This election was better than in 2012 when climate change was basically not even mentioned. Asking Trump and Clinton about climate change is almost pointless since Trump claims it is a hoax. So the issue becomes whether or not to believe the science which is denier turf. Of course the real issue should be what to do about it but you need two believers for that. There is no way Clinton and Trump could have had an intelligent debate on this issue.
Poverty and climate issues were precisely why third party candidates were excluded from the debates
Climate change is a byproduct of relentless corporate predation. Fighting climate change is not profitable.
Their advertisers are against the coverage, and will be.
Step 1: Grasp the irony of hundreds of people getting into their privately-owned cars and trucks to drive to climate change rallies.
Step 2: Set aside your anti-Big Tobacco placards for a few days to study the impact on the environment (and our serial wars) as a result of Big Oil.
As our politics and policies prove, Americans are all for poverty, as long as they aren't one of the poor.
Asking the questions reveals the facts: Trump denies climate change outright and ignores science; Clinton denies its speed and direness, thus obscuring the immediate need for and radical nature of the solutions and ignoring science, and neither can have an intelligent debate on the issue because they're both lying about it, either to us or themselves or both, and the black holes of things that must not be said because of their denial absorb everything intelligent. Those are very important facts to get out in public; climate science is the most important issue for the next 10 generations, and our actions from here on are determined by those and other facts about it.
Climate reality will become increasingly undeniable. Neither Trump no Clinton would do what is necessary but both may have to respond to reality.
In the short term, we're fucked. in the longer term, we are dinosaurs.