The three rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination showed enough sense of responsibility in their debate on Saturday to freely discuss the nation’s epidemic of gun violence. Unfortunately, this was only half the debate voters deserve. The Republican candidates are callously ducking the issue. Among the recent casualties of such silence was a bill in Congress that would have lifted a ban on basic federal research into gun violence and its toll on public health.

For nearly two decades, Congress has banned needed research on gun violence by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Last week, Congress, doing the bidding of the gun industry, quietly killed a provision in the omnibus spending bill that would have reversed that ban.

In so doing, it left intact an anti-science smoke screen that has helped the industry and its lobbyists deny and dispute the facts of the gun violence that takes more than 30,000 lives a year.

Imagine if the tobacco industry had been similarly favored by Congress with a ban on federal research about cigarette deaths. Imagine, too, if the auto industry had such a shield during the years when the government successfully fought unsafe cars in the cause of public health.

Perversely, the gun industry claims that research by private and academic interests — which it can’t block — is untrustworthy. Expect that argument to be invoked in reaction to alarming research about the Missouri General Assembly’s repeal eight years ago of background checks for gun buyers that required people to appear in person at the local sheriff’s office.

On Saturday, December 12, thousands of onlookers in a Paris suburb witnessed the rarest moment in the fight against climate change. A hall full of officials, activists, and experts were cheering and hugging one another after representatives from nearly 200 countries reached the first meaningful agreement on greenhouse gas emissions, ever. The achievement didn’t come easy, but the Paris climate conference gave many in the climate-change movement a sense of optimism that’s eluded it for decades.

It was also the last moment of uncomplicated optimism the movement will see for some time. Expectations were high before Paris, which had been billed as a turning point and guided the decision-making of world leaders and activists for the preceding months—or even years. President Barack Obama, for instance, began rallying domestic and international support as early as 2013, when he began describing climate change as a central part of his second-term agenda.

Next year, those high expectations will come crashing down. Reaching an international climate deal was hard, but it will be even harder for countries—including the U.S.—to meet their climate pledges. The post-Paris optimism will give way to worry and doubt once again, as countries send mixed signals about their commitment to the deal.

In fact, those signals have already begun. Two days after the adopted agreement, Indian officials ensured that it wouldn’t change their calculus for investing heavily in coal in the near future. India will still double its coal reliance, and “our dependence on coal will continue,” Anil Swarup, the top bureaucrat in the coal ministry, told Reuters. “There are no other alternatives available.” Japan and South Korea, two of the most developed nations in Asia, admitted the day after that their plans to build 60 new coal-fired power plans will continue as if nothing happened. “Our stance on new coal plants is unchanged,” one official said.

India’s decision to double down on coal isn’t a surprise; the country promised all along that its top priority is to bring electricity to more citizens. But if other developed nations like coal-reliant Australia and oil-rich Canada favor similar short-term gain, it would spell disaster for the goals laid out at Paris. The world has enough coal reserves to last more than 65 years, according to Bank of America analysts, and half of it would need to be left alone to prevent the worst-case scenarios for global warming.