Climate was raised in the second question of the vice presidential debate

During the September 10 ABC presidential debate between Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, climate change was raised in the final question of the debate, just before closing statements. Many in the climate community called out the network for giving the crisis short shrift. 

An analysis by Media Matters concluded that while other key election issues addressed at length early in the debate, like abortion and immigration, were also widely discussed in the post-debate coverage, climate change was not. In fact, there was not a single mention of climate change over 31 hours of post-debate coverage on cable news.

The destruction and significant climate fingerprints of Hurricane Helene rightfully positioned climate change as a top tier issue of the vice presidential debate last night. CBS moderators’ notable focus on the climate crisis further highlights how the issue should be consistently presented early and often in both questions to the candidates and in framing the issue as the existential threat of our time.

Candidates were asked how they would address climate change

For years, climate change was either excluded from presidential debates or framed in questions around whether candidates accepted the fact that the Earth is dangerously warming due to human activity. As recently as last August, candidates in the Republican presidential primary debate were asked by Fox News moderator Bret Baier to raise their hands if they believed in human-caused climate change.

But that trend appears to finally be shifting — during ABC’s presidential debate on September 10, both candidates were directly asked “what would you do to fight climate change?”

And during CBS’ vice presidential debate last night, the first climate question was directed at Vance and specifically framed around the issue’s importance to voters, when moderator Norah O’Donnell said: “According to CBS news polling, seven in 10 Americans and more than 60% of Republicans under the age of 45 favor the U.S. taking steps to try and reduce the impacts of climate change. Senator, what responsibility would the Trump administration have to try and reduce the impact of climate change?”

The debate segment underscored previous Media Matters research finding CBS has been a leader in corporate broadcast climate coverage for several years, and O’Donnell has also shown how to address extreme weather and effortlessly tie these events to climate science.

The climate section of the debate demonstrated a journalistic best practice used to address misinformation by reinforcing facts

CBS was criticized before the debate for its decision not to fact-check the candidates — leaving that responsibility to their opponents instead. However, the climate portion of the debate seemingly followed a technique suggested by communication experts to address misinformation without reinforcing the lie. Called a “truth sandwich”, PBS describes the practice this way: “Lead with the truth. In the middle of the report, briefly describe the falsehood. And then fact-check the misinformation and repeat the truth.”

Using Hurricane Helene as one example of how climate change is already impacting Americans, O’Donnell first laid out this truth:

“Scientists say climate change makes these hurricanes larger, stronger, and more deadly because of the historic rainfall.”

After the candidates both responded to her initial climate question, O’Donnell then followed up on a comment made by Walz, which identified the misinformation that underpins the rejection of climate science.

“Senator, I want to give you an opportunity to respond there,” she told Vance. “The governor mentioned that President Trump has called climate change a ‘hoax.’ Do you agree?”

Finally, O’Donnell concluded the climate portion of the debate by reinforcing the truth: “The overwhelming consensus among scientists is that the Earth's climate is warming at an unprecedented rate.”

In carefully presenting these questions alongside the truth, O’Donnell presented an easily replicable model for how to frame climate change for future debates and other coverage of the subject with figures who still do not recognize the overwhelming scientific consensus or the disastrous reality of climate change.