MISSING IN ACTION: Neither candidate has addressed climate change in the ongoing Presidential debates.
Image: Flickr/Barack Obama
Three debates down and one to go, and climate change has still not been addressed by the presidential candidates and their running mates in face-to-face confrontations.
The punchy debate last night between President Obama and Mitt Romney opened with testy exchanges on energy in which the president accused his opponent of ignoring renewable power. Romney, in turn, attacked Obama for presiding over rising gasoline prices and faking support for fossil fuels.
But with the election inside of three weeks away, the town hall-style debate at Hofstra University on New York's Long Island firmly established climate change as an outcast issue in the race. Advocates have attempted all manner of attention-getting to highlight the subject, from delivering reams of petitions to praying.
Bill McKibben, whose climate protests this year have been a thorn in the administration's side, said satirically before the debate that it would be nice if the candidates "happened in passing to note" the visible impacts of warming, like record melting of Arctic ice and the drought consuming 60 percent of the United States.
In what turned into a very feisty debate on other subjects, neither candidate mentioned those events.
"Look, climate change is the biggest thing that's ever happened," McKibben said. "And hence the silence about it is both odd and paralyzing. It keeps us from really talking about the scale of change that we need."
Looking for guidance from above
Others hoped for divine intervention. A group of about 20 religious activists associated with Young Evangelicals for Climate Action traveled to the debate to hold prayer sessions asking that both candidates embrace the "moral" challenge of climate change.
"We hope that Governor Romney sees the light," the Rev. Jim Ball of the Evangelical Environmental Network said as he drove toward the site. "We're going to be there providing the governor support for doing the right thing. And he can point to young evangelicals and say, 'They get it. It's their future.'"
Ben Lowe, a 28-year-old organizer of the young evangelical group, went to the debate to "bear witness to the lack of climate science" in the race.
"One of my biggest disappointments of the election so far is that neither candidate has shown the leadership that we're hoping for on the climate crisis," Lowe said. "For us, it's not just an energy issue, it's not an economic issue; it's a moral issue and it's a spiritual issue. And honestly, it's a pro-life issue."
Obama showed early in the confrontation that he had jettisoned his passive strategy of the first debate 12 days ago. He repeatedly jabbed back at Romney's assertions by saying, "That's not true." He also sought to cast Romney as old-fashioned on energy, describing the Republican's plan as one that fails to see 10 years into the future.
"So he's got the oil and gas part, but he doesn't have the clean energy part," Obama said.
Romney accused the president of being responsible for rising gasoline prices and reduced access to public lands for oil production, and being disingenuous about supporting fossil fuels. He also spoke to conservative voters by describing Obama as environmentally extreme, claiming that the administration tried to stop an oil well in North Dakota because "20 or 25 birds were killed."
Sparring over the coal vote
"This has not been Mr. Oil or Mr. Gas or Mr. Coal," Romney said of Obama. "I don't think anyone really believes that you're a person who's going to be pushing for oil and gas and coal."
At another point, Obama leveled a similar criticism at Romney, who sought to close down a coal-fired power plant based on pollution when he was governor of Massachusetts.
See what we're tweeting about
20 Comments
Add CommentWell, one candidate talked about energy policy and goals, the other honked out some nonsense about energy independence in 5 years. Why didn't he just say 5 months? It's just as impossible. 5 years? What, does he think 47% of the American public are also total idiots? 15 years would be very, very aggressive, and a massive imposition on the economy (read much higher taxes and bigger deficits to fund it).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not sure that we watched the same debate ads what I heard was a balanced policy from one side and a complete inability from the other side to explain the reduction of production from federal lands.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisads = as, typo
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm talking about the statement Mitt repeated over and over in the debate: "I promise 5 years to energy independence." It's an excellent idea in a fantasy world, just not realistic (or even possible) in this real world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate change is too much reality for the theater of the media driven debates. That subject would mean the candidates would have to step out of their talking point strategies and come up with real solutions for our global problems. For some strange reason record drought, American failing health, flat oil production with increasing demand, seem to have no impact on the economy according to these politicians. But the TAX rate, which has no correlation with job growth, ... yea those evil taxes; they are the root of all evil (sarcasm). Seriously though we need so leaders who actually know how the world works.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislampora makes a good case for idiots. Romney did not say five years. Not one time. Romney said this only once:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"And if we do that, if we do what I am planning on doing, which is getting us energy-independent, North American energy independence within eight years, you're going to see manufacturing come back jobs because our energy is low-cost."
So someone has problems with their comprehension skills. Google "hofstra debate transcript" to find the complete transcript if you, like certain posters, either did not see the debate or failed to listen to what was being said.
RDH,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou mean he didn't say it other then when he said, (copied directly from the transcript) "My five-point plan does it: energy independence for North America in five years" One can be sure comprehension skills deficit is on your end.
They cannot resolve the climate 'issue'. All the details they argue are worthless. The earth will do what it does, and we are one of many insignificant habitants. The earth is not vested in human life, only humans are. But what our leaders can do is set the tone for what direction we go. The choices are pretty banal. They are to continue on our current path (e.g. oil/coal), focus on carbon reduction strategies of existing technologies (e.g. clean energy, carbon absorption, etc), or create an environment to invest in new technology (e.g. tertiary energy capture like wind, water, tidal; energy creation like clean fission or nuclear fusion, etc). Reality dictates, we will need to pursue all three. Policies will address all three directions at the same time regardless of who is in the White House.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut he can't promise this. He himself professes that big business should be unregulated and untaxed. What power would he have to influence their behaviors over the next five years without regulating and taxing them? He would be a lame duck when it comes to the private sector. He would have no power. Besides, office only lasts for 4.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLamorpa is on target. No reason to insult people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI watched a debate in which the Democratic party candidate stated, "You had a whole bunch of oil companies who had leases on public lands that they weren't using. So what we said was, you can't just sit on this for 10, 20, 30 years, decide when you want to drill, when you want to produce, when it's most profitable for you. These are public lands. So if you want to drill on public lands, you use it or you lose it...And so what we did was take away -- those leases, and we are now reletting them so that we can actually make a profit...And the production is up"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImmediately after the debate ended (within 3 minutes) the GOP candidate's "down 14 percent" statement was analyzed by a non-partisan speaker, and it was only a year-over-year change in 2009, the sum for his 3 years is a 10.6% production increase over the previous administration's average. Those are the published numbers (and I verified this).
Which debate were you watching? Often when a question is completely answered, it is not referred to as, 'a complete inability from the other side to explain.' That's the way answers work.
@evosburgh, Mitt stated that energy extraction on federal lands had fallen by 14% over the last year, Pres. Obama explained that this was untrue. A little (5 minutes) research will give independent stats of 12% over past 10 years, but increases 2009, 10, 11.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe idea that we can stop climate change is about as reasonable as believing we can halt evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot only is it meaningless what Romney or Obama do about 'the climate'...it is almost meaningless what the USA does.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we can't resolve the climate issue the human race is dead. The failure of either candidate to even mention global warming in the debate is not just a problem for the US, it is a tragedy for the rest of the world. Strangely, many countries still look to the US for some sort of guidance on big issues. The message being sent out at the moment is that climate change is not a serious issue and we must all increase production of fossil fuels. This business as usual rhetoric will put moves by others to reduce carbon emissions back years increasing the risk of catastrophic consequences. One has to wonder what it would take to get some real action!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ mormovies and geojellyroll: Don't be pessimists! Plant lots of trees, cover your roof in grass or solar panels, use renewable energy, and reduce your carbon footprint. Also, have fewer kids to reduce the exponent of our exponential growth rate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBird/tree
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo. I'm quite optimistic about the environment in the western world. I live in a very vibrant natural area. As for planting trees...you have a narrow view of ecology. I live in a natural grassland and have no intention of destroying it.
I was using the simplistic version centered on my own ecosystem, fallaciously assuming that you live in the same region. My apologies. I should know better, given my botany hobby.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was aghast during the second debate - it was as though both candidates were competing to see who would be the most effective one to pump the most greenhouse gases into the planet. I am very disappointed that Obama keeps saying "clean coal", which is a definitive oxymoron. Coal is by far the dirtiest way to generate power and mining it causes devastation of the environment and is deadly for the people who mine it or live near coal mines.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am an optimist about tackling climate change. It is certainly a "can do" issue if only we have the will to try. I am an Australian and we managed to get a carbon pricing scheme up despite incredible opposition from the big coal, oil and gas produces as well as the big miners (which include the second richest person in the world). Our strategy was to use an internet organisation called "GetUp" that pooled resources of all the environmental and humanitarian groups to beat the power of the big coorporations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe US could easily do the same. However, for a start, try writing directly to Barack Obama and your local Representative. Even though I am not a US citizen I have already sent him an email with a few of the latest reports on climate change begging him to at least mention it. I have also started a petition that you can sign on the whitehouse website here: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions/all/0/2/0/. Please sign it to get some action.