Part 1 Climate change isn't exactly something the federal government can affect all by themselves; change mostly comes from the citizens. However, that doesn't mean they haven't put in many programs to prevent bad fortune from the weather. Some executive branch and bureaucratic agencies that do this include, the Environmental Protection Agency focusing on greenhouse gases, the Department of Energy develops new clean energy technologies, the Department of Transportation sets vehicular standards, and the Department of Defense which plans possible consequences of climate change and relays it to the rest of the agencies. Even with all of these organizations and agencies trying to help prevent climate change the choice ultimately comes from the nation's citizens. Because naturally, the effects of the many greatly outweigh the few who are really trying to make a change. It all comes down to collective action when it involves the health of the environment yet it seems like it's just in human nature to ignore it as long as your own life is fine. That unfortunately is likely the cause of our environmental decline. Many believe that everything will be handled by someone us so it is therefore not their problem to deal with. People will most often never care about what they do to the environment as long as what they do is convenient to their own lives. An example of this convenience can be our practical need to drive cars everywhere, massive factories mass-producing objects we use every day that end up getting thrown out anyway, and even livestock like cows with their natural gases are harmful to the atmosphere. Encouraging individuals to go out of their way of convenience and help out the few who do try and help remains a continuous problem that might not ever go away. Part 2 The main reasoning behind politicians' change in position is the fact that they are now targetting a different set of voters with different values. When a politician aims for the primary, they are targetting the voters on their own side. It's easy to say that there are people on both sides who firmly believe that theirs is the right one. So the candidate now has to play the median to the side they personally represent while in the primary. Having that in mind a democratic candidate in the primary will appeal to the current left-leaning democratic voters. By using the fact that the voters are very left-leaning; current candidates will appeal to that position more than another median. Now during a general election, the candidate must appeal to voters from both sides of the spectrum, even the ones who don't necessarily lean either way but rather stay in the center. So simply speaking a democratic candidate will shift their ideals to something more favorable for the center and right while still keeping the left in mind. However, this doesn't always mean their actual ideals and running policies will change at all. A good example of median voter theorem would have to be Hillary Clinton as she moved along the primary and general median. During her primaries, she went against Bernie Sanders and his extremely far-left policies on most talked-about issues. Hillary countered his arguments with other far-left policies but not as extreme. Then when she faced Donald Trump in the general elections she had become more moderate on right-wing issues for appeal. She was strategic to be sure, with facing the general public instead of already assured democrats but I don't believe it was the most ethical approach. A candidate should only win based on their real beliefs, rather than changing them around just to get a few more votes from outsiders to that belief.