Frustration over manglende klimadebat

Diverse — Drokles on October 24, 2012 at 9:07 pm

Heller ikke den tredie og sidste debat i det amerikanske præsident valg mellem den regerende præsident Obama og udfordreren senator Mitt Romney bød på et ord om klimaet. Det var der heller de store forhåbninger til da den sidste debat drejede sig om udenrigspolitik. I Huffington Post summeres der op

History was made at the third and final presidential debate at Lynn University on Monday night. President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, sparred over American policy in Libya and Iran. They traded generalities on trade with China and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and made brief mentions of renewable technology and “energy independence.”

But as noted by several debate watchers, climate change was never mentioned — not by the candidates, and not by the debate moderator, Bob Schieffer of CBS News. Given the absence of the topic at the two preceding meetings between Obama and Romney, the close of Monday night’s event marked the first time in roughly a generation that climate change has failed to receive an airing at any of the presidential debates.

Og mange, som Time Magazines Bryan Walsh er foruroligede. “We are, after all, talking about a problem that has the potential to alter the fate of the entire planet, one that requires solutions that utterly alter our multi-trillion dollar energy system.” fortæller han

Environmental groups are so frustrated by the disappearance of climate change as a campaign issue that they recently launched a website, ClimateSilence.org, that argues Romney and Obama have toned down their statements on global warming in a “collective descent toward mute acceptance of global calamity.” Translation: climate change is getting worse all the time, but our Presidential candidates can’t seem to be bothered to debate about it.

Og konkluderer

In the end, though, it’s difficult to blame either candidate for dropping climate talk in this election. Beyond committed environmentalists, there hasn’t been much evidence that Americans even want to think about global warming, much less vote on it. But the job of a leader — or someone who is applying to become a leader — should involve telling the occasional difficult, even inconvenient truth. That’s been missing in this campaign.

Andrew Revkin forsøger i New York Times at lægge en positiv vinkel på den manglende klimadebat

Given how little progress has been made through the years when global warming did come up, perhaps the silence this year signals a change?

After all, the reality is that Obama has moved pretty aggressively, if quietly, to roll out restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions through regulations, tighter standards for energy use and vehicle fuel economy and pursue policies fostering a shift from coal to gas.

Is a little climate silence golden?

Men Revkin står alene med sin optimisme. De fleste ligger på linie med Reason’s Shikha Dalmia

Sometimes silence can reveal more than words. And the complete silence of both candidates during last night’s (and previous nights’) presidential debate on climate change speaks volumes about just how dead the issue now is.

Der slutter af med følgende

Which proves one thing: Just what a waste Al Gore’s life has been. His career is dead. His marriage to Tipper is dead. His cause du juor is dead. The only thing he can hang on to….hmmm….can anyone think of anything?

Penge, mange penge er sikkert svaret. Det fraværende klima har trukket bitterheden så langt frem at nogle har svært ved at styre den. David Roberts mener således i Grist Magazine at det er racisme, der står bag den manglende klimabekymring

Right around 2008, however, there was a sharp uptick in skepticism about climate change, almost exclusively among far-right conservatives.

Now, what happened in 2008 that might have turned conservatives against climate? Hm … thinking … wait, wasn’t there an election that year? Why yes, I believe there was. Black Democrat took office, as I recall.

The sharp conservative turn against climate was part and parcel of the Tea Party phenomenon. When Obama and congressional Democrats championed legislation to address climate change — legislation not that different from what McCain championed in 2008 — the right immediately aligned against it, like a school of fish.

Sort eller ej, så har præsidentkandidaten for The Green Party, Jill Stern, ifølge Guardian kaldt Obama for en klimabenægter for hans klimadiskretion. Rart at se vanvid renset for fordomme. En mindre vulgær udgave af Roberts Tea-Party teori står Suzanne Goldenberg for i Guardian

Since the rise of the Tea Party conservatives in 2010, energy and climate change have emerged as among the most contentious issues dividing Republicans and Democrats.

The backlash from anti-government conservatives led Obama to downplay his green agenda, delaying and weakening environmental regulations. It also led to the adoption of what Obama called an “all of the above” energy strategy, which saw a role for expanded offshore oil drilling and domestic production, due to new techniques in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. Obama also moved to fast-track the southern portion of the Keystone XL pipeline, which will help step up Alberta’s huge tar sands production.

Administration officials, including Obama, began to avoid the very mention of climate change threats, opting instead to frame the issue in terms of the economic opportunities created by clean energy industries such as solar and wind power.

Romney, meanwhile, responded to the rise of the Tea Party by backtracking on his earlier support for climate action as governor of Massachusetts. He also called for phasing out subsidies for the wind industry.

By the time of the Republican convention, Romney was using climate change as a laugh line, a way of tagging Obama with grandiosity for his 2008 election promise to help heal the planet.

Om der er noget at grine ad afhænger vel af en selv, men der er god grund til at omfavne omtanken. Temperaturen er ikke steget i 15 år, hvilket ikke var meningen, hvilket vil sige at CO2 ikke er en dominerende klima-faktor. Og hvis ikke temperaturen stiger forandrer klimaet sig ikke. Med ‘Climate gate’ stod stod det klart at de mest skråsikre forskere er ganske usikre og tilbøjelige til fiflerier. En stor svulst Penkowa har metastaseret sig ud i hele det klimavidenskabelige miljø. Og som lugten spreder sig holder alle vejret. Lubos Motl skriver

I think that the “soft landing” is a natural form of slow death for this opportunistic, frequently mutating disease of the mankind. The candidates don’t really know whether it would help them to mention the topic in one way or another so they prefer to keep it safe and say nothing about the topic. In 2016, once this hysteria cools down a little bit more, the candidates may already possess the hindsight that some of us have had for decades – and they will build upon the wiser atmosphere in the society – needed to openly admit that this whole hysteria will have been (and already has been) a completely irrational mass hysteria that the world economy has paid a trillion of dollars for (but it could have been much much worse).

(…)

We’re not there yet but once mainstream America becomes really detoxified of this global warming junk, we in Europe and elsewhere will be looking at the other side of the ocean with hopes that our U.S. friends will kindly help us to detoxify our top-tier political systems, too (especially the EU-level layer in our case of the old continent) – in a similar way as they did in 1944-1945 but perhaps with much smaller casualties. ;-)

Jesper Langballe sammenlignede engang venstrefløjen (den marxistiske del) efter Murens fald med en kylling der havde fået hugget hovedet af. Ja den løb måske energisk rundt på gårdspladsen, men den var de facto død og det var kun et spørgsmål om kort tid, før den ville falde livløs om.

0 Kommentarer »

Ingen kommentarer endnu.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress