Climate Silence: Candidates Spar Over Who Wants To Drill For More Fossil Fuels During Debate.

[limpyhobbler]

By Stephen Lacey

“The door is closing. I am very worried – if we don’t change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum [for climate safety]. The door will be closed forever.”

No, that was not President Barack Obama or his Republican Challenger Mitt Romney speaking in the presidential debate. It was Fatih Birol, the renowned chief economist of the International Energy Agency, speaking about the pressing need to transition away from fossil fuels.

You’d be hard pressed to hear either of the presidential candidates make a statement like that. Or any statement on climate at all.

Those concerned about climate change were sorely disappointed during Tuesday night’s town hall-style debate when both the candidates and the moderator — CNN’s Candy Crowley — failed to address the issue of climate change, even during a lengthy and heated exchange about energy issues.

...

Complete piece: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/16/1025861/the-sound-of-climate-silence-candidates-spar-on-who-wants-to-drill-for-more-fossil-fuels-during-presidential-debate/

==========

Even though studies show there would be political benefits to taking a pro-climate stance.

==========

These people are also talking about this subject:

[Voice for Peace]

1. it wasn't a discussion but to me it was clear where Obama stands

and what direction he'll go. There's a lot he simply can't
say in such a setting, not enough time and too much
potential for misunderstanding or damaging "sound bites."

Regarding the pipeline I was pleased to hear him respond
we already have enough pipeline to go around and around the
world.

I am very confident there will be focus on climate change,
doing all we can while he's in office. He needs to get
re-elected & have four more years.

[limpyhobbler]

2. Yes it's very clear where he stands. He will continue the same policies.

Accelerated natural gas fracking, arctic oil drilling, approving the other half of the tar sands pipeline, investments in "clean coal" and some steps toward renewable energy. He calls it "an all of the above approach to energy independence." It's a big part of the campaign.

http://www.barackobama.com/energy

An all of the above approach to energy independence

Saving Americans money at the pump
...

Increasing natural gas production at home
...

Increasing oil production
...

Increasing production of wind and solar energy
...

Paving the way for clean coal
...

We Can’t Wait: Obama Administration Announces Seven Major Renewable Energy Infrastructure Projects that Would Power 1.5 million Homes to be Expedited
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/07/we-can-t-wait-obama-administration-announces-seven-major-renewable-energ

[Voice for Peace]

3. I'm more hopeful.

He's an extremely smart man whose vision extends beyond
the immediate economy and gas prices. I have no doubt
that he will respond positively to pressure from environmental
and green energy groups, and move as swiftly as possible
in that direction.

It's economically sensible for him to go that route.
It will create so many jobs, and so much opportunity
for innovation and progress.

I do believe he will fight environmental destruction
and disaster while doing his best to balance energy
and economic needs of the present time. He's a
practical man, a pragmatist.

The dark fuels are going down, the bright ones coming.

[limpyhobbler]

4. I think he is telling the truth about his energy policy.

I'm not good at reading between the lines to figure out their secret wishes. I just go by their statements and their records.

[Voice for Peace]

5. I read between the lines based on my sense of him as a human being,

what I know of his intelligence & integrity -- there's no
way he's not informed about the urgency of the environment.
There's no way he doesn't care.
And I trust him.

I don't believe he would sacrifice national parks to
oil and gas interests, as Mitt seems to want to do.

I don't think he'll sanction poor environmental policy.

[limpyhobbler]

6. I would rather have them frack in national parks and declare the rest of the country off limits.

National Parks is a symbolic issue but 99.9% of the country does not consist of national parks and it's open season for fracking.

Frack juice travels via underground water, so whether you do it in national parks is... it's important...but it's not that important if it can get in your water. Everywhere else is frackable. We can still get exposed to toxins, and we still get the carbon emissions and global warming contribution, but we will have lovely pristine national parks? Yay. It's mostly a symbolic issue. It's not a major policy difference in my opinion.

They sacrificed Wayne National Forest. This is poor environmental policy in my opinion. It's part of the "100 years of natural gas" policy.

Feds say ‘fracking’ OK in Wayne National Forest:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1071320

[Voice for Peace]

7. I can't argue with you and don't want to, I hate what's going on with fracking drilling and mining.

Only that I believe in this president, to whatever extent he
is able, to move us away from that icky stuff, to a cleaner
and safer energy path. No small challenge considering
all the opposing powers, and the tangible immediate
needs of the country.

From so many of his answers you can tell how he thinks,
in terms of the interconnectedness of many elements --
connecting education to gun violence, for example --
fuel efficient cars to more oil pipelines -- and I don't
doubt he knows or is learning about the connections
between poisons and sicknesses and poverty and
environmental destruction and oil gas and coal.

[mlevans]

8. I agree, but the big problem is he needs some cooperation

in the Congress. He can't just do it all himself by fiat. This is something a lot of people seem to keep forgetting, and he did address it frequently when he was campaigning in '08. He said he wasn't a silver bullet and he didn't have a magic wand and anything we accomplished was going to have to be a group effort. We've all got to keep pushing these things if we want to see them really happen.

[Voice for Peace]

9. +1

agree. but I think the Force is with us, and him.

[freedom fighter jh]

10. Sure we should keep pushing, but there's a lot President Obama could do.

Edited to add: I meant this to be a reply to Voice for Peace, reply #9.

The rest of the world is ahead of us on this. They don't seem to have a propaganda machine like ours saying the whole thing is a hoax. In recent years (within the past year? I'm not sure) there have been two international meetings, one in Durban and the other in Rio, trying to address this issue. In neither of those meetings did the U.S. take a strong position, and in neither of those meetings was much progress made. What if Pres Obama, leader of one of the world's biggest emitters of CO2, had stood up at those meetings and called for a treaty with strict, enforceable limits forcing deep cuts in emissions? What if, as was likely, representatives of the rest of the world had endorsed that idea and worked together at those meetings to draft a treaty, and then Pres Obama had promised right then and there to support that treaty? And then what if Pres Obama had brought that treaty to the Senate for ratification? Would those science-denying fools have had the hootzpa to get behind that podium and rant about the "hoax" of climate change? Or would they have been forced in the face of pressure from the rational side of the globe to confront their own foolishness and at least step out of the way and let the Senate ratify the treaty?

I don't know what the Senate would have done. But I do believe climate change is not just the biggest challenge of this election season; it is the greatest crisis that humanity has faced. Ever. This fatalistic idea that Pres Obama need not bother trying to get together a treaty to cut emissions because the Senate will only refuse to ratify it will get us nowhere. I take that back. It will only get us more climate change faster.

[limpyhobbler]

11. +1