Climate Change and the Candidates

And your comments on this political series of podcasts

Ric Edelman: It's Wednesday, October 16th. We are continuing our conversation of the presidential election and the 34 topics in an effort to help me become decided. To move from my undecided stance. According to the most recent polls, it depends which poll you look at anywhere from eight to 15 percent of US adults are undecided. 

We are going to choose the next president because those who have decided are pretty much in a dead heat. And this is why there's so much hand wringing going on right now and why I'm devoting this entire month of October to sharing with you my views, and more importantly, asking you for your input to help me figure out what my views really ought to be. 

I've gotten a lot of emails over the past, several days in response to the shows we've done over the past week or two. Let me just share with you some of these comments. First one is from Steven. He's in Washington Township, New Jersey. 

Steven: “Hi, Ric. When I first heard that you were planning to discuss your opinions about the presidential election on your podcast, I frankly thought that you were crazy. Why would you expose yourself to the inevitable criticism and hate mail from your audience? But after hearing you talk through your views on several emotional topics over the past week, I think I now get it. 

What you're doing is about healing and building bridges between political groups who often jump to conclusions about each other without understanding what really motivates their positions. When you do this, I'm sure that folks on both sides of the aisle are nodding their heads in agreement on many of the specific topics you're discussing. Ultimately, I don't think that it really matters who you're planning to vote for. What you're doing is performing a valuable service that hopefully your intelligent audience will appreciate in the end. P. S. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that Jean helped influence your decision to do this.” 

Ric Edelman: Steven, thank you. I really appreciate this. Yeah. As I began this series, you heard me say that I have never shared my opinions about politics on my radio show or podcast for the past 35 years. And why would I? First of all, my voice is one of 420 million voices. Nothing special about me. I'm not trying to influence anybody. 

And I know any comment I make about any of these topics is only going to antagonize 50% of my listeners. So, I really do appreciate your observation. Thank you. It means a lot to me.  

Here's what Doug had to say.  

Doug: “Ric, really appreciate your podcasts on the election. I have been really one-sided on the election and wondered what the heck the other side could be thinking. Your podcasts have opened my mind a little more.” 

Ric Edelman: Thank you, Doug. That is really, my sole goal here is to help us all figure this out.  

Let's move on and see what Sean had to say. He's in Washington.  

Sean: “Listening to your 34 points to decide between Trump and Harris, it's been interesting and infuriating.” 

Ric Edelman: Yeah, I'm assuming, Sean, that the topics you found interesting are those you agree with me, and those you found infuriating are those where you didn't agree with me. And I would be hard pressed to believe that anyone in America will agree with me on every single thing that I'm saying, hence the 19 podcasts and 34 subjects. 

 Here's what Susan had to say. She's in Merritt Island, Florida.  

Susan: “Thank you, Ric, for your thoughtful and thorough analysis of the policy issues of both presidential candidates to assist undecided voters. Although I am fairly well-versed in most of these topics and have decided who I will vote for, I am still learning a lot from your analysis, and it's an invaluable resource to share with others who don't have the time or interest to research, or only vote based on emotion or hate.” 

Ric Edelman: Thank you, Susan. I appreciate your email very much.  

And here's what Dan wrote to me.  

Dan: “Ric, I listened to your podcast on October 8th, on “The Economy Stupid.” You said you'd discuss Trump's tariff proposal, but you didn't. What say you?” 

Ric Edelman: Yeah, my bad, Dan. You're absolutely right. I had listed the tariffs as a topic on the economy and I just flat out forgot, to mention it. And I know why. What I was going to say, I'll say right here, the tariffs are getting a lot of debate from economists on the economic impact to our country on this. 

There is a lot of support for the tariffs and a lot of opposition to the tariffs. It seems to me a combination of 1) What is your political affiliation? Democrats tend to hate the tariffs. Republicans tend to like them. And 2) What industry do you work in? Some folks are in industries where I'm getting emails from people telling me that they love the idea of tariffs. They're begging Trump to do tariffs because it will be of such tremendous benefit to their industry. Others are saying the exact opposite that in fact, when Trump did tariffs when he was president, they were hurt because overseas consumers stopped buying American goods. 

So, my bottom line is I have no opinion as to who's right or wrong, Trump or Harris on the tariff question. It's more of a macroeconomic topic laden with political intrigue. I just don't have a commentary on it, which is I think why I forgot to mention it when I discussed the economy.  

Here's what David New Hampshire wrote to me. 

David: “Hi, Ric. I'm listening with great interest to your series on presidential election issues. I find that I agree with you on some issues and disagree on others, which is to be expected. I feel I have to point out that critical race theory does not mean what you said it means. If critical race theory actually meant what you said it meant, I would have agreed with you.” 

Ric Edelman: Yeah, this came up in a lot of subjects, Dave, not just critical race theory, but also the banning of books, the abortion question. There are so many issues where people are arguing that the reason the right is saying what they're saying is because of the actions and attitudes of the people on the left and vice versa. 

I've had people say to me, the reason I support banning of books is that I don't want pornography shown in elementary schools. Well, I don't think any of us want pornography shown in elementary schools. I'm just not convinced that that's what these books that are being banned are. I mean, A Catcher in the Rye? Really?  

So anyway, I get your point, Dave, I really do. And I think this is why we all have to work hard to identify what are the facts, what is in the legislation, what are in the regulations? What is it that the candidates are saying? As you said, we have to come up with the truth here and not just my truth, but the truth. You know, you can have your own opinion. You can't have your own facts. 

And here's what Kathy in Rhode Island had to say.  

Kathy: “I have to disagree with you on the issue of federal versus state control over education. I'll do so by relating a discussion I had with a friend several years ago. They were bemoaning the fact that some states would mandate the teaching of creationism, and that federal oversight from the Department of Education and control was needed to keep this from happening. 

I pointed out that a future Department of Education could just as easily mandate the teaching of creationism. Once I made this point, he didn't argue for federal control of education anymore. I'm using creationism as an example. The point is equally valid for any controversial topic. The lesson is to be very cautious about the government increasing its power over the citizens, as sometime in the future your opponents will get to wield it.” 

Ric Edelman: I think this is another illustration of what I just commented to Dave. Yes Kathy, we need to really understand what the proposals are, what the actions are, to help really evaluate our views and opinions on them.  

And, I got two emails regarding my, Excel spreadsheet, my election tool, which I created based on the advice of Benjamin Franklin. The tool that I have offered you, as I have explained on a prior podcast, is how Benjamin Franklin resolved complicated, conundrums. When he was faced with a complex decision, he used a process very similar to what I've described.  

I got two emails on this one from Kim in Michigan, another from Octavio in Sacramento. Here's what Kim had to say, and then we'll hear from Octavio.  

Kim: “Ric, accolades on your election tool. I am a retired engineer. Your election decision tool reminds me of the FMEA program, Failure Mode Effects Analysis, where ratings are determined by a severity of problem, occurrence of problem, and detection rating. Multiplying these scores allows you to set priorities, very similar to your election score. 

It's important that anyone using your tool follow an engineer's mantra: I don't want your opinion, only the data. So be careful to use only data for your spreadsheet. This is very difficult, considering that so much media coverage is biased toward one candidate or another. So, you have a real problem. How do you find legitimate, unbiased data?  I applaud your effort to objectively analyze the election.”  

Octavio: “Ric, I like your use of Ben Franklin's complex decision model. In choosing the 2024 presidential election. I would even suggest an improvement: instead of a top score of 10 for each issue, rank them all 1 through 34. After scoring all 34 issues, use the total score for each candidate and whoever receives the higher score, your winner.” 

Ric Edelman: Thank you both, for your comments, on my spreadsheet. I'm glad you like them and Octavio, yeah, modify my spreadsheet however you wish in a manner that suits your needs. Absolutely right. Proceed my friend.  

And here's an email I got from Derek. He's in Missouri.  

Derek: “I'm amazed by how you've been able to present your show essentially neutral on political topics. I'm a longtime listener, and whenever I thought I had you pigeonholed, you threw me for a loop.” 

Ric Edelman: Yeah, Derek, I think you're absolutely right about this. You would not believe how many emails I'm getting from people who say, Ric, you only said what you said because you really support Trump, or you only said what you said because you really support Harris. You're not undecided at all. 

You have made a decision and you like this one. You like that one. You'd be amazed how many people are emailing me with that kind of a commentary, which frankly I'm here simply telling you is not true. I am undecided as of this moment, as I have been throughout this campaign, and I'm glad that I'm throwing you for a loop because I'm really reflecting for you my indecision and why.  

For example, here's an email I got from Larry. This is a pretty common, type of a comment that I'm getting. Larry's in Texas. Here's what he wrote.  

Larry: “Ric, you have tipped your hand by the passion reflected in your voice. You will vote for Harris.” 

Ric Edelman: Now, you see, Larry, this is my point, and I'm not picking on you. I could have cited a whole bunch of other emails who are saying that I am clearly going to vote for Trump.  

My point is, I don't know. That's why I'm doing these podcasts, but the final e-mail of all, I think is the most eloquent and important. It's from Edward. He's in New York.  

Edward: “I would much rather know who Mrs. Edelman supports.” 

Ric Edelman: Yeah, I think you're right, Edward. I think everybody would be far more interested in what Jean has to say than anything that I say, but you're stuck with me because Jean isn't talking. By the way, she is not undecided. She has made her decision and she's not talking. So you're stuck with me, my friend.  

And let's move on to today's topic of climate change. 

This has a lot underneath it. The environment, drilling, fracking, energy, nuclear energy, fossil fuels, green energy, it's all wrapped up in the broad phrase of climate change.  

I have gotten a number of emails on this topic. I'm only going to share one with you. Kind of, summarizes it. Well, it's from Greg, he's in Gordonsville, Virginia.  

Greg: “Ric, I'm not one to trust any media source. I try to do my own research. I have no doubts that the Earth is warming, and I believe that we should be able to use our resources without destroying them. But the idea of throwing the kind of money we're throwing at it is ridiculous. According to the Utah Geological Survey, there have been five major ice ages, with warm interglacial periods in between. 

We are currently in a warm interglacial period that began 11,000 years ago. For those who think we can stem the tide, what did the humans during the last interglacial period do to create global warming? Too much CO2? Too many cars? I don't think so. Thanks for the series. I appreciate hearing both sides without the sound bites.” 

Ric Edelman: Okay. Thank you, Greg, for that comment. I really appreciate it. And, we're going to do exactly what you appreciate hearing.  

Let's move on with today's topic. The issue at the end of the day, when we talk about environment, climate change, etc., the issue, drill it all down. sorry, bad phrase. Reduce it all down to its core issue: Greenhouse gas. This is the gas that gets produced when we burn fossil fuels like oil, gas, and coal. Also, by the way, when we fart, the noise we make, it occurs when methane leaves our body, and methane is a greenhouse gas. Anyway, greenhouse gases make the planet warmer, and as the temperature goes up, all kinds of bad things happen. 

The ice in the Arctic and the Antarctic melt. That raises sea levels. It also makes oceans warmer. That increases the air's temperature, which makes cities and deserts hotter. Farm workers and others who work outdoors, they're far more likely to be injured on the job when working in heat. And a hotter planet also increases the number of, and the severity of, hurricanes and tornadoes and floods. 

Yeah, we're seeing more floods. Floods are killing crops across the Midwest. And we're also seeing that this creates more drought, and drought reduces the rivers. That means less water for cities that don't have a lot of it. It also means more wildfires, and bigger ones too. Droughts have even cut the nation's beef supply to record lows. 

So we've got to look at the greenhouse gases. What's causing the increase in the greenhouse gases? Scientists are blaming humans. We know that 80% of the world's energy is obtained by burning fossil fuels, and it's humans that are doing that.  

Donald Trump calls everything that I've just said a scam. He says, yes, there is climate change, but he says humans are not the primary cause for it. Kamala Harris says climate change is real, and their different points of view explain why their policy proposals are so radically different. Trump is focused on the economy. He's worried that energy prices are too high, and that too many people don't have good paying jobs. 

So, he wants to solve both of those problems by cutting regulations on fossil fuels. That will encourage the oil and gas industry to increase production. And by increasing production, we create jobs. And at the same time, the increased supply will lower energy prices. This is why you hear Trump saying in his speeches that he'll “drill baby drill”. 

By the way, he's not the first to say that. That was first cited in the Republican Party back in 2008. So don't ascribe that solely to Donald Trump. He also says that he'll eliminate new pollution standards for vehicles and power plants that would force utilities and manufacturers to drastically reduce their reliance on oil and gas. 

Harris, on the other hand, she's focused not on the economy, predominantly. but on the environment. She says climate change is an existential threat. So, she's not looking at fossil fuels as a way to lower prices or to increase jobs. She wants to spend $10 trillion on renewable energy. She wants to sue polluters. 

She wants to give money to communities that are affected by climate change. As Vice President, she was the tie breaking vote in the Senate that passed the Inflation Reduction Act. That law is spending $370 billion to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and she's calling for even more laws and regulations to further restrict the use of fossil fuels. 

She wants to encourage people to turn to renewable energy, even though this, for now, is more expensive than fossil fuels. She also says she'll continue to increase domestic gas production in the meantime. So she's not being oblivious to the current situation. In fact, the U.S. Energy Information Administration says that U.S. fossil fuel production hit an all-time high last year .And by the way, Trump calls all the money that's being spent under the Inflation Reduction Act as giveaways. Such as the money being spent to build chargers for electric vehicles across the country. 

Clearly, Kamala Harris wants to write more laws and regulations to address climate change. Trump, on the other hand, when he was president, he eliminated more than a hundred regulations that were designed to protect the environment. So, Harris supports tax credits for electric vehicles. Trump would eliminate them. He says subsidizing the purchase of electric vehicles is causing auto prices to rise, and it's hurting sales of the auto industry. Eliminating those taxpayer subsidies, he says, will improve the auto industry, that'll increase jobs, and boost the economy.  

This whole conversation is a really big deal for agriculture. The U. S. ag business produces 10% of the world's greenhouse gases. Cattle fart a lot. Cattle worldwide, just them are alone, responsible for 15% of the world's greenhouse gas production. If we stop eating meat, it's all we gotta do. We'd have a huge impact, not just on pollution, but on the economy and our health. 

That's a big reason why I quit eating meat several years ago. But until we all do that, we have to contend with cows passing gas. So as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, the Biden-Harris administration has been spending billions of dollars to build large scale methane digesters. These machines capture methane. They grab it out of the air from ranches, and they remove it from the atmosphere.  

But here's the thing. Environmental groups don't like the project, or the money that Biden-Harris are spending on it. They say that these digesters actually encourage ranchers to increase the size of their herds, making the problem worse, not better. 

In fact, earlier this year, a bunch of Democrats in Congress sent a letter to the USDA telling it to stop the program. These Democrats called the money an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars and an ineffective way to advance climate goals. So, even the Democrats who want to eliminate climate change are opposing some of what Harris wants to do. 

The best summary of the candidates’ positions on climate views was maybe aired during their one debate. Harris said that night that climate change is a problem, but she didn't give us any details on how to fix it. That's a pretty common problem with her overall, isn't it? A lot of us, complain that she is just offering no details for anything. 

And she has flip flopped pretty egregiously, like on fracking. She was steadfastly opposed to it at one point, but then the race in Pennsylvania got really close, so suddenly she says she supports it. A lot of people are wondering if we can believe her. 

Trump, on the other hand, you don't have to wonder if you can believe him, because when he talks about climate change, he's pretty much incomprehensible. During the debate that night, he said at one point he was a big fan of solar, but then he said solar farms take up too much space. He said he hates electric vehicles, but ever since Elon Musk has been supporting him, he now says he's a big fan.  

So, my view? Well, on climate change, it's pretty much the same as it was with health care, which we covered last Friday. If Harris was queen, and she could do anything she wanted, I think she would focus exclusively on the environment, with no regard to economic cost, and that means she would spend recklessly, and the Inflation Reduction Act is a great example of that.  

But Trump is dead wrong about climate change being a scam, or that humans are not the leading cause of this. We are facing the planet's sixth global extinction. This is a big part of the reason that Jean and I are funding the Edelman Fossil Park and Museum, which you've heard me talk about. It's opening next spring, by the way. It will help people understand the cause of the last great extinction, which almost completely wiped out the dinosaurs. And, our next great extinction, which if we do nothing is going to wipe out the humans. 

We need a leader who will be exactly that. A leader. And not just here in the U.S., but on the global stage. So, we can fix this before it's too late. And true leadership means being a realist, not an idealist.  

Harris too often doesn't live in the real world. She doesn't understand the economic realities that will impact what she's saying. Even restrict her ability to accomplish her goal because of her lack of understanding of economic realities, because she will be, after all, president, not queen, if she's elected. So, while I prefer her views on the climate and the environment, I fear she'll have too many negative side effects. Meanwhile, Trump is so solely focused on money, he'll do nothing helpful on this issue, and probably he'll end up being harmful. 

So, all things being equal, I should be calling this one a draw, and I shouldn't give either one of them my vote on this topic. But actually, I'm going to give this one to Harris, because she might spend too much, but the neglect of his policies that Donald Trump will create, that will get us all killed. 

Tomorrow…drug addiction, treatment, incarceration, smoking and vaping.

If you like what you're hearing, be sure to follow and subscribe to the show, wherever you get your podcasts, Apple, Spotify, YouTube, and remember leave a review on Apple podcasts. I read them all. Never miss an episode of The Truth About Your Future. Follow and subscribe on your favorite podcast app.

See you tomorrow.

----

Subscribe to podcast updates: https://form.jotform.com/223614751580152

Ask Ric: https://www.thetayf.com/pages/ask-ric

----- 

Links from today’s show: 

Click here for Ric's worksheet to help you evaluate the candidates

10/7 Monday Election Podcast-The 34 Election Issues and Ric’s worksheet for you: https://www.thetayf.com/blogs/this-weeks-stories/the-2024-election-the-tool-i-ve-created-to-help-me-decide-who-gets-my-vote

10/8 Tuesday Election Podcast-The Economy, Stupid!: https://www.thetayf.com/blogs/this-weeks-stories/ric-chooses-between-harris-and-trump-on-the-big-topic-the-economy-stupid

10/9 Wednesday Election Podcast-Housing and Homeownership: https://www.thetayf.com/blogs/this-weeks-stories/10-9-24-housing-and-homeownership-among-the-34-key-issues-of-election-2024

10/10 Thursday Election Podcast-Education: https://www.thetayf.com/blogs/this-weeks-stories/both-harris-and-trump-need-an-education-on-education

10/11 Friday Election Podcast-Abortion: https://www.thetayf.com/blogs/this-weeks-stories/abortion-the-most-emotional-election-issue

10/15 Tuesday Election Podcast-Healthcare: https://www.thetayf.com/blogs/this-weeks-stories/what-harris-and-trump-say-about-healthcare

Kamala Harris Official Campaign Website Policy Page: https://www.kamalaharris.com/issues/

Donald Trump Official Campaign Website Policy Page: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform

10/23 Webinar - How to Factor Longevity into Your Financial Planning: https://www.thetayf.com/pages/october-2024-webinar-how-to-factor-longevity-into-your-financial-planning

10/9 Webinar Replay- Crypto for RIAs: Yield, Staking, Lending and Custody. What’s beyond the ETFs? https://dacfp.com/events/crypto-for-rias-yield-staking-lending-and-custody-whats-beyond-the-etfs/

----- 

Follow Ric on social media: 

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RicEdelman

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ric_edelman/

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ricedelman/

X: https://twitter.com/ricedelman

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@RicEdelman

----- 

Brought to you by: 

Invesco QQQ: https://www.invesco.com/qqq-etf/en/home.html

State Street Global Advisors: https://www.ssga.com/us/en/intermediary/etfs/capabilities/spdr-core-equity-etfs/spy-sp-500/cornerstones

Schwab: https://www.schwab.com/

TAYF Disclosure page: https://www.thetayf.com/pages/sponsorship-disclosure-fee