The presidential candidates outed on the issue of climate change.
President Obama has described climate change as "one of the biggest issues of this generation." I don't know about you, but I find it a little hard to understand how such a "big" issue received such short shrift in both Tampa and Charlotte over the last two weeks.
To be fair, Obama did give climate change a brief shout-out in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention last night. Sandwiched between the triple-decker mentions of investing in "wind, solar and clean coal" and biofuels and developing "a hundred-year supply of natural gas that's right beneath our feet" and aiming for "a future where more Americans have the chance to gain the skills they need to compete," Obama said:
"My plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet, because climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. [Cheers, applause.] They are a threat to our children's future." (Watch video.)
That's one better than Romney's acceptance speech, which had only one rather oblique (and left-handed) reference to climate change:
"President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans [laughs and claps] and heal the planet. [Laughs] MY promise is to help you and your family. [Applause]" (Watch video.)
I think we can safely assume that Romney was signaling that reducing carbon pollution will not be a top priority in a Romney administration.
(Check out the video of comedian Stephen Colbert's take on Romney's promise on The Colbert Report.)
Of course national conventions and their speeches are mostly stagecraft -- free time for campaign ads blanketing the airwaves and Interwebs. So perhaps they're not the best vehicle to learn about the candidates' official position on a topic like climate change. Enter ScienceDebate.org, "an independent citizens' initiative," its Web banner explains, "asking candidates for office to discuss the top scientific questions facing America."
Founded during the last presidential election, the nonprofit 501(c)(3) group is "dedicated to elevating science and engineering policy issues in the national dialogue of the United States." And true to that mission, ScienceDebate.org asked both presidential campaigns to respond in writing to a series of 14 questions chosen from a host of questions received from thousands of Americans of the scientific, engineering and concerned-citizen persuasion.
The question on climate was posed like this:
"The Earth's climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and other policies proposed to address global climate change -- and what steps can we take to improve our ability to tackle challenges like climate change that cross national boundaries?"
The campaigns' responses, available here, are telling. In terms of length, kudos have to go to the Romney campaign, whose answers tended to be meatier.
While neither candidate's response -- in my opinion -- fully answered the question, both responses provide a glimpse into the candidates' different perspectives.
Romney's position on climate change has been ... well, let's just say a work in progress. Time was, in 2004 as the governor of Massachusetts, he had a climate protection plan and he even pushed for the state to enter the cap-and-trade program between 10 Northeastern and mid-Atlantic states to reduce power plant emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). But he later backed away from that position, eventually becoming a full-throated opponent of cap and trade and embracing climate-science denial; to wit: "We don't know what's causing climate change." (And then there's his running mate Paul Ryan's position on climate change.)
So you can imagine how interested I was to to see how the Romney campaign would handle the ScienceDebate question. Turns out, the response was a bit more nuanced than one might have expected from his recent statements. Five paragraphs long, it began with this:
"I am not a scientist myself, but my best assessment of the data is that the world is getting warmer, that human activity contributes to that warming, and that policymakers should therefore consider the risk of negative consequences. However, there remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue -- on the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the severity of the risk -- and I believe we must support continued debate and investigation within the scientific community."
So, at least in the closeted space of ScienceDebate, Romney willingly adheres to the scientific facts: the planet is warming, humans contribute to that warming, and there are risks associated with that warming that policy makers should consider.
I do take issue with the second part of the statement about the lack of scientific consensus. It gives the impression that there is little need for action at this time.
While it is true that there is still scientific debate about how much warming there will be, how much humans contribute, and how severe the risks will be, those are a second-order or even-third order debate. For example we can't say exactly how much warmer it will be, but the scientific consensus is that it will be significant and will pose significant risks.
Think of it this way: if you are allergic to nuts, all you want to know is if there are nuts in the dish you're thinking of ordering. The fact that there is no consensus among the chefs as to whether the nuts are pecans or almonds is not all that relevant to your decision.
As far as the so-called lack of scientific consensus Romney points to, a report of the U.S. National Academies of Sciences stated: "Uncertainty is not a reason for inaction."
In the rest of his response to the climate question, Romney attacks the president for the cap-and-trade proposal (which passed the House in 2009 but died in the Senate) and the greenhouse gas emissions standards for power plants that his administration has promulgated. Romney promises to not advance any legislation or policy that will harm the American economy and proposes instead to pursue a "No Regrets" policy with "robust government funding for research on efficient, low-emissions technologies" -- which seems at odds with his "pick no winners," "oil above all" energy policy from his energy white paper (see post) -- and to "streamline the regulatory framework for the deployment of new energy technologies, including a new wave of investment in nuclear power."
In his acceptance speech last night Obama seemed a bit short on specifics for what his second term would mean in the area of policy. His campaign's response to Science Debate's question on climate represents a similar approach.
A major distinction between his and Romney's responses was the absence in Obama's of any snipes, subtle or otherwise, about the "lack of a scientific consensus." Obama's statement about the problem is straightforward and concise:
"Climate change is the one of the biggest issues of this generation."
And Obama's record is not devoid of some progress. Where Romney filled a good part of his five-paragraph response criticizing Obama's remedies for dealing with climate change, proposed and otherwise, Obama's shorter response touted the baby steps of success his administration has achieved toward making dents in America's greenhouse gas problem.
But Obama's prescription for moving forward on tackling climate includes no great initiatives, no calls for a comprehensive national policy on climate change, and no bold proposals for a new blitz to get a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, the international climate treaty that grew out of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change ratified under President George H. W. Bush.
There are proposals, but they are mostly incremental, vaguely similar in their small-potatoes approach to Romney's no-regrets initiatives laid out on ScienceDebate.org. For example, Obama's talk of investing in clean energy.
And yet, Obama does outline what appears to be a more direct and assertive role for government: for example, fostering tighter fuel economy standards for automobiles and emission standards for power plants -- two actions the president has taken that Romney opposes and promises to reverse (see here and here).
Is climate your make-or-break issue in this election cycle? They might be slim pickings but this is what you've got so far to distinguish the two candidates.
Crossposted with TheGreenGrok | Follow us on Facebook.com/deanchameides.
Follow Bill Chameides on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheGreenGrok
And what is the Romney plan? As the Governor said today on MEET THE PRESS: "I'm not in this race to slow the rise of the oceans or to heal the planet. I'm in this race to help the American people."
Not so eager, I guess, to help American people who enjoy breathing or who live in coastal areas.
OBAMA / BIDEN 2012
The crazy Scientists would have us believe that burning fossil fuels in our vehicles is causing our engines to heat up, as if fire releases heat or some such nonsense. The truth is WE DON'T KNOW WHY vehicle engines get hot after running, and this coincidental correlation between burning and heat in no way proves causation. This is just a global conspiracy on the part of the scientific community, who would rather collect grant money to "study" this warming "phenomenon" instead of researching something that might actually benefit mankind, like how to extract more oil from the bottoms of our oceans.
Unfortunately, this scientific hoax comes as no surprise. After all, when have scientists ever done anything useful anyway? This is just another one of their crackpot theories, like atomic theory, or the theory of gravity, or the theory of evolution, or the theoretical "laws" of thermodynamics, or the theory that invisible waves of energy can be "beamed" around the planet to digitally transmit sounds and images at the click of a button. When have these "scientists" ever been right about anything? They can't even tell us for certain whether it's going to rain tomorrow, or whether we'll be alive tomorrow, or whether the sun will come out tomorrow. So how can they expect us to just take their word for it that our vehicle engines are getting hot because we're burning fossil fuels?? It's absurd!
Stop burning the damn stuff.
That should be the major reason that everyone in this country needs to re-hire President Obama and fire the entire GOP.
We can cost efficiently slash consumption: Solar p.v., concentrated solar, solar heat-hot water systems, deep geothermal, p.g., shallow geothermic, wind, aqueous fuel systems, agrarian manure methane recapture- power heat systems, - and a broad synergy of energy efficiency measures are getting Germany off of fossil fuelsö.. Enery saving and renewable energy means a great export business as well.
Really, when Germans start to market aqueojus fuel vehicles, and aqueous fuel in-building Combined Heat Power Systems, many will want aqueous fuel powered vehicles and aqueous CHP systems in their homes. Our unbeatable argument for sustaiability is "Why Burn Money?" (c) (registered TM) Kent O. Doering, Germany.
Our group focused on"aqueous fuel systems"- internal combustion, gas turbine, and external combustion- . In aqueous fuel systems, we are looking forward to having our proprietory patents installed in at least 800 million various units globally. We were concerned about anthropogenic global warming and found one solution towards slowing it down.
Those who deny climate change, will not be able to take part and compete in the coming "sustainability boom"'. What is cheaper? A barrel of oil based fuel, or a barrel of tap water? We look forward to having our patents applied on at least 800 million units globally by 2030.
Kent O. Doering- Munich, Germany
Climate has been changing for millennia, since long before there were humans around to be hoaxsters.
The question is, "Is there anything humans can do to influence the rate and direction of observed climate change?"
The answer is "No."
The "hoax" red herring?
Climate has been changing for millennia?
There is nothing humans can do to influence the rate and direction of observed climate change?
I suspect it is the final question. If so, please explain what one can do to influence climate change.
The old "old earth" routine!
I bet the climate was peachy 35 million years ago. Palm trees. Days at the beach. Beautiful sunsets. Glorious grapevines growing in places you can hardly imagine. Ahhhhhhh.