You mentioned shooting on automatic. This is an area where you'll probably want to take more control over the exposure settings.
The tonal range of the image is very high - which is why when it's nicely exposed for the sky, the land is entirely too dark. There are several ways to fix this.
Your shot shows one issue where the camera exposes for sky and the foreground is dark. But the opposite problem is when the camera exposes for the foreground and then the sky ends up being too bright.
If the camera has enough exposure latitude (and the difference between foreground and sky aren't beyond the range of the camera) then you can split the difference. This means you manually meter the sky, check that reading... manually meter the ground, check that reading, then determine how many exposure stops (a stop is the doubling or halving of the amount of light) of exposure difference is between them and set the camera to expose half-way in between what you need for the sky vs. the foreground.
If you do that AND if you also use 'RAW' format (not JPEG) then you can usually adjust the exposure using computer software to come back to a balanced exposure.
Another technique is to simply expose for the foreground and use a lens filter to dim the sky. This is done with something called a "gradient" neutral density filter. It's not round... it's a rectangular filter and it slides into a holder that you attach to the front of the lens. Half of it is clear, the other half is tinted. You slide in the filter and look through the camera to get the tinted bit to cut down on the amount of light you're getting in the sky without darkening the foreground landscape. These filters come in various strengths that cut down on a mild amount of light (one stop) or quite a lot of light (perhaps 3 stops) and you can even stack them (e.g. I could use a 3 stop and a 2 stop stacked to get 5 stops).
But that method (using physical filters) means you're going to need to buy some extra equipment (namely the filters and filter holder) and by the time you the holder, the adapter ring that allows the filter to attach to your lens threads, and a set of filters... this would run hundreds of dollars.
So there's another method that takes advantage of the fact that these are "digital" images.
It turns out if the camera doesn't move between shots and nothing in the image is moving, you can use a tripod and take several images but each image is shot at a different exposure setting. This means some images have under-exposed areas, some have over-exposed areas. The computer can then combine the best exposed parts of each image to create a combined image where nothing is under-exposed or over-exposed. This is called high-dynamic-range photography or "HDR".
YOUR camera happens to have an HDR mode. You can read about it here:
Canon Knowledge Base - HDR (High Dynamic Range) Shooting (EOS 70D)
It turns out there's more than one way to combine the images and decide which parts of each image will be used in the final image. Some of these methods result in rather surrealistic results which have an artsy look but are not at all realistic (and people quickly grow tired of it if it's over-used.) There are other methods that result in rather realistic looking results.
So while your camera has a built-in HDR mode, another option is to just let the camera take the HDR sequence, but keep the original frames and then use computer software that allows more control over how the images are combined. There are LOTS of choices out there, but a program called PhotoMatix is probably the most popular. I very seldom use HDR (I have a complete set of those gradient neutral density filters) so I don't have any experience using PhotoMatix.
But HDR probably is the least expensive option because you can do this with any camera and don't need to buy any gear (but a tripod is extremely helpful if you don't happen to already own one.) If you go to a video site (e.g. YouTube) and do a search on HDR, you can find LOTS of tutorials.