With the presidential election rapidly coming to a close here in the United States, both candidates are trying to hit some of the hotter topics and cement their views and opinions in the minds of potential voters. Throughout the election, we've heard both candidates mention over and over all the things they see as threats to the country. I have heard Donald Trump say the word "China" more times in the last year than I ever thought humanly possible, and Clinton consistently regards Vladimir Putin and Russia in a foreboding tone. And, of course, because it's American politics, everyone is obsessed with the threat of terrorism, the danger of "ISIS", and how we should "stop terrorists". But think back with me, if you will, to a little under a year ago at the first Democratic primary debate. When asked what the biggest National Security threat to the United States, "ISIS" or "terrorism" were common answers. But Senator Bernie Sanders (who I voted for in the primary) said something completely different. Sanders said "climate change" and doubled down on his answer when asked about it further. And you know what? Bernie Sanders is right.

Terrorism is awful, yes. There's no denying that. But if there's anything George W. Bush taught us, it's that creating and then trying to end an impossible "War on Terror" has only made things worse. Case and point: The so-called Islamic State. But that's only temporary. Eventually, the Middle East will stabilize and maybe even surpass us here in the West. But climate change? If left unchecked, climate change has the potential to literally end humanity. Even now, if we look to Africa, we can see a preview of the potential disaster to come via climate change. Villages south of the Sahara desert are rapidly being abandoned as the residents move further south. "Why?" you ask? Because the rapid warming of the planet is increasing the size of the desert, making it impossible for some people to live where they always have because they can't grow or find food anymore . This isn't prehistory. This isn't science fiction. This is real life. This is now.

And what does a scarcity of resources lead to? Conflict, violence, and war. So long as we allow climate change to get worse, foreign relations will also get worse. The situations we see in the Middle East and the less stable parts of Africa will get worse.

Fortunately, 150 different countries came to an agreement in Paris last year to try and keep climate change and global warming to a maximum of two degrees celsius. Which, I'm aware, doesn't sound like a lot. But to put that change into perspective, throughout the entire existence of humanity, we functioned and thrived within a range of one degree. For 10,000 years, the earth remained right around the same average temperature. But because of industrialization and unchecked pollution, we have now, for the first time, gone above that average by a full degree. That single degree is responsible for all of the changes we are already seeing. So just how much change would even limiting change to that two degrees cause? According to most scientists, it will result in longer droughts and heat waves which could be detrimental to food supplies. Not only that, but sea-levels will rise several feet, flooding coasts and forcing large-scale migrations. (I.e. a whole lot more refugees in the world.) Anything beyond that two-degree point means full-scale global disaster.

So why isn't this issue a larger talking point in the current election? Well, one candidate does bring it up occasionally and acknowledges the importance of doing something about it, leaving me confident they may at least try to retain the progress President Obama has tried to create. But that's not the topic most people want to hear about, so they jump to things like ISIS and Russia instead. The other candidate, however, is of the party and of the mind that climate change doesn't exist . Which, if you were to ask me, is nearly as dangerous of a belief as religious extremism.

So when you next listen to the presidential candidates talk, ask yourself if they're talking about the things that really matter. Not China, not emails, but the things that may potentially affect all seven billion of us.