8G3_8sBkDAeUsAWm-AhNZYoxQ/img.png?width=980" id="acd43" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8724178274b9f96e27055f74a1bafe20" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" /><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQzODcyMi9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2MTk1OTAzMH0.F8_i9pQeThex_R0SLjOoE0Xk11avxGilB6n6RmRzxe8/img.png?width=980" id="cde28" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="36da755f25cfa2d1120f46f112e7d577" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
<p>Democrats are becoming increasingly alarmed over the climate crisis, with 90% describing it as either a "very serious" or "somewhat serious" problem and more than eight in 10 supporting a Green New Deal, a vast government-led climate program, to combat it.</p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/22/us-politics-minute-sign-up-email-newsletter-app-notification" target="_blank"></a><p>This concern is filtering through, to a lesser degree, to Republican voters. More than half say climate change is a very or somewhat serious problem, with 41% backing the Green New Deal, despite it being widely vilified by Republican party leaders. A further 51% of Republican voters support U.S. involvement in the Paris climate accords.</p><p>The polling suggests Trump, who has triggered the U.S. withdrawal from the agreement and routinely disparages climate science, will be the first U.S. president to face a voter backlash over the climate crisis. His Democratic opponent, Joe Biden, meanwhile, has vowed to reduce U.S. energy emissions to net zero by 2050 and promised a $2tn investment to create millions of new jobs in clean energy industries.</p>
<p>"Republican officeholders really do have to worry about this," said Maibach. "Young Republicans are becoming less accepting of the party line that climate change isn't real or isn't a serious problem. They don't want climate denial any more, moderate Republicans don't want climate denial any more and women voters largely don't want to support climate denialist candidates any more either."</p><p>The surge in voter appetite for climate action follows a barrage of disasters that have hit the U.S. recently, including huge wildfires that have scorched the west coast and powerful hurricanes that have pummeled the U.S. south. Scientists say rising global temperatures, caused by humans burning fossil fuels, are aiding the spread of wildfires and making hurricanes more intense.</p><p>Trump's first term in office has also seen a growing youth-led climate protest movement, with the Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg as its figurehead. Younger U.S. voters see the climate crisis as a top-tier issue, <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/?utm_source=adaptivemailer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=19-11-25%20climate&org=982&lvl=100&ite=5010&lea=1139465&ctr=0&par=1&trk=" target="_blank">polling has shown</a>, while the latest opinion research shows broad support for a greater focus on the issue in the media.</p><p>More than six in 10 respondents said the media should explicitly outline the link between extreme weather events and the climate crisis, while nearly three-quarters want moderators to ask questions about the climate crisis during the three televised presidential debates, which start next week. In 2016, no questions were asked about climate during the debates between Trump and Hillary Clinton.</p>
<p><em>This story originally appeared in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> </em><em>and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less