Skip to main content

Are you among those disturbed that Climate Change was not mentioned in any of the debates ? If not, you probably want to give this post a skip.  GOTV !!!!!

If you are, you might find this post interesting, and beyond that, after the election take some action?

Larry King

Larry King moderated a televised third party debate this morning where climate change was discussed as an issue.  

LATimes

 
Third-party debate showcases fresh faces and issues
The three also bemoaned the total lack of attention to climate change in the main presidential contest. Anderson called it "a greater long-term risk to the United States than terrorism."
The article included vid from the debate, transcript not available yet, but  an excerpt to give you a taste:

Just how important is climate change?

HT to kossack A Siegel for this amazing vid headsup:

"We broke the Arctic." Bill on Bill: McKibben on Maher+*

by A Siegel
for Climate Change SOS

Wherein McKibben slaps down conservatives/climate deniers,yus!  
The  vid link in A Siegel's diary no longer works, but you can  view it here:
http://www.liveleak.com/...

The Corporations For Presidential Debates

So why was Climate Change not in the CPD debates? Some say the Big Oil and other corporations have far too much influence on both the Dem and Republican parties.  Others will point out that  it is so controversial given the huge corporate media spin and time given the deniers that it will not move votes.

In addition, it may be the way it is framed by supporters of action on climate change.  Roberts has an excellent discussion of this here:  http://grist.org/... .  

Climate Action
If you agree that climate change  is THE urgent issue and  that it trumps most others, check this out about 350.org / Bill Mckibben's tour aimed at university divestiture:

Cue the Math: 350’s Roadshow Takes Aim at Big Oil
by Wen Stephenson   
It was game time. The Saturday night crowd on the Vermont campus was festive, boisterous, pumped. People cheered and whooped when told that one of their heroes, climate activist Tim DeChristopher — serving a two-year federal sentence for his civil disobedience opposing new oil and gas drilling in Utah — would soon be back on the field.

When the man on the stage, 350.org’s Bill McKibben, said it was time to march not just on Washington but on the headquarters of fossil fuel companies — “it’s time to march on Dallas” — and asked those to stand who’d be willing to join in the fight, seemingly every person filling the University of Vermont’s cavernous Ira Allen Chapel, some 800 souls, rose to their feet.

McKibben and 350, the folks who brought us the Keystone XL pipeline protests, are now calling for a nationwide divestment campaign aimed at fossil fuel companies’ bottom line. Beginning with student-led campaigns on college campuses, modeled on the anti-apartheid campaigns of the 1980s,they’ll pressure institutions to withdraw all investments from big oil and coal and gas. Their larger goal is to ignite a morally charged movement to strip the industry of its legitimacy.

“The fossil fuel industry has behaved so recklessly that they should lose their social license — their veneer of respectability,” McKibben tells his audience. “You want to take away our planet and our future? We’re going to take away your money and your good name.”

McKibben is mad, and we should be too
As though finally venting emotions long suppressed (he’s a native New Englander, after all), he wrote with trademark but now seething understatement: “I’m a mild-mannered guy, a Methodist Sunday school teacher. Not quick to anger. So what I want to say is: This is fucked up. The time has come to get mad, and then to get busy.”
Divestiture!

In Austin back in the day my wife and I worked with a teacher at public inner city HS  who was arrested with others when they took over the by god University of Texas at Austin chancellor's office to protest the university's South African investment holdings back during apartheid. This was part of an international movement and had great effect.  Years later they were exonerated, and he went on to become a principal in the DC area.

Why not do the same thing with Big Oil investments?

Here's what's  planned:

On November 7th, we’re hitting the road to jumpstart the next phase of the climate movement.

It’s simple math: we can burn 565 more gigatons of carbon and stay below 2°C of warming — anything more than that risks catastrophe for life on earth. The only problem? Fossil fuel corporations now have 2,795 gigatons in their reserves, five times the safe amount. And they’re planning to burn it all — unless we rise up to stop them.

This November, Bill McKibben and 350.org are hitting the road to build the movement that will change the terrifying math of the climate crisis. Join us.

Check out all the cities coast to coast where the tour being created.

(If its  not coming to your city, there are still actions you can take by signing up at the link below.)

Tour Dates & Tickets
View as: Map / List

    Burlington, VT 10/13
    Seattle 11/7
    Portland, OR 11/8
    Berkeley 11/9
    San Francisco 11/10
    Palo Alto 11/10
    Los Angeles 11/11
    Portland, ME  11/13
    Boston 11/15
    New York City 11/16
    Philadelphia 11/17
    Washington 11/18
    Durham 11/19
    Atlanta 11/20
    Columbus 11/27
    Chicago 11/28
    Madison 11/29
    Minneapolis 11/30
    Omaha 12/1
    Boulder 12/2
    Salt Lake City 12/3

[Go to this link to  sign up and buy tickets. ]

Don’t see your town on the map? You can still get involved by signing up  here.

###

Ready for some action?

 Of course now is the time to GOTV and make calls for candidates, but come Nov. 7.......

....join in the fun at 350.org and theDo the Math Tour

because

Photobucket 350.org Rally, Santa Fe, NM, October 2012 by divineorder

 

Originally posted to divineorder on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 10:00 AM PDT.

Also republished by Progressive Policy Zone.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

  •  Have you done the math? Hope you will comment. (9+ / 0-)

    Photobucket  

    Great web site for expanding the Climate movement is here:

    http://math.350.org/

    Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

    by divineorder on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 10:02:36 AM PDT

  •  divineorder, did you watch the Frontline (8+ / 0-)

    segment on the Climate Change Deniers?  I think it is worth every eyeball that is concerned about climate change and how the billionaires' club has spread the lies.  Truth will out but not before a lot of damage and heartache ensues.

  •  I Hope He Adds Cleveland at Some Point. (8+ / 0-)

    We are bluer than Columbus, we have manufacturing and we just had a big offshore Lake Erie windfarm canceled where there's an excellent venue for it. We need to get back on track.

    And there is plenty of regional interest in renewables.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 10:19:07 AM PDT

  •  Even though climate change was not mentioned (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder

    that I recall during the 3 debates, it was mentioned at the Dem Convention when the President said "Climate change is not a hoax."

    However, policies relating to climate change certainly came up, not only in relation to investing in green technology (which I think the President talked about at each debate), but also in relation to new CAFE standards.

    I am not so concerned that no one mentioned climate change per se so long as policies which alleviate climate change are promoted and that is what the President is and has been doing.

    You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

    by sewaneepat on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:15:41 AM PDT

    •  What I heard was (5+ / 0-)

      how much grease could we get out of the ground by both candidates.  That Obama is marginally better than Romney doesn't help; do we want to go over the climate cliff at 30 or  60 mph?

      •  Raising CAFE standards to 54.5 mpg, which is (0+ / 0-)

        double the current standard, will mean that much less "grease" we need to get out of the ground and much less CO2 that we put in the air.

        Pushing solar, wind, and hydro will also reduce the amount of "grease" we need to get out of the ground as well as less CO2 we put in the air.

        If you did not hear anything about green technology or CAFE standards, you were not listening and haven't been paying attention over the last 4 years.

        It is results that count and it is not marginally better, the President is significantly better on the environment.

        Sure, I wish it were not so difficult to get people to address climate change, but making progress is much better than going backwards.

        You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

        by sewaneepat on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:36:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the effect of the cafe standards is overstated... (4+ / 0-)

          check out this article, New Mileage Standards Encourage More Gas-guzzling, Not Less:

          The Obama administration finalized new fuel economy rules Tuesday, boasting new requirements that are slated to double fuel efficiency of new cars and trucks sold in the US over the next 13 years; however, environmental scientists at the Center for Biological Diversity warned Tuesday that the new numbers are misleading in the complex regulations. Due to loopholes in the plan, total greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks will actually increase from 2017 through 2025 and over the long term. ...

          The biggest set back to these standards includes a loophole which relieves automakers from improving pickup truck mileage until 2020.

          The loophole will actually act as an incentive to build more SUVs and pickup trucks, according to the group. "These vehicles consume more fuel and emit more greenhouse gases, yet the standards require lower efficiency-improvement rates for them as compared to cars. As a result, building SUVs and pickups will remain more profitable for manufacturers — an incentive very likely to increase the number of SUVs and trucks on the roads," CBD stated today.

          “Cars and trucks are the low-hanging fruit in the fight to get carbon pollution under control, and the technologies to reduce emissions exist or are on the drawing board,” said Vera Pardee, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “But the administration rejected a standard employing those technologies and instead incentivized SUVs and heavier trucks over cars. Automakers’ profits may improve, but the climate crisis will get worse...Setting fuel economy standards for 2025 that are lower than what we can achieve right now is not the kind of progress we urgently need,” said Pardee.

          i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

          by joe shikspack on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:48:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I see that this article says trucks and SUVS are (0+ / 0-)

            exempt until 2020, but every other article I have read says that light trucks and SUVs are included  and indeed have to increase CAFE standards now. And medium size trucks are included starting this year and heavy duty commercial trucks are included starting in 2014.

            I did see that VW said that heavy pickups were able to get around the requirement from 2017-2020, and that therefore people would buy more heavy duty trucks.

            I personally do not understand why someone would buy a gas guzzler instead of a car with good mileage, but I suppose some do since there are still a few people who drive a Hummer I guess. But then I drive a 1996 Saturn which still gets 40 mpg so what do I know. But surely more and more people will opt for buying a car with better gas mileage or an electric or hybrid car so they will save money.

            The vast majority of pickups on the road are light trucks and I don't see that changing to bigger trucks if someone doesn't actually need a big truck. They are a pain in the butt to get into and drive. We also have a good size Dodge truck which replaced our 1993 Nissan pickup a couple of years ago (the gas mileage on the new truck is actually slightly better than the much smaller Nissan). I have a difficult time getting into and out of the truck and hate to drive it. And yes, we need a pickup for our farm and other hauling. Wish we didn't, but I can't haul manure in the Saturn. Since the bed of this truck holds over twice the amount as the bed in the old Nissan, it requires half the trips to get manure, straw, etc as the Nissan.

            Nonetheless, if Romney is elected, these regulations will probably go out the door and we will be in much worse shape.

            You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

            by sewaneepat on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 12:20:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  How can we be sure that the Pres is feeling the (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              joe shikspack, joanneleon, PhilJD

              urgency?

              Huffpo

              The issue did not go completely ignored by presidential candidates on Monday night, however.

              During a simultaneous shadow debate between candidates from the Green and Justice parties and hosted by the progressive nonprofit news network Democracy Now!, the Justice Party candidate, Rocky Anderson, delivered an impassioned statement of the sort many environmental activists have long been hoping to hear from the two major party candidates:

                 The most important issue in terms of the long term impacts on the greatest number of people -- an absolute tragedy in the making -- is the climate crisis. And our nation -- although every science academy in the world agrees that this is a huge problem with horrendous consequences -- our government continues to abdicate its highest responsibility to provide international leadership on the climate crisis. And the most tragic part of this is the window of opportunity was very, very small the last 10 years to do anything about it, to save our children and later generations from experiencing the most catastrophic consequences of climate change. And we still fail under Barack Obama, who promised to do otherwise. We still fail to provide that essential leadership internationally, and the consequences will be horrendous. Later generations will look back and ask what in the world were the American people thinking to allow these people to continue to violate their responsibilities, and to continue drilling and caving into the fossil fuel industry the way our federal government -- both Republicans and Democrats -- are doing.
              Writing on the Climate Progress blog, Stephen Lacey echoed a number of other activists in noting that one question from Schieffer -- “What do you believe is the greatest future threat to the national security of this country?" -- offered an opening for either Obama or Romney to visit global warming. But in the end, neither took the opportunity.

              "Even as the world has seen 331 consecutive months with global temperatures over the 20th century average," Lacy wrote, "even as extreme weather gets more intense and expensive, even as the Arctic sees unprecedented melt of sea ice, and even as scientists issue dire warnings about an approaching climate 'tipping point,' the issue got no mention at all within three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate."

              Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

              by divineorder on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 01:19:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I am in favor of pushing the issue and (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                divineorder

                making the urgency known. I think we all have to do that in our own lives as well as in our political lives. I have lived in a solar powered house for 19 years (13 completely off grid, now a hybrid with a few things on grid and the capacity to put the whole house on the grid if necessary - such as when there is not enough sun, which is not that often). I support various environmental organizations and try to live as environmentally responsible as I can.

                But what I do know is that I will not waste a vote on someone who will not win. Either Obama or Romney will win and I think there is a huge difference between them on environmental issues. That is my only point, not that it is not an urgent problem but that it is IMO extremely important to vote for President Obama, that is the only way we have a chance to make a difference in the environment.

                And i think his statement that you quoted below in greater depth than I had shows that the President feels some urgency; he called it a threat to our children't future. And I suspect that had he won his first term in a more normal time, when the whole economy was not collapsing and we were not in 2 wars, he would have pushed more environmental measures. However, even with the huge immediate problems he faced, I believe he has done quite a bit. In addition to the things already mentioned, the EPA regulating CO2 is a huge step in the right direction.

                So I have hope - but only if the President is re-elected. If Romney wins, not only will the environment be the loser, but the economy, the middle class, lower income people, our children's educational opportunities, our health care... the list goes on and on. I seriously fear a dystopia in the not too distant future if these crazy Republicans are not stopped. To say nothing of the possibility of endless and possible nuclear war. I really think it is that serious.

                You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                by sewaneepat on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 01:41:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  sewaneepat thanks for the quote from the Pres. (4+ / 0-)

      This marks the first time that Climate Change has not really been discussed in the debates for the first time since 1984.

      And though the President has been a leader in green energy and has thankfully brought it up during the campaign, there is room for much more to be done given the urgency.

       "My plan will keep these investments, and we’ll keep reducing the carbon pollution that's also heating the planet, because climate change isn't a hoax," the president said. "The droughts we've seen, the floods, the wildfires -- those aren't a joke. They’re a threat to our children’s future. And we can do something about it. That's part of what’s at stake in this election."

      But many environmental advocates have been lobbying for a much more substantive airing of the issue during one of the presidential debates, and the failure of that to materialize was vexing.

      "For the first time since 1984, the presidential and vice presidential debates have ignored the threat of climate change," wrote Brad Johnson, the campaign manager for the group Forecast the Facts, which launched the website ClimateSilence.org with Friends of the Earth late last month. "President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Governor Mitt Romney, and [Romney's running mate] Representative Paul Ryan have failed to debate the greatest challenge of our time. Climate change threatens us all: the candidates' silence threatens to seal our fate."

      The issue did not go completely ignored by presidential candidates on Monday night, however.

      During a simultaneous shadow debate between candidates from the Green and Justice parties and hosted by the progressive nonprofit news network Democracy Now!, the Justice Party candidate, Rocky Anderson,  " delivered an impassioned statement of the sort many environmental activists have long been hoping to hear from the two major party candidates:

      I for one would have been more confident if President Obama had done more to make the topic visible during the debates.

      Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

      by divineorder on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:36:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My gut feeling is that since the economy is such (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        divineorder

        a high priority during this election, they did not want to be attacked for "putting the environment ahead of the economy" (and you know they would have been if they had addressed the issue in environmental terms.)

        Therefore, they addressed the issue but through the economic lens, rather than the environmental lens. So CAFE standards were discussed in how it would save you money (as well as cleaner air, I think he mentioned cleaner environment second) and green technology was talked about in terms of new good jobs. I think that was politically smart.

        After all, does it matter if we get green technology or use less gas in our cars because it was presented as an economic positive rather than an environmental positive? The result is a cleaner and more sustainable future. And we don't want to turn off the less well informed voter who might buy the economic argument but who might well be turned off by the environmental one.

        You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

        by sewaneepat on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:46:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The environment is not an "issue" (5+ / 0-)

    This planet we inhabit is not an "issue"

    Everything we do, everything we say, all politics, all economics -  all global "issues" depend entirely and completely upon this planet we inhabit. There is no other planet - there is no debate: as in "do we have a planet" or "do we not have a planet"

    Washington DC is not some exempt little Village that is somehow "in charge" of "environmental issues." It is a tiny little place residing upon the same planet everyone else inhabits. It rains there just like anywhere else. It gets hot there. It snows. The inhabitants eat food grown somewhere in soil that needs water and nutrients to produce that food. They breathe air. They drink water.

    The theater in which they perform their Kabuki politics is burning down around them and they continue to delusionally believe the play is all that matters.

    Even calling it an "urgent issue" puts it up on the stage and makes it part of the play. It's more than that. The theater itself is burning.

    muddy water can best be cleared by leaving it alone

    by veritas curat on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:29:45 AM PDT

  •  afternoon do... (5+ / 0-)

    thanks for covering this.  frontline has some materials up on this issue, including this interview with national journal writer, coral davenport.  here's an interesting excerpt where davenport explains why she thinks that obama isn't addressing climate change:

    [Obama] campaigned on this aggressive, detailed [cap-and-trade] plan, and they torpedoed it. It passed the House, just barely, and died in the Senate. And in the midterm elections, Republicans campaigned on cap-and-trade to the point where it became politically toxic. …

    Part of Obama’s campaign promise was to pass cap-and-trade and use that money for the government to invest heavily in clean energy research; $150 billion was his campaign pledge.

    What ended up happening was that in 2009, soon after Obama was elected, Congress passed the stimulus, with $50 billion … to invest in clean energy. The first big solar company to get funds was Solyndra, which later went bankrupt. And so this campaign promise of clean energy spending became politically toxic, it became something [used] to attack the idea of clean energy spending.

    Democrats who had supported cap-and-trade retreated. It became fodder for campaign ads. It was portrayed as an energy tax that would hurt the economy. And then a lot of Democrats who supported cap-and-trade ending up losing their jobs [in the midterm elections].

    i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

    by joe shikspack on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:37:18 AM PDT

  •  I'm still kind of shocked (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PhilJD, divineorder, joe shikspack

    that even Dan Quayle addressed climate change and yet it did not come up even once in three presidential elections when we can see the evidence of it all around us.


    "Justice is a commodity"

    by joanneleon on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 02:30:08 PM PDT

    •  The Villagers all have a/c. (3+ / 0-)

      They just crank it up full blast, pour another cold microbrew, and plaster on their best "What, me worry?" grins.

      we can see the evidence of it all around us.

      When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

      by PhilJD on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 02:48:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good one, PhilJD, but you got me there, too since (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PhilJD, joanneleon, joe shikspack

        I am guilty of the same.

         Still using airconditioning,  and when I am not drinking the cold  microwbrew drinking ice cold chipotle-infused Tito's Handmade Vodka, and when not in Costa Rica or souther Africa often I'm traveling in the Global Warmer, my old 4x4 truck camper .  And sadly I often paste on my 'what me worry grin when contemplating climate change gets too overwhelming.

        My wife and I do make a conscious effort to ride our bikes where possible, ride the bus when traveling overseas.  Still we know there is room for improvement.

        Thanks for commenting!

        Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

        by divineorder on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 03:52:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Even ole 'We're all happy campers here' Dan (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joanneleon, joe shikspack, PhilJD

      did?  :)

      Thanks for commenting!

      In the President's defense, it seems that never have any candidates had to contend with the huge sums spent on creating and supporting climate change denier  propaganda, and buying political support for same.

      If he is re-lected hope he soon takes action stat-- for all our sakes.

      You have college age kids right?  What do you think of 350.org 's plan to work for divestiture. Think it will catch fire with that demographic?

      Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

      by divineorder on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 03:47:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sadly I think that the preception (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder, joe shikspack

    from those involved with campaigns is the old, wrong, thinking that protecting the environment and a having a strong economy cannot be done at the same time.

    Of course the Solyndra non-scandal makes the handlers make sure that they steer clear of the entire topic of creating green jobs too.

    What is the status of climate change on the world political stage? I know it is mute here but I haven't heard of any international news about it either.

    The tour isn't coming within a few hundered miles of me, I would like to attend.

    •  Climate Change in other countries (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      citizenx, Steve Canella

      Apparently Germany's Green Party keeps piling up victories and making strides:
      http://www.theworld.org/...

      The reason for the Green victory: the faraway nuclear disaster in Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant following the devastating tsunami. This one environmental issue alone handed the Greens the win.

      The Green Party has been a force to be reckoned with since the 1980s and thanks to Germany’s multiparty political system, they have been part of various state and federal governments.

      Environmental issues are taken seriously by almost all political parties, reflecting genuine concerns among voters.
      This is dramatically different in the United States. Few Americans called for nuclear power plants in the US to be shut down after Fukushima and during the two recent debates between presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, climate change was not a topic.

      The overriding energy concern seems to be how to keep gas prices down (already much lower than in Europe), nevermind that this won’t exactly keep CO2 emissions down.

      A new study suggests that sea level rise on the US East Coast is accelerating much faster than elsewhere. It is unclear whether climate change is to blame, but it seems clear that the audience at the Hofstra town meeting debate was not very concerned about this.

      Monday night, in debate number three for the US presidency, we find out whether the threat of global climate change counts as a foreign policy issue at least.

      The tour is not coming near us either, but we signed up to be kept in the loop in case 350 NM or Austin 350 get something going.

      Obama's green economy efforts rocked, wish support had not let the plutocrats and the Republicans get control of the debate.  

      Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

      by divineorder on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 04:08:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site