I've just written a column about this to be syndicated by Blue Ridge Press, so I won't tip my hand yet...but instead I'll ask: What do you think? If it's a McCain-Clinton or a McCain-Obama race--i.e., a race in which both candidates care about addressing climate change--is that good for the issue (because it ensures that we'll get action in 2009) or bad for the issue (because global warming will seem to have been neutralized, even though there are actually significant differences between McCain and the two Dems)?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
A few days ago I wrote a long post about the importance of ideas, which included this observation:
Let us pause, as slacktivist does, to marvel that "Here is a man who speaks off the cuff in complete sentences and complete paragraphs. The contrast with our current president couldn't be more stark…
I have studiously avoided picking a Democratic candidate to support. I will not have to decide until Super Tuesday, when Minnesotans caucus to support one or another candidate. I like Hillary Clinton for a number of reasons, including the simple fact that she has considerable experience in the…
If I were living in Iowa, I'd be caucusing for Barack Obama. It'll be a month before my primary, and by then it may all be academic, so I may as well talk about it now.
I'll start out by saying that I wouldn't feel bad about caucusing for John Edwards, and I won't have any problem campaigning hard…
In what New York Magazine is calling the most-read article in the publication's history, David Wallace-Wells writes about what will happen if we don't stop burning fossil fuels soon. In a nutshell: the climate "will now go to war with us for many centuries, perhaps until it destroys us."
This has…
Chris,
Being the eternal optimist, I hope that either campaign scenario will elevate cimate change to a place where there won't be so much nay saying and denial running around in the press or society. My gut tells me that with the deniers always demanding the data (without tell us what that will give them that they don't have now), and government scientists being muzzled because their conclusion don't fit a preconceived political outcome, we need a national leader to make a common sense but well though out case to the American people. Either could do that, but the real question is will they?
Well, as the eternal cynic, I'd probably argue that what a candidate claims to care about, pre-election, has almost no bearing on what they actually do, post-election. Once they've been taken into the legendary smoke-filled room to meet the half-dozen industrial capitalists who let them get elected and been shown the movie of the JFK assassination from the viewpoint on the grassy knoll, they'll fall into line... ;) [With all due respects to Bill Hicks]
McCain is probably more likely than any other Republican to agree to Science Debate 2008. That alone could be productive.
A little more cynicism: I would say having both party candidates paying lip service to global warming could be bad because then the battle for "concern" would be over. Once both sides recognize something as an issue, it goes to the backburner because it's no longer something to distinguish the two parties. And since Washington has become more about reelection than about governance, if you can't use an issue to create a "me vs. him or her" picture, what good is it?
Both parties acknowledge there are problems with social security, health care, and lobbyists (though the definition of those problems varies slightly with party), but what substantive legislation has come out of Washington about these issues?
I think it has to be a good thing, at least in the long run. I'm not sure if it means more or less attention during the campaign itself, but just the fact that both party nominees take climate change seriously will seep into the national consciousness. That should make it harder for the denial industry to keep the "lack of consensus" frame going.
It is probably a good thing. At least we will get a pres that wants to do something other than digging in his heels. A good part of the denialists motivation IMO, is political, GW is percieved to be an issue which fovors democrats. That would be someone reduced (although I suspect Democrats will propose more vigorous action than Republicans). It is possible that opposition will be less to a McCain plan than to a Clintom or Obama plan, i.e. Republicans may not want to make one of their own look bad. The political saying "it takes a Nixon to go to China) [Nixon made his reputation as an anticommunist] has some validity. Either way I expect some changes, but I also think they will only be half steps (i.e. the carbon cuts will be real, but too shallow).
It's not just the President, it's also the party cronies appointed to various offices who make a difference.
Folks,
Thanks for all this feedback. My take is here.
With the state of the economy and other issues AGW is the least of the candidates worry, and rightfully so. Until Antarctic ice stops growing and sea levels actually start to rise, no one will raise a finger.