随着选民准备在11月前往投票站，通货膨胀、外交政策和生殖权利主导了全国的谈话，环境政策未能成为主要的投票问题。

　　但随着气候变化引发更多破坏性和致命的天气事件，专家们质疑全球变暖的影响是否已经成为国家舞台上过度政治化的受害者。

　　参议院前首席顾问格雷戈里·多森(Gregory Dotson)说:“解决气候变化问题没有内在的理由应该是一个党派问题，但不幸的是，它已经成为一个问题。”环境公共工程委员会成员，现任俄勒冈大学环境法教授。

　　“就气候变化而言，这是一次极其重要的选举，”多森补充道。

　　全国民意调查显示皮尤研究中心发现美国两党都将气候变化倡议列为远低于其他投票议题的优先政策。

　　然而，调查显示，在党派之间，民主党人比共和党人更有可能优先考虑保护环境(63%比23%)和应对气候变化(59%比12%)。

　　然而，这些发现可能低估了公众对气候倡议的支持，尽管这并不是投票的重中之重。

　　“大多数美国人更喜欢政府对气候变化采取行动，但这并不意味着他们在去投票站投票时会优先考虑这个问题，”环境选民项目的执行主任纳撒尼尔·斯汀内特告诉美国广播公司新闻。

　　Stinnett将公众对环境问题的关注称为“一英里宽一英寸深”，这意味着有普遍的意识，但在政治上没有这样或那样推动针头。

　　此次大选的白宫竞选活动将副总统卡玛拉·哈里斯和明尼苏达州州长蒂姆·瓦尔兹列为民主党候选人，前总统唐纳德·川普和俄亥俄州参议员JD·万斯列为共和党提名人。

　　在几个使两党产生分歧的问题中，有一个是他们对气候的态度。

　　特朗普和万斯在竞选活动中一直对国内石油生产直言不讳，发誓要在“第一天”逆转清洁能源项目，并谴责绿色新政是一个“骗局”。

　　特朗普声称共和党全国代表大会7月，国内石油和天然气产量的增加将导致“价格大规模下降”，对于美国人来说。

　　据报道，在美国总统乔·拜登的任期内，美国平均每天生产创纪录的1290万桶原油，打破了特朗普领导下的2019年创下的全球纪录。美国能源情报署.

　　“我们可以看看前任政府在环境政策上做了什么，他们不认为这是一件重要和值得解决的事情，”多森在谈到特朗普政府时表示。

　　特朗普表示，他退出巴黎气候协议等气候倡议的动机是经济需求和推动能源独立。

　　“如果副总统哈里斯获胜，我认为你不会预料到应对气候变化的重大变化和重大逆转，”多森补充道，他特别提到了《通货膨胀削减法案》(Inflation Reduction Act)，该法案提供资金、项目和激励措施，以加快向清洁能源经济的过渡。

　　哈里斯和她新宣布的竞选伙伴，瓦尔兹，带来了进步的环境措施的历史，与非营利气候组织将民主党提名人称为“气候问题的中奖票”。

　　作为美国参议员，哈里斯是绿色新政的早期共同发起人，2019年，作为总统候选人，哈里斯公布了一项计划，计划花费10万亿美元减少温室气体排放，目标是到2045年实现零排放经济。

　　作为州长，Walz推动了气候行动和可再生能源的发展。2019年，他签署了一项行政命令，将气候变化称为“生存威胁”，2023年，他支持一项预算法案，要求明尼苏达州到2040年实现100%的电力来自无碳资源。

　　在选举倒计时中，野火正在西部肆虐，热带风暴已经威胁到了东方空前的温度正在影响这个国家的大部分地区。

　　这些天气事件的频率和严重程度因温室气体排放增加主要是通过燃烧煤、天然气和石油。美国是世界的第二大排放国温室气体排放量仅次于中国。

　　“没有什么比环境问题更能影响人们的健康、生活和安全了，”耶鲁大学环境学院教授、美国环境保护署前首席科学家保罗·阿纳斯塔斯告诉美国广播公司新闻。

　　“这不是公开解决的方式，但我认为需要这样做，”阿纳斯塔斯补充说，他坚持认为，如果气候变化被定性为健康和安全问题，它就不会在政党路线之间造成分裂。

　　阿纳斯塔斯是绿色化学研究所的共同创始人，并因其在可持续发展方面的工作获得了沃尔沃环境奖，他担心围绕气候变化的对话缺少一个不可或缺的部分——解决方案。

　　如果该国要过渡到清洁能源，阿纳斯塔斯认为，现有的石油和天然气基础设施是实现这一目标的最佳选择。

　　他的工作包括研究生产绿色氢和用二氧化碳生产可持续航空燃料的替代无污染方法。

　　阿纳斯塔斯说:“今天，没有哪个行业比石油和天然气行业拥有更好的基础设施来制造和运输氢气。”“那些从制造问题中赚钱的人可能需要从推进解决方案中赚钱，”他补充道。

　　Do voters care about climate change? How going green divides this election

　　As voters prepare to head to the polls in November, inflation, foreign policy and reproductive rights have dominated the national conversation, with environmental policy failing to emerge as a major ballot issue.

　　But with climate change fueling more damaging and deadly weather events, experts question if the effects of global warming have fallen victim to over-politicization on the national stage.

　　"There's no innate reason that addressing climate change should be a partisan issue, but unfortunately, it has become one," Gregory Dotson, former chief counsel of the SenateEnvironmentand Public Works Committee and current environmental law professor at the University of Oregon, told ABC News.

　　"This is an extremely consequential election with regard to climate change," Dotson added.

　　National polls from thePew Research Centerreleased in February found that Americans on both sides of the political aisle rank climate change initiatives as a far lower policy priority than other ballot issues.

　　Between party lines, however, Democrats are substantially more likely than Republicans to prioritize protecting the environment (63% vs. 23%) and dealing with climate change (59% vs. 12%), according to the survey.

　　Still, these findings may underestimate the public's support for climate initiatives despite not being a top voting priority.

　　"The large majority of Americans would prefer government action on climate change, but that doesn't mean that they prioritize the issue when they're going into their polling place and voting," Nathaniel Stinnett, executive director of the Environmental Voter Project, told ABC News.

　　Stinnett referred to the general public's concern over environmental issues as "a mile wide and an inch deep," meaning there is general awareness, but it's not pushing the needle one way or the other politically.

　　The campaign for the White House this election sees Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz on the Democratic ticket and former President Donald Trump and Ohio Sen. JD Vance as the Republican nominees.

　　Among the several issues that contrast the parties is their approach to climate.

　　Trump and Vance have been vocal about domestic oil production on the campaign trail, vowing to reverse clean energy projects "on day one" and denouncing the Green New Deal as a "scam."

　　Trump claimed at theRepublican National Conventionin July that an increased domestic production of oil and gas would lead to a "large-scale decline in prices," for Americans at the gas pump.

　　The U.S. averaged a record-breaking 12.9 million barrels of crude oil production per day in 2023 under President Joe Biden's tenure, breaking the previous global record set in 2019 under Trump's leadership, according to theU.S. Energy Information Administration.

　　"We can look at what the previous administration did on environmental policy, and they did not think this is something that was important and worth addressing," Dotson said of Trump's administration.

　　Trump has said his motivation behind withdrawing from climate initiatives, such as the Paris Climate Accord, is driven by economic needs and the push for energy independence.

　　"If Vice President Harris wins, I don't think you would anticipate major changes, major reversals to address climate change," Dotson added, specifically referencing the Inflation Reduction Act, which offers funding, programs and incentives to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy.

　　Harris and her newly announced running mate, Walz, bring a history of progressive environmental measures to the race, withnonprofit climate groupsdubbing the Democratic nominees a "winning ticket on climate."

　　As a U.S. senator, Harris was an early co-sponsor of the Green New Deal and in 2019, as a candidate for president, Harris unveiled a plan to spend $10 trillion to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with a goal of getting to a zero-emissions economy by 2045.

　　As governor, Walz has pushed for climate action and growth in renewable energy. In 2019, he signed an executive order calling climate change an "existential threat," and in 2023, he championed a budget bill requiring Minnesota to reach 100% of electricity from carbon-free resources by 2040.

　　In the countdown to the election,wildfiresare raging across the West,tropical stormshave threatened the East andunprecedented temperaturesare affecting much of the nation.

　　The frequency and severity of these weather events are increased by therise in greenhouse gas emissions, primarily through the burning of coal, natural gas and oil. The U.S. is the world'ssecond-largest emitterof greenhouse gases after China.

　　"There is nothing that's going to affect people's health, livelihood and safety more than environmental issues," Paul Anastas, a professor in Yale University's School of the Environment and former chief scientist in the Environmental Protection Agency, told ABC News.

　　"That is not the way it's being addressed publicly, but I think it needs to be," Anastas added, maintaining that if climate change were characterized as a health and safety issue, it wouldn't be as divisive among party lines.

　　Anastas, who co-founded the Green Chemistry Institute and has won the Volvo Environment Prize for his work in sustainability, fears that the conversation surrounding climate change is missing an integral piece -- the solutions.

　　If the country is going to transition to clean energy, Anastas believes the existing oil and gas infrastructure is the best fit to make that a reality.

　　His work includes research on producing green hydrogen and alternate, nonpolluting ways to produce sustainable aviation fuels with carbon dioxide.

　　"No one has the infrastructure today better to make and transport that hydrogen than the oil and gas industry," Anastas said. "The people who are making money off causing the problem are probably going to need to make money off advancing the solution," he added.