I'm glad the president did well last night, but seriously, WHEN ARE WE GOING TO TALK ABOUT CLIMATE?

[antigone382]

We have one debate left. Are we seriously going to go through all of the presidential and vice-presidential debates and never bring up the fact that climate change is CURRENTLY leading to incredibly costly environmental disasters, that it is CURRENTLY driving up food prices as a result of last summer's drought, that we are on the verge (hopefully only on the verge) of setting off unstoppable feedback loops such as the thawing of the permafrost?

Despite the wall of denial, a majority of the U.S. population believes that this is an issue; yet last night Mitt Romney quoted rising food prices as a failure of this administration--while at the same time castigating Obama for not increasing oil and gas production to their maximum possible extent. Failing to point out the connection between fossil fuels, climate change and food costs, etc. is allowing the very people who are denying climate change exists the opportunity to use its consequences against us.

[antigone382]

1. kick.

[snooper2]

2. Probably as soon as Florida is underwater

[geckosfeet]

3. I believe that the topic of the next debate will be international policy.

Industrial pollution may come into play there. But I can't see either debater calling out other countries.

[Johonny]

5. That's my guess too

[Plaid Adder]

4. Apparently never.

It is part of the subtext for all of Obama's talk about "new sources of energy." But basically, nobody wants to bring up climate change.

And frankly, I understand why--because I too avoid talking about it, because I fear that things are already too far gone and nothing can be done. But I think about it. All the time.

The Plaid Adder

[marions ghost]

10. But any future projection

--ie. sentimental talk of all we are doing "for our grandchildren," rings hollow without addressing the elephant in the room....

I understand the avoidance, but I think we have to be willing to confront it sooner rather than later. It makes me crazy that nobody seems to care--just gonna let the ship hit the pier.

[raouldukelives]

18. It's all smoke and mirrors until this issue is tackled.

Right now it looks like were going headlong into a changing climate that is going to leave tomorrows children scratching in the dirt while they try to figure out a way to live on less SS, on less food, on less healthcare, with less of a natural world to support them.
People love money too much to talk about affecting the stream of it. Even though a little hardship now could pay huge dividends in the future we are not supposed to consider this as our economy is so frail and the desire for stock market returns made off the raping of our environment has far too many supporters.

[timlot]

6. After he is re-elected when he can do something about it. Its not a top issue for most.

[Swede Atlanta]

14. When will it come up as a debate topic? Never...not in this country....

Americans are either in denial about climate change or are so absorbed in Dancing with the Stars they don't even notice. Then we have the cadre of deniers that say it isn't even so.

So this will NEVER come up as a serious topic until millions are starving and the rich have lost their waterfront homes to rising sea levels. Until then, forget it.

But even if Obama is re-elected, nothing is going to change. NOTHING. Mark my words. If the Senate remains in Democratic control (which is now likely) they can prevent bad legislation from coming to the floor of the Senate. But as long as (a) we don't have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and (b) the House is controlled by science-haters, nothing will change.

We will have another 2 years of the same crap. The Republicans still think God is on their side (and we know their only God is money, money, money) and they will thwart anything BO tries to do.

This is not going to be anything different. The Republicans would rather destroy this country than build it up under an Obama presidency.

[NightWatcher]

7. Prez Obama would likely do more than Prez R$, so we re-elect Obama first

then we pressure him to act. Prioritize your battles

[antigone382]

17. He doesn't do quite as much catastrophic harm.

And his administration was more strict on MTR and stopped Keystone, which I appreciate. But advocating the bullshit known as Clean Coal and touting the increases in oil and gas production as some sort of success fills me with despair. Acknowledging the consequences of that would be nice. Granted, he said a few things about the energy sources of the future and needing to invest in those jobs now, which is I guess what is perceived as the most politically acceptable way of saying we should think about maybe not shitting all over our own living quarters, but the reality is that all our talk of social programs, job creation, and what have you, mean nothing if we do not halt the process by which the planet is becoming incapable of supporting us.

[MrSlayer]

8. Never. It's not a winning topic.

And no one is ever going to do anything about it anyway. It's a shame but I think we're long past the point of no return on this.

Environment also polls lowest of all issues that concern people this election. Don't expect to hear anything about it.

[Ztolkins]

9. O was talking about it today in Ohio...or Iowa, one of the two.

[Indpndnt]

11. Global Warming is an international issue, so it may well come up in the next debate.

Foreign policy, right? It could work very well. And it's not as if Willard will bring it up. I doubt he believes it exists.

[OSPREYXIV]

12. A person is smart. Humans are...

...panicky and dumb." K, MIB I
All of us (even WMR) are aware of the immanent threat but moral courage, scientific intuition and an unobtainable amount of computer capacity to make a 4D model.
Global Warming is a misnomer. Global drying is more accurate. Every imperial civilization before this one collapsed after their forested lands were destroyed for fuel & exploited as unsustainable factory farms. China, India, Persia, Greece, Rome,
HR Empire, Poland, Spain, England, America and soon, all of Latin America. Somebody needs to animate this scenario. Glaciers calving icebergs,
robins in Alaska and beachfront erosion?
The big picture is out of focus and scary but the remedy is within reach. Reforestation now!

"The Day After Tomorrow" shuffled in the right direction but a feel-good ending obscured the essential fact that ice ages create vast deserts. (Atmospheric moisture is trapped in ice.) Teams of climate and forestry scientists in Russia and Israel have confirmed reforestation increases the moisture level within experimental micro-climates.

If trees make it rain, let's make it rain trees.

[Ilsa]

13. I'd like for them to tackle the aspect of

The Carbon Footprint of this business of companies sending our natural resources or raw materials to China for processing or construction and then returning the product to the US.

[Ship of Fools]

15. ain't gonna happen.

[99Forever]

16. A very pertinent question that no candidate...

... will touch. Is there actually a good honest reason they shouldn't approach that subject? Fuck no, there isn't, other than what it would do to their chances of winning. I think in part, that stating the real truth as to where the planet is headed, is so ugly, it would be the kiss of (political)death to those that speak of it honestly. That's very bad news for all of us, because the impact of doing nothing is irreversible. Our children and theirs beyond them, will curse us for our selfish, willful ignorance.

[fadedrose]

19. Probably after D.C. goes a foot under water

and they have use boats to get to the capitol and White House instead of limos...