Following statements from his campaign that Sanders would not run attack ads, Sanders has begun to attack Clinton. A lot of these attacks have to do with Clinton’s taking of money from the fossil fuel industry. The implications behind taking money from the fossil fuel industry are long reaching and are a major issue in this election. In fact, in only half of the first six democratic debates has climate change even been brought up for debate, despite 11% of would-be democratic voters ranking it the most important issue, third only behind the economy and healthcare. It ranked higher than terrorism, gun policy, and immigration combined, according to this MotherJones article. The lack of debate about climate change might stem from the common belief that Clinton and Sanders agree on climate change policy. While they agree that climate change exists, their plans are extremely dissimilar. Clinton’s plan increases renewable energy by increasing solar installations by 700% and offers tax breaks to companies using renewable energy but does little more than that. On the other hand, Sanders’ plan combats serious issues such as offshore drilling and the Keystone XL pipeline, a pipeline running through the heart of the country known for its serious opposition due to leaks and running through protected grounds. There are also serious differences in their stances on fracking and the impact of climate change on national security. Sanders’, for instance, believes that climate change is the single biggest threat to U.S. National Security, while Clinton’s views are far more reserved.

The entire debate boils down to Clinton’s softer stance on climate change and large acceptance of money from the fossil fuel industry. If elected, will that money impact her decisions when it comes time to crack down on climate change?