Some of the democratic candidates don't share that view, but the party leaders do.
"Ordinary" democrats by and large do care about climate change.
On the other side of the aisle, it's easy to see disregard for the science in both leadership and party members. Among that population is a significant chunk that is deeply religious and looking forward to the apocalypse.
I may get hate for this comment, but it's meant as a summary assessment of position, not of judgement (which I am happy to share in other contexts).
What ordinary corporate patrons want is incompatible with avoiding climate collapse at this point. Maybe we could have pulled it off if we started in the 00s, but the cure is going to be far more painful today, after we wasted two decades.
Ordinary corporate patrons aren't interested in higher energy costs, much higher transportation costs, and economic contraction. They aren't interested in getting net CO2 emissions down to zero. Given the two options, they would rather take the climate collapse outcome.
Of course this may be a wee bit easier said than done. But the first place to start is the "marketplace of ideas."
Climate should have been an important theme, but because there seemed to be little coverage or comparison of climate change policy, I can’t blame the voters for not factoring it into their decisions. Why was there no DNC-hosted climate change debate? There was too much punditry and too little substance for voters to make informed decisions.