Both presidential candidates agree that the US should aim to become energy independent, meaning that it satiates its energy demands all by itself rather than by importing energy or energy sources from other nations. Clinton, though, is hoping to develop an infrastructure that mixes renewable energy sources and nuclear power, while phasing out fossil fuel usage.
It’s a crying shame that science and the environment have barely come up in either of these presidential debates. Regardless, it is extremely clear that there’s a huge gulf between the two nominees in this sense. Without a doubt, Trump is the least scientifically cognizant candidate for the Oval Office in living memory.
Clinton has penned several articles for a major scientific journal and has consistently cited data, evidence, and science as key drivers of her policy decisions and plans. Donald Trump once blamed Ebola cases in the US on Obama, announced that “space is terrific”, and said that he “believes there’s weather.” The Donald has about as much scientific awareness as an unripe banana.
Imagine a debate that focused exclusively on scientific issues. Watching Trump attempting to talk about science at length would be like forcing a panda to learn karate – strange, uncomfortable, somewhat cruel, and ultimately pointless.
Trump treats scientific evidence, particularly relating to climate change, like it’s an optional extra. For this reason, and many others, this willful ignoramus is completely unfit to become the leader of the free world.