- Position‹3 of 3
- Neither candidate will do enough for the environment
The U.S. should follow clean production and principles of zero waste.
The argument
Joe Biden supports zero emissions by 2050. However, many climate scientists argue that humanity has 10 years to reach zero emissions in order to reverse climate change. This means that his plan will take too long and doesn't do enough, soon enough. Donald Trump does not consider carbon emissions as a primary focus of his Presidential platform.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Supporters of the Biden position reply that "neither goes far enough" flattens a real difference: a plan targeting net-zero by 2050 with interim milestones is not equivalent to treating emissions as no priority at all, even if the former is judged too slow. The question is comparative — which candidate will be better for the environment — and "neither is perfect" does not answer it. Critics also dispute the framing that only zero emissions within ten years counts as "enough": climate policy is standardly assessed on trajectory and marginal improvement, so a slower but real decarbonisation plan can still be meaningfully better for the environment than none at all.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] That scientists urge faster action does not make a 2050 plan with interim milestones equivalent to no plan; the two candidates' positions differ in kind, not merely in degree. [Rejecting P3] If one candidate sets binding targets while the other does not prioritise emissions at all, the argument's own premises establish a comparative difference — undercutting the "neither" conclusion the question actually asks about. [Rejecting C] "Neither does enough" sets perfection as the bar; environmental outcomes turn on trajectory and marginal gains, so a slower but real decarbonisation can still be better for the environment, which is what the question asks.