NO CLIMATE: With no mention in the third and final Presidential debate, climate change goes unaddressed in debates for first time since 1988.
Image: Flickr/Drew Baldwin
The final presidential debate focused on America's involvement in the oil-rich Middle East and on future threats to the nation, though neither candidate discussed the related risks of climate change.
The contest between President Obama and Mitt Romney capped a string of four debates in which they and their running mates failed to mention the topic of rising temperatures. It was the first time that has happened since the problem was identified in the 1980s, according to Brad Johnson, campaign manager of Climate Silence.
"Climate change threatens us all: the candidates' silence threatens to seal our fate," he said in a statement after the debate.
The candidates clashed last night on related issues of energy and national security, which the Pentagon has warned could increasingly be affected by climate change as drought and natural disasters pressure populations to move. The military's humanitarian missions could escalate along with other responsibilities related to warming, like navigating an increasingly accessible Arctic Ocean.
Before the debate, some analysts said the prospect of fluctuating oil markets associated with political volatility in the Middle East could invite a discussion about the candidates' plans for energy independence. That didn't happen.
Obama did not expand on the ideas he presented in a previous debate last week about reducing gasoline use through efficiency measures in the transportation sector. And Romney did not address his support of cleaner fuels like ethanol and biofuels.
The candidates also avoided a discussion about international efforts to address climate change, a diplomatic priority for many U.S. allies.
"Europe remains fixated on the issue and might reconsider carbon tariffs on the United States down the road," Michael Levi, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote on his blog before the debate. "Scores of countries in Asia and Africa care deeply about what climate change will do to their safety and prosperity -- and the United States is battling with China for their allegiance."
Other climate topics related to China also did not come up, like its breakaway production of solar panels and its massive investments in clean energy technology.
"One of the messages I think you would see the president give ... is China is charging forward both on its own regulatory measures to limit emissions, but also obviously in its strong commitment to being a leader in clean energy production and deployment," Roger Ballentine, the former chairman of the White House Climate Change Task Force under President Clinton, said before the debate. "The president will have a chance to say that's a leadership position which we in the United States should have -- have traditionally had."
A long bipartisan tradition ends
The absence of climate change has frustrated a range of people, from religious activists and environmentalists to college students who want to see a deeper discussion about future energy sources.
"I'm really passionate about this subject, because it does affect my generation and generations to come," said Duresny Nemorin, a student at Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University who led a climate rally before the debate in Boca Raton, Fla. "There are other ways to power our houses and power our cars. Why can't we investigate into different ideas? Why can't we be creative as a nation?"
This is the first time since 1988 that climate hasn't been mentioned in the presidential debate cycle, Johnson of Climate Silence said in a post that provides partial transcripts to the contests. Back then, Republican vice presidential candidate Dan Quayle said, "the greenhouse effect is an important environmental issue."
In 2008, Obama and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) discussed efforts to reduce emissions in three debates, including in one presided over by last night's moderator, Bob Schieffer. Their running mates also talked about it, with Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) touching on the dangers faced by her home state.
See what we're tweeting about
27 Comments
Add CommentThis article would make sense if it wasn't full of silly quotes. China is leading on clean energy? What a JOKE. Anyone who believes regulations and 'green energy' in China are more than a smoke screen are completely out of touch.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe spent 3 weeks in two regions of China and the most environmnetally degregaded town in the USA is cleaner than their most cleanest village. China's growth is on top of a hidden toxic base.
As for Europe...it's all talk and zero implementation. Everything there is about airport expansion, increasing vehicle production, revitalizing growth, growth and more growth.
The difference between the USA and most of the world is the US doesn't 'pretend' to be doing sopmething when, if reality, not much of anything is being done anywhere. The Americans don't fake it. I'm actually glad that neither Obama or Romney blurted out meaningless choreographed sound bites on climate issues...folks like the author would then have the misguided belief that they had any actual meaning.
I'm with you on China, not so much on the EU.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"""I'm actually glad that neither Obama or Romney blurted out meaningless choreographed sound bites on climate issues...folks like the author would then have the misguided belief that they had any actual meaning. """
Me too--I wish that they had said something meaningFUL, though.
So why would the Presidential debate pay any attention to fiction?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoctors can get away with telling you, "This is going to hurt."; politicians, not so much.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll the pseudo-science supporting man-made "global warming" has been debunked. In 24 years, no shred of evidence has been found to move "global warming" from theory to fact. Get over it! Liberals cling to the myth, simply because its supports their emotional, self-righteous, feel good, tree-hugging agenda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's look at the numbers. Who is decreasing the production of CO2 fastest - the US, the EU, or China? Obviously the US. We may not make the promises that the "true believers" want. We just do the job.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"""You are documented as an idiot on the topic of AGW. """
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProe it, denialist. You are documented as a pseudoscientist and greedy fool.
"""The rate of warming has not been alarming, """
Outright lie.
"""sea level has not been rising an any alarming rate,"""
Outright lie, unless you consider "alarming" to be an inch per year.
"""and developing nations WILL continue to emit CO2 and an increasing rate. """
Unfortunately true, because of denialists like you.
"""This means that worldwide higher CO2 levels WILL happen and the only intelligent response to the situation will be to adapt. """
What about animals that can't adapt fast enough (that is , 80+% of nonhuman animals and at least half of humans)?
Gatnos and Shoshin, congratulations on playing your part in the concerted to mislead and misinform. All it takes for democracy to fail is such an effort, and the absence of any mention of climate change in the debate shows the success of that effort. Unfortunately, climate change is quite real, and quite unequivocally caused largely by our burning of fossil fuels and cutting down of trees, as any dispassionate reading of the scientific evidence indicates.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissorry, ...concerted effort to mislead...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich "scientific evidence" are you refering to? The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 0.032 percent and hasn't changed much in the past century. The greatest contributor of CO2 isn't the burning of fossil fuels, it comes from volcanic action. The greenhouse effect is caused by heat and sunlight being trapped in the lower atmosphere. The largest contributor to that effect is H2O not CO2. Water vapor makes up about 7 percent of the atmospheric gases. It by far traps and reflects more heat than CO2, yet there is no outcry about it. I see no effort to reduce the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (largest contributor, BTW, are plants, especially trees).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"""Which "scientific evidence" are you refering to? The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 0.032 percent and hasn't changed much in the past century. """
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOutright lie.
"""The greatest contributor of CO2 isn't the burning of fossil fuels, it comes from volcanic action. """
Outright lie.
"""The greenhouse effect is caused by heat and sunlight being trapped in the lower atmosphere. The largest contributor to that effect is H2O not CO2. """
Yes, but all of that H2O was there during the Ice Ages, too.
"""Water vapor makes up about 7 percent of the atmospheric gases. It by far traps and reflects more heat than CO2, yet there is no outcry about it. """
Because we are not causing an imbalance in atmospheric water levels.
"""I see no effort to reduce the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (largest contributor, BTW, are plants, especially trees)."""
So you're advocating razing all forests to fix a problem that doesn't exist. You need to check your meds.
Check your facts before calling someone a lier. Apparently liberals, when lacking any evidence or basis for their opinions will conveniently try to make their argument by name calling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is NOT about pointing fingers at political parties or China or Europe; it is about our ATMOSPHERE, our WATER, our SOIL, and OUR EARTH. It is our health and the health of our kids that is at stake here. In this vast Universe--with billions of galaxies, trillions of stars n planets--perhaps, we are the only ones--HOMO SAPIENS, yes that's us--damaging our own home planet. EVOLVE.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is easy to misinform and mislead, which you seem especially good at. CO2 has in fact risen steadily during the past century, from about 280 ppm to almost 400 ppm today. And this increased CO2 causes warming, which causes more water to evaporate, causing even more warming, what is called a positive feedback effect. And our burning of fossil fuels far outpaces volcanoes in increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and this is a very well-established fact. But it's easy for you to create doubt by repeating falsehoods over and over, which you seem quite determined to continue to do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is NOT about pointing fingers at political parties or China or Europe; it is about our ATMOSPHERE, our WATER, our SOIL, and OUR EARTH. It is our health and the health of our kids that is at stake here. In this vast Universe--with billions of galaxies, trillions of stars n planets--perhaps, we are the only ones--HOMO SAPIENS, yes that's us--damaging our own home planet. I say--EVOLVE.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...and who are you, "gatnos"? I am Denis DuBay, I have a Ph.D in biology and have either conducted air pollution research or taught earth and environmental science for over 25 years. What is your background in science, and what is your name?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere are the facts Gatnos:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. "Carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years, the latest study of ice drilled out of Antarctica confirms."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm
You also need to go look up what the Keeling curve is:
It is called the Keeling Curve and since 1958 has been documenting the the monthly change in CO2 levels. So in short prior to the Industrial revolution CO2 levels stayed around 275-284 ppm. Now Co2 levels are at around 390 ppm. That is about a 40% increase in CO2 levels.
2. Scientific evidence published in peer reviewed journals shows that volcanoes only contribute about 2% of what humanity does to atmospheric CO2 levels.
Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf
From the article:
"Instead, volcanic CO2 emissions are comparable in the human realm to the global CO2 emissions from flaring of waste gases (0.20 gigaton per year) or to the CO2 emissions of about 2 dozen full-capacity 1000-megawatt
coal-fired power stations (0.22 gigaton per year), the latter of which constitute about 2% of the world’s coal-fired electricity-generating capacity."
You have now been presented with different pieces of scientific peer reviewed evidence debunking your assertions. You need to concede to reality or admit that your ideology matters more for you than does verifiable reality.
It will be interesting to see if Gatnos replies anymore now that his unsubstantiated misinformation has been shown to be what it is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm nobody.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you! Finally, someone with a few selected "facts" up their sleeve. However, you do not make the argument that "global warming" is in fact due to human activity. Or than any curtailment of human activity can stop or reverse it. A recent study found that wild fires release more CO2 into that atmosphere than automobiles. That combined with volcanic activity and other natural phenomena offer a substantial contribution to the CO2 percentage in the atmosphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.livescience.com/1981-wildfires-release-cars.html
A slight increase in PPM is virtually meaningless when considering that CO2 comprises less than 0.03 percent of the atmosphere.
Solar radiation is the source of most of the heat on earth. It is an accepted fact that solar activity has steadily risen in the past 8000 years and has spiked in the past 10 years. Increasing solar activity is expected to continue for several years to come.
http://www.mpg.de/495993/pressRelease20041028
Increased solar activity can and should be the cause of the so-called “global warming”, which by the way is a meager 0.012 degrees F per year since 1900. The accuracy of this trend can be questioned given the accuracy of the instrumentation and record keeping is questionable in the early half of the twentieth century.
https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years
So then why is there a correlation between CO2 atmospheric concentration and temperature? The answer lies with the oceans. Seventy-one percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by water, mostly in oceans; roughly 0.02% of the mass of the earth is water. As anyone who ever consumed a carbonated beverage knows, CO2 is soluble in water. This solubility decreases exponentially with an increasing temperature. The oceans of the world absorb CO2 at lower temperatures and then release CO2 at higher temperatures. So when one shows a correlation between average atmospheric temperatures and CO2 concentrations; one must also ask what is the cause and effect.
http://www.nist.gov/data/PDFfiles/jpcrd427.pdf
Man-made “global warming” is a political scam, backed by false science, whose sole purpose is to institute punitive taxes on energy use. Al Gore may not have invented the internet, but he did invent “global warming.” Unfortunately this scam plays well with those who have a chicken-little mindset.
Gatnos,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are factually inaccurate in so many ways it is difficult to sort them out. Here are some real data.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:132/plot/pmod/mean:12/normalise/scale:0.25/offset:-0.25/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/normalise/scale:0.6
The bulk of the atmosphere, nitrogen and oxygen, are not GHGs; CO2 is. Gases that do not interact much with the radiative energy the earth surface emits have little to do with the greenhouse effect. CO2 is closer to 400 ppmv than the 300 ppmv you claim.
The oceans are gaining in CO2 content; the increase in atmospheric CO2 is not a result of ocean outgassing. Where do you think the gigatons of CO2 emitted from burning fossil fuels is going?
Do you even realize how little you understand?
"""Thank you! Finally, someone with a few selected "facts" up their sleeve. However, you do not make the argument that "global warming" is in fact due to human activity. Or than any curtailment of human activity can stop or reverse it. A recent study found that wild fires release more CO2 into that atmosphere than automobiles. """
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLie.
"""That combined with volcanic activity and other natural phenomena offer a substantial contribution to the CO2 percentage in the atmosphere. """
Misleading language.
"""http://www.livescience.com/1981-wildfires-release-cars.html"""
Selective, cherry-picked data.
"""A slight increase in PPM is virtually meaningless when considering that CO2 comprises less than 0.03 percent of the atmosphere. """
Lie.
"""It is an accepted fact that solar activity has steadily risen in the past 8000 years and has spiked in the past 10 years. Increasing solar activity is expected to continue for several years to come.
http://www.mpg.de/495993/pressRelease20041028"""
Lie.
"""Increased solar activity can and should be the cause of the so-called “global warming”, which by the way is a meager 0.012 degrees F per year since 1900. """
Which is actually a lot.
"""The accuracy of this trend can be questioned given the accuracy of the instrumentation and record keeping is questionable in the early half of the twentieth century.
https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years"""
Lie.
"""So then why is there a correlation between CO2 atmospheric concentration and temperature? The answer lies with the oceans. Seventy-one percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by water, mostly in oceans; roughly 0.02% of the mass of the earth is water. As anyone who ever consumed a carbonated beverage knows, CO2 is soluble in water. This solubility decreases exponentially with an increasing temperature. The oceans of the world absorb CO2 at lower temperatures and then release CO2 at higher temperatures. """
Lie.
"""So when one shows a correlation between average atmospheric temperatures and CO2 concentrations; one must also ask what is the cause and effect.
http://www.nist.gov/data/PDFfiles/jpcrd427.pdf"""
Lie.
"""Man-made “global warming” is a political scam, backed by false science, whose sole purpose is to institute punitive taxes on energy use. Al Gore may not have invented the internet, but he did invent “global warming.” Unfortunately this scam plays well with those who have a chicken-little mindset."""
Partisan lie.
At least the world is making progress, then!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour rebuttal is weak.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see you can cherry pick data as well as Al Gore.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBack to name calling again?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are a pathetic troll, and I am reporting you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this