A Media Matters review of debate coverage during the 24-hour period immediately following the September 10 presidential debate found:

• Cable news networks — CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC — aired a combined 31 hours and 22 minutes of debate coverage across 211 segments.

• None of the segments referenced the climate change portion of the debate.

The September 10 debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump relegated climate change to a brief, last-minute question, despite the issue’s critical importance.

Climate activist and founder and director of Fossil Free Media Jamie Henn captured the frustration of many observers in a post that encapsulated the moderators’ negligent climate coverage during the debate, adding that “it basically sums up the American mainstream media's approach [to] the issue”:

Journalist Emily Atkin argued that the debate was “a disappointing illustration of ignorance about the stakes and science of climate change,” arguing that climate change is among many voters’ top concerns because of its impact on other key issues like inflation and rising electric bills.

Writing for The Atlantic, Zoë Schlanger emphasized the stark contrast between the debate's climate discussion and ongoing climate disasters, noting that the debate “was held while wildfires rage in Nevada, Southern California, Oregon, and Idaho. Louisiana is bracing for a possible hurricane landfall.”

These observations highlight the disconnect between the urgency of the climate crisis and its treatment in presidential debates. This disconnect was further amplified during the extensive post-debate coverage, where climate change was conspicuously absent despite cable news networks dedicating significant airtime to analyzing the debate:

• MSNBC aired 12 hours and 40 minutes across 76 segments.

• CNN aired 9 hours and 57 minutes across 73 segments.

• Fox News aired 8 hours and 45 minutes across 62 segments.

ABC's deprioritization of climate during the debate marked a step backwards from recent improvements. By relegating climate to a brief, last-minute question, the network’s moderators failed to build on the more substantive climate discussions in 2020, signaling to other news outlets that it was not a priority topic. This editorial decision had a ripple effect, influencing the focus of post-debate coverage across the major cable news channels.

Other issues raised during the debate, such as reproductive rights and immigration, received correspondingly in-depth coverage in post-debate discussions. In contrast, the brief treatment of climate change led to its complete omission from subsequent coverage. Networks instead filled this void with predictable partisan narratives, further sidelining this important topic.

This systemic neglect reflects and reinforces the marginalization of climate issues in political discourse. The cumulative effect is a missed opportunity to inform voters about a critical issue, contributing to the ongoing cycle of climate inaction in politics and media.

As the 2024 election unfolds, the United States has grappled with a series of climate-related crises. Wildfires continue to rage across the Western states, threatening communities and livelihoods. The Gulf Coast just saw a tropical storm rapidly intensify into a powerful Category 2 hurricane, while recent extreme heat waves strained infrastructure throughout the summer. Meanwhile, the insurance industry’s ongoing retreat from high-risk areas is leaving millions of Americans vulnerable to climate-induced financial ruin.

These events highlight the importance of moderators getting presidential candidates to discuss climate change. However, the responsibility extends beyond these high-profile debates. Throughout the election cycle, national TV news outlets must rise to the challenge of conveying the gravity of the climate crisis to the American public.

Climate change impacts the economy, national security, public health, and many other issues. News coverage should highlight these connections, showing how global warming is reshaping Americans’ lives and intersecting with key election issues.

National TV news networks must also provide voters with comprehensive information on candidates’ climate stances, pushing beyond sound bites to examine the details and effects of their proposals. Voters deserve to understand how potential leaders plan to address this existential threat with the urgency it deserves.

Finally, cable news outlets should treat climate change as a central, not peripheral, election issue, and emphasize its connections to other policy concerns. By integrating climate discussions into wider election coverage, news outlets can elevate this vital issue to the forefront of political discourse, providing voters with the comprehensive information they need to make informed decisions about our shared future.

Media Matters searched transcripts in the SnapStream video database for all original programming on CNN, Fox News Channel, and MSNBC for either of the terms “Harris” or “Trump” within close proximity of any of the terms “debate,” “discussion,” “forum,” or “face-off” from 10:30 p.m. ET September 10, 2024, through 10:30 p.m. ET September 11, 2024, the 24-hour period immediately following the conclusion of the Trump-Harris presidential debate.

We included segments, which we defined as instances when the Trump-Harris presidential debate was the stated topic of discussion or when we found significant discussion of the debate. We defined significant discussion as instances when two or more speakers in a multitopic segment discussed the debate with one another.

We did not include passing mentions, which we defined as instances when a single speaker in a segment on another topic mentioned the debate without another speaker engaging with the comment, or teasers, which we defined as instances when the host or anchor promoted a segment about the debate scheduled to air later in the broadcast.

We then reviewed the identified segments for any mention of climate change or global warming.