Another Climate Free Debate: Like “discussing smoking without discussing cancer”

October 17, 2012

Is there a Cancer on our political system?

The Hill:

President Obama and Mitt Romney threw plenty of jabs about energy at their second debate Tuesday but said nothing about climate change.

Climate was also absent from their first debate, disappointing activists who wanted the candidates to address the topic that has seen little attention on the stump.

But the topic’s omission this time was perhaps more noticeable because, unlike their Oct. 3 debate, the two men spent lots of time battling over energy Tuesday.

Both men sought to claim a pro-oil and pro-coal mantle during the debate at Hofstra University in New York State.

Obama, facing attacks from Romney, repeatedly expressed support for fossil fuels, while arguing that the GOP nominee’s proposals would short-change renewable energy and efficiency.

“Both candidates vied to restate their commitment to more dirty oil, gas and coal production while ignoring the contradiction between an ‘all of the above’ energy program and reducing emissions of climate disrupting gases,” said Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth Action, in a statement.

Candy Crowley of CNN, the debate moderator, indicated afterward that she had a climate change question ready but was unable to get to it. Much of the debate time was taken up by the candidates interrupting each other, as well as Crowley.

The liberal Chris Hayes of MSNBC, during the network’s post-debate analysis, likened the climate-free energy portion to discussing smoking without discussing cancer.

Traveling today, but will try to catch up later.

7 Responses to “Another Climate Free Debate: Like “discussing smoking without discussing cancer””

  1. Martin Lack Says:

    Fighting over who can be more pro-oil or more pro-coal is insane. People need to be told that fossil fuels are history. Amory Lovins suggests that the USA could save 5 trillion USD and make room for 58% economic growth by eliminating all oil, coal and nuclear power generation by 2040.

    If all of this is true then:
    1. Why are our governments telling us we have to pay for new generations of coal-fired and nuclear power plants; and
    2. Why are our energy companies telling us that energy prices must rise to pay for investment?

    I find it hard to avoid reaching the conclusion that the ignorance of the general public is being exploited by business (via our equally suggestible politicians) in order to perpetuate the status quo. Little wonder, then, that Lovins says:
    “We do have a national energy policy, it is basically to keep wasting lots of energy, import it at whatever price and by whatever means are necessary; keep stealing from our kids; and keep screwing up the climate. You may think this is a senseless, immoral, and wasteful energy policy; and you would be right.”

  2. Jean Mcmahon Says:

    The no coverage for a planetary crisis is how I know the living planet will not make it I am still going to protest the Keystone pipeline in Okla..a person just feels better that way

  3. skeptictmac57 Says:

    I feel like at least part of the problem (other than politics as usual) is that in a debate format with only two minutes to make and defend a point,that getting sucked down into the complexities of AGW,and how that should inform our energy policy,would provide an easy opening for a denialist to insert easy ‘gut’ talking points about high gas prices,Solyndra,etc. etc.
    Just look at the endless debates on blogs such as this,that have been going on for years,with the same old long debunked denialist talking points being endlessly recycled.Translate that scenario into a small section of a 90 minute debate,and you can easily see where the issue could backfire and go off the rails for the candidate who acknowledges the urgent need for action on curbing Co2.
    None of this however,excuses the candidates from addressing the AGW issue in their platforms or in their stump speeches and political ads.

  4. rayduray Says:

    A new twist in the Canadian iron ocean enrichment scheme. The Government seems to have been enabling the geoengineering effort:

    Quote: “As controversy mounts over the Guardian’s revelations that an American businessman conducted a massive ocean fertilisation test, dumping around 100 tonnes of iron sulphate off Canada’s coast, it has emerged the Canadian government may have known about the geoengineering scheme and not stopped it.”

    Meanwhile, the native Haida group that got conned out of $1 Million appears even dumber than at first glance. Not only will they have lost the money, but they borrowed it. Amazing.

  5. In answer to the opening question – of course there is. America’s history has always been about the battle between plutocracy and democracy. Since WWII, we’ve built the military-industrial complex, we’ve allowed campaign funding to reach insane proportions, we’ve introduced the most effective means of propaganda ever created (the TV) into every home, and we’ve de-regulated Wall Street into a behemoth. We’ve allowed the corporate structure to infect our democracy at the deepest levels as well as most people’s personal lives in a fundamental way (health care and pharmaceuticals, banking and debt, the fact that most of the country has to shop at Walmart to be able to break even each paycheck, etc.).

    The plutocrats have been routing democracy in a steady succession the past 50+ years. Our democracy is now a hollowed-out shell completely subservient to corporate interests at all levels. This is not crazy liberal talk – it’s simple reality. Citizens United was simply the icing on the cake.

    I commented earlier about this – the debates won’t cover climate change. It’s not in Romney’s or Obama’s master’s interests, and neither political party will score points off the other about it. The Repubs can be painted as science deniers, and the Dems can be painted as caring more about hippy stuff than the economy (America’s true God). It won’t work in either party’s interests with swing voters. It might get a token nod at the final debate, but if it is it’ll be handled vaguely and then promptly dropped.

    Carter told us we had a serious problem regarding energy, and we decided to put blinders on and elect an actor. The Democratic structure took a lesson from that, and since then the Dems have been more conservative than Nixon. Clinton was a raving neo-liberal economically – it was one of the reasons for his popularity. And Obama is following the Clinton playbook. Both parties do NOT serve the people – they serve the corporate structure.

    It’s certainly true that Romney will be more of a corporate tool than Obama – but it’s like comparing two different types of apples instead of apples and oranges.

    As an example of how far we’ve fallen:

    We don’t even allow third party candidates in the same room with the chosen contenders, and we arrest them if they try.

  6. Peter Mizla Says:

    The climate is now really beyond the point where we can avoid disastrous climate change outcomes. Putting it clearly and simply- the Politicians and the fossil fuel companies, as well as a myriad of corporations have sealed Americans fate to a hellish future.

    That Obama and Romney cannot see this attests to their criminality Along with many others.

  7. […] Well Paul, it is all corporate-funded theater and bread & circus for the mesmerized and pacified masses. What more would you expect from a society whose governing institutions and news media have been usurped by the greed of monied interests? Both mainstream parties are on the corporate dole, a situation best summed up by the following comment: […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: