Why Didn’t Obama or Romney Mention Climate Change at the Debates?

Picture: Victor Korniyenko (CC)

Because they’re both honest men not taken in by the Global Warming fraud, of course.

Eugene Robinson writes at Truthdig:

Not a word has been said in the presidential debates about what may be the most urgent and consequential issue in the world: climate change.

President Obama understands and accepts the scientific consensus that the burning of fossil fuels is trapping heat in the atmosphere, with potentially catastrophic long-term effects. Mitt Romney’s view, as on many issues, is pure quicksilver—impossible to pin down—but when he was governor of Massachusetts, climate change activists considered him enlightened and effective.

Yet neither has mentioned the subject in the debates. Instead, they have argued over who is more eager to extract ever-larger quantities of oil, natural gas and coal from beneath our purple mountains’ majesties and fruited plains.

“We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years,” Obama said in Tuesday’s debate. “Natural gas production is the highest it’s been in decades. We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment.”

Romney scoffed that Obama “has not been Mr. Oil, or Mr. Gas, or Mr. Coal,” and promised that he, if elected, would be all three. “I’ll do it by more drilling, more permits and licenses,” he said, adding later that this means “bringing in a pipeline of oil from Canada, taking advantage of the oil and coal we have here, drilling offshore in Alaska, drilling offshore in Virginia, where the people want it.”

If this is a contest to see who can pretend to be more ignorant of the environmental freight train that’s barreling down the tracks toward us, Romney wins narrowly.

Read more here.

12 Comments on "Why Didn’t Obama or Romney Mention Climate Change at the Debates?"

  1. emperorreagan | Oct 30, 2012 at 4:55 pm |

    This campaign is about growth. Convincing people that the US is somehow going to grow its way out of the national deficit, out of the unemployment problem, etc.

    Anything that doesn’t fit the narrative of growth is not going to be discussed.

  2. DrDavidKelly | Oct 30, 2012 at 4:57 pm |

    Because neither of them are going to do anything about it. Obama wants to drill for oil in Alaska and Mitt … well Mitt’s probably got his mind on the apocalypse. Looking into my crystal balls I can see that Obama is going to win the election so it’s fossil fuels all the way with a bit of paid lip service to global warming.

  3. Because man made climate change is NOT science,

    • Agreed. AGW is a trumped up theory and they can only fit so much fantasy into their campaign rhetoric.

      • Then again given that their rhetoric is entirely composed of fantasy it is curious why this is not included, oh yeah right, because it would spark actual debate and the science would not favor whichever candidate towed the IPCC line. To much to risk in such a manufactured tight race

        • Believers do not make an idea scientific fact. If you embrace junk science fooling youself into thinking it is science; like climate change, then you are condemning yourself to an outcome that you do not want. IF there is any climate change, it is due to sun activity and is cyclic. There is absolutely no evidence of man made climate change (used to be called global warming, but that lie was quickly exposed).

    • bobbiethejean | Oct 30, 2012 at 9:45 pm |

      Yeah! 97% of the world’s climate scientists totally don’t know what they’re talking about!

  4. BuzzCoastin | Oct 30, 2012 at 9:03 pm |

    whatever they say during a campaign is pure bullshit anyway
    so by saying nothing
    they are actually validating and encouraging the global warming talk
    like this article just did

  5. BuzzCoastin | Oct 30, 2012 at 9:03 pm |

    whatever they say during a campaign is pure bullshit anyway
    so by saying nothing
    they are actually validating and encouraging the global warming talk
    like this article just did

  6. Even a simple and civil discussion of environmental impact is a capitalist nightmare, no matter what color panties they may wear.

  7. Even a simple and civil discussion of environmental impact is a capitalist nightmare, no matter what color panties they may wear.

Comments are closed.