A Blog Around The Clock

To keep the conversation about the Science Debate 2008 going, I decided to post, one per day, my ideas for potential questions to be asked at such a debate. The questions are far too long, though, consisting more of my musings than real questions that can be asked on TV (or radio or online, wherever this may end up happening). I want you to:

Here is the third one, so comment away!

Back in 2004, global warming was not a prominent campaign issue for any of the candidates. This time around, most of the candidates have highlighted this issue to some extent. Unlike many other problems we are facing, the threat of global warming is neither just an internal U.S. problem, nor a problem that we can afford to wait a couple of more electoral cycles before we address it seriously.

The USA is not a signatory of the Kyoto agreement and countries all over the world are failing to meet Kyoto requirements. Reduction of CO2 intensity per GDP, or slowing down of the increase of CO2 production are not sufficient goals. The production of CO2 actually has to be reduced from current levels in order to avoid temperature increase. Many of the factors that lead to global warming (especially transportation) have additional environmental impacts, e.g., noise, light and space pollution. Reducing all the factors is not a matter of a single, simple policy - so much is deeply interconnected: the energy production and consumption, dependence on (foreign) oil, environmental protection, agriculture, transportation, infrastructure, design of cities, among else. Even the U.S. foreign policy, the way we do business and our way of life need to change.

Big systemic changes are necessary, and such changes are always strongly opposed by actors who fear a short-term financial loss from such changes. How do you propose to tackle the complex issue of climate change and, if elected in 2008, what can you do to persuade the Congress, the private sector and the American people, as well as all the other nations in the World, to accept your plan although it will require substantial changes in the way we think: choosing quality of life over raw wealth! Is America ready for this?

Previously: Science Debate 2008 - my Question #1: Scientific Advice to the President
Science Debate 2008 - my Question #2: Science Funding