Skip to main content

Two presidential and one vice presidential debates are in the books and not one time has the vital question of climate change been raised.

Below the orange squiqqle are global warming questions (with answers) from The Union of Concerned Scientists with material that should be high on the list of presidential debate concerns.

The national political silence on global warming is deafening.

I look at this graph and wonder.  How can there be no concern?

These questions (with answers from the Union of Concerned Scientists) are found here

1. How do we know that humans are the major cause of global warming?
2. Why does CO2 get most of the attention when there are so many other heat-trapping gases (greenhouse gases)?
3. What is the latest climate science?
4. Does air pollution—specifically particulate matter (aerosols)—affect global warming?
5. How does the sun affect our climate?  
6. Is there a connection between the hole in the ozone layer and global warming?
7. What is the best source of scientific information on global warming?
8. Will responding to global warming be harmful to our economy?
9. What are the options for the vast stores of coal around the world?
10. Is global warming already happening?

What is not being talked about is louder than any dramatics erupting from the debate stage.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  We have so much work to do.. (4+ / 0-)

    Nixon at least had to address environmental concerns when he ran, and act on them.  When candidates can run away from climate change because of perceptions about economic impacts, we are losing the war.

    I hate hate. I love the look in peoples eyes when they realize, for the first time, that they have power.

    by 4democracy on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:28:29 AM PDT

    •  It's as if we have no fear of extinction (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      4democracy, PeterHug, too many people

      Our careless stewardship of the planet reminds me of a teenager's reckless feeling of immortality.

      We are destroying our planet while under the influence of greedy corporations.

      If cats could blog, they wouldn't

      by crystal eyes on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:38:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In more immediate terms.. (3+ / 0-)

        we are destroying our economy - e.g. 70% of people from Missouri said this summer's drought made them rethink climate change's impact on weather and crop production

        We are increasing loss of human life here and abroad - hurricanes and sea rise in the U.S. Gulf states, as well as inundations of large portions of Bangledesh and SE asia, are going to kill people - lots of people

        We are increasing the chance of global instability - famine, crisis, and loss of life and wellbeing is a well known generator of people willing to die fighting for their lives.

        I'm all in for mother earth - but if human's aren't in for mother earth, she won't be on board for us and all the natural resources we feel entitled to .

        I hate hate. I love the look in peoples eyes when they realize, for the first time, that they have power.

        by 4democracy on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:47:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Because the debate questions come from (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan, PeterHug, splashy

    1.  Media  hacks, who are deeply uninterested
    2.  Undecided voters, who by definition given this late in the campaign are low information and ignorant.

    Neither is likely to give a rats ass about climate change.  So they don't ask the question.

    All you get out of the three debates on this topic is that at least the dems will at least fund and encourage development of alternative technologies, while drilling and digging for every drop and scrap of carbon fuel, just like the Rs.

    So the difference is, that if the Ds get into power, we might have the tools to survive a  meltdown because they bothered to develop them, whereas under the Rs we'll be starting from scratch (or buying from the countries that are taking it seriously)

  •  In essence we did . . . . (4+ / 0-)

    and the bipartisan consensus was that it's full steam ahead  wrt developing fossil fuels of all kinds.

  •  Here's why: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan, too many people

    Republicans have established, in the minds of many Americans, that the enforcement of environmental regulations creates an unreasonable burden on American business.

    Having established this, the discussion of working for a better environment is a political loser in a bad economy.

    I spend many days at National Wildlife Federation. To be sure, there are other organizations that are better run, have a more prominent profile, or are more active, and the competition for Conservation Dollars is fierce, but the morale here is terrible.

    The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.

    by Pacifist on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:52:00 AM PDT

  •  I would speculate the entire crisis is being (4+ / 0-)

    ignored by mutual agreement of everyone involved.

    The omission is absurd since it directly impacts every other problem that we're facing, with the partial exception perhaps of equal rights but only less directly so.

    Chief neoconservative/fundamentalist allied belief: All things are possible if only you lie.

    by blueoasis on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 09:54:18 AM PDT

  •  How? (4+ / 0-)

    Because to actually comes to grip with it at this point would require changes so radical that they would undermine the hegemonic order.  And undermining the hegemonic order is the one thing that can get an American politician labeled "unelectable".  So, fuggedaboudit, you ain't gonna hear nothing about it, except perhaps the occasional platitude from a Dem and pseudo-scientific dismissal from a Rube.

    Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

    by ActivistGuy on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 10:06:49 AM PDT

  •  My take is that our real national leadership (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roadbed Guy, too many people

    is a corporate mentality.
    Corporations are artificial life forms that think themselves immune to life sustaining degradations because they do not eat, drink or breathe.

    Corporations are stupid-smart. They are smart enough to capture governments across the globe, but haven't figured out yet that they need people to survive.

    If cats could blog, they wouldn't

    by crystal eyes on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 10:08:53 AM PDT

  •  Ask the League of Women Voters (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    the fan man

    Oh wait, they don't run the debates anymore. The two major political parties took the debates away from them.

    Why no questions about X? Because the candidates do not want to talk about X, and they are the ones in control.

  •  The debates are circumscribed by the dictates (0+ / 0-)

    of the two campaigns. First rule, no third parties. Second rule, if we don't want to discuss it, we won't.

    Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

    by the fan man on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 10:20:57 AM PDT

  •  I see it different (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    too many people

    The candidates  discussed coal several times, and Mitt loves it. Obama supports spending billions to support non-coal power generation.

    Coal is the epicenter of global warming.  So in my opinion global warming was not ignored.

    •  Coal-wind talk was tiptoeing around the fringe (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Where was the talk about the consequences of not reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

      Taming an uncomfortable issue with safe talking points is a time worn trick.
      It reminds me of Romney's assault rifle violence cure of promoting two parent families.

      If cats could blog, they wouldn't

      by crystal eyes on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 10:45:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Last Night's Town Hall....... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    was the perfect opportunity to discuss global warming & it's consequences on a national stage.  The audience missed that opportunity, & again it was bypassed.  Then again both candidates were silent on this critical issue.  

  •  Because We Let Them (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Of course, the powers that be have insulated themselves very well against any uncomfortable questions but we at the grassroots haven't made the amount of noise that we could have to force the issue.

    For me, however, climate change is not the question.  How to deal with energy and environment is the question.  We spend 90% of our time "right fighting" about the existence of anthropogenic climate change when we should be spending all of our time proposing smart energy and environmental solutions that people can see direct benefits from whether or not they believe in climate change or not.

    But then, I've been saying this for close to 25 years and nobody's listened yet.  Including the chief climate scientist at UCS and Bill McKibben.

    Solar is civil defense. Video of my small scale solar experiments at solarray.

    by gmoke on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 11:51:15 AM PDT

  •  maybe at the moment global warming (0+ / 0-)

    isn't as important to them as it is to you, fer crissakes.

    •  Yeah, who needs a planet to live on? Look, there (0+ / 0-)

      is some shiny stuff over there we could buy, and ooh, there is something glitzy to consume.

      And in any case, it makes good sense to make snarky comments to someone who actually gives a shit about the future of humanity and the single most important issue that has ever confronted us.

      In fact, we should ridicule Obama, like Romney did, for trying to do something about it.  Fer crissakes.


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site