I have complained a number of times -- even on CNN! -- that the mainstream political press is ignoring the issue of global warming, particularly in the context of the presidential race.
Well, it seems CBS News finally decided it was time to address the issue, as part of its "Primary Questions" series, which asks 10 questions of each of the candidates. What question did they choose?
"Is the global warming threat overblown?"
Oh. My. God. Will you please just kill me? Have you ever heard CBS ask, "Is the terrorist threat overblown?" "Is the Social Security solvency threat overblown?" "Is the illegal immigrant threat overblown?" "Is the threat to Christmas from godless secularists overblown?" "Is Katie Couric's fitness for news anchorhood overblown?"
No, just global warming, which faces, in the eyes of the Village, a burden of proof that seemingly cannot be overcome, no matter how many thousands of scientists endorse it. This falls into the first of two frames that absolutely dominate what little political coverage this issue gets:
- Isn't it overblown?
- Isn't it going to cost a lot to do anything about it?
That's it. That's what Joe Sixpack sees on his teevee.
John Edwards gave it the only reply it warrants:
It seems to me that every time we get more scientific information it indicates the problem is more severe, more serious than we though. So, no, I don't think it's being over-hyped.
Contrast that to Fritterin' Fred Thompson:
There are a lot of unanswered questions. We don't know to the extent this is a cyclical thing. This may or may not effect very much.
Hey Fred, if you have access to a computer from your Barca lounger and can pry your hand off that mint julep, you might think about reading up on it.
Here's Clinton:
I don't think that it's over-hyped. I think we have time but we have to start acting now.
Contrast that to Meteoric Mike Huckabee:
I don't know. I mean, the honest answer for me, scientifically, is "I don't know."
That's his "scientific" answer, mind you. This, I suppose, is his scientific recommendation for how to solve the problem he doesn't know exists:
And we ought to declare that we will be free of energy consumption in this country within a decade, bold as that is.
"Bold" is one word for it. [UPDATE: It appears Huckabee was misquoted in an early draft of the transcript. His quote now reads, "And we ought to declare that we will be oil free of energy consumption in this country within a decade, bold as that is." That doesn't make a ton of sense either, but at least it's a little more clear what he's getting at. He wants to eliminate our use of oil entirely. Nuts, but not as nuts as eliminating energy consumption altogether!]
Here's Obama:
No, I think they're serious. I think we have to take significant steps now to deal with it. I've put forward a very substantial proposal to get 80 percent reductions in greenhouse gases by 2050.
Contrast that to Ruttin' Rudy Giuliani:
There is global warming. Human beings are contributing to it. I think the best answer to it is energy independence.
Non sequitur much?
As for the rest: Richardson's got a great answer; the Romneybot does fairly well, but has to slip in the China canard ("They don't call it America warming. They call it global warming."); Biden is decent but calls out ethanol of all things; and finally, McCain's answer is predictably good, except for this rather notable exchange:
Couric: Why has [addressing global warming] taken so long, Senator?
McCain: Special interests. It's the special interests. It's the utility companies and the petroleum companies and other special interests. They're the ones that have blocked progress in the congress of the United States and the administration. That's a little straight talk.
Notice anything missing from McCain's answer?
Climate psychology in cartoons: clues for solving the messaging mystery
Children and riot police face off in Canadian “Moms” video
Obama gives his first real climate speech—really
Comments
View as Flat
justlou Posted 8:29 am
11 Dec 2007
Ole Johnny boy, caps many of his comments with that "little straight talk" lately. Pretty lame.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 1:17 pm
11 Dec 2007
Absolutely not.
In the old days there always a "bright red line" between the political wonks and the technical teckies. Rule number one was that the U.S. wonks were always wrong, and that includes Al Gore, who I am beginning to hate with a passion because he blew so many prognostications about Climate Change.
But when teckies try to get into the policy arena and "wonk," they always sound fake, insincere, and cold. Unfortunately, Grist is a major offender in this department - like a political science class in the Stamford engineering department. Sorry to say, you just proved me right in this posting.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:33 pm
11 Dec 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 7:54 pm
11 Dec 2007
Not without a major boot in the rear.
Thank you John Howard for being the first volunteer at the climate change bar-b-que. Maybe the smell of roast pork will get to Bali from Oz.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
clicknathan Posted 11:05 pm
11 Dec 2007
You have Mike Huckabee sounding like an idiot when you state that he said he wants us to be free of energy consumption. What he actually said is he would like to see us free of oil-based energy consumption.
Best to play fair. :)
Permalink
justlou Posted 11:38 pm
11 Dec 2007
No consequence to Huckabee the candidate. There is blood in the water. The recent revelations of all his ethical lapses as governor of Arkansas will seal his fate with the voters. The evidence is damning -- he didn't leave a clean campsite in Arkansas.
My guess is that McCain is going to be the Republican default candidate after all the front runners have run the gauntlet.
Permalink
kayser Posted 1:32 am
12 Dec 2007
It looks like the transcript is a real rush job. Apparently they didn't proofread (Hillary Clinton: "We cab drastically lower our use of electricity...")
Permalink
Greta Posted 2:00 am
12 Dec 2007
A happened upon this CBS moment while flipping channels. Came in at Fred Thompson.
My overall impression after listening to those who I heard was:
Voters learned nothing about the presidential candidates except that they all can recite each other's message on cue. (The only real distinction being the promotion of nuclear.) It was a bit like listenging to the "whant whant wha" of the teacher in the "Peanuts".
Even the republicans regurgitated the "we need to do something about Climate Change" mantra. But, no surprise, they were asked a question on a specific topic.
Bottom line is which candidate do you believe will actually walk the talk? (I completely discount the republicans, here.)
I have not yet looked at the candidate's voting records, but that would be the only indicator that we have to judge.
But, how many voters will actually go to that much trouble. Very few.
www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:11 am
12 Dec 2007
grist.org
Permalink
nikki Posted 4:41 am
12 Dec 2007
Permalink
OAUTAMEFE Posted 4:55 am
12 Dec 2007
and...what are we going to do about it? Why don't they ask a question that actually requires some brain matter to answer?
A wise man once said - I am neither an Athenian nor a Spartan, I am a Cosmopolitan!
Permalink
tidal Posted 9:06 am
13 Dec 2007
Obviously, when Mike Huckabee said that "we ought to declare that we will be free of energy consumption in this country within a decade," he meant "imports" rather than "consumption."
But does that make his comment any less absurd? While "zero energy imports" isn't physically impossible the way "zero energy consumption" is, it's equally impossible economically, politically, and administratively. Those constraints aren't any less real for not involving the laws of thermodynamics.
Huckabee's ten-year deadline reminds me of Nixon's commitment to "make the United States energy-independent within ten years." My old Kennedy School colleague Bill Hogan tells of his service on the Energy Indepenence Task Force charged with making good on that promise. "The first thing we had to do was re-define 'energy independence.' The second thing we had to do was re-define 'ten years.' "
In some ways would be even worse to have a President who doesn't distinguish between feasible and infeasible solutions to public problems than it would be to have a President who doesn't understand physics. A politician is much less likely to imagine that he knows physics when he doesn't, or to imagine that physical law will yield to the exercise of political will, than to make the same errors about economics.
A promise to do something impossible amounts to a lie. But the fundamental dishonesty of such "visionary" proposals seems not to count as a "character issue" in contemporary political journalism. It would be nice to have a political press corps that understood, and cared about, the difference between a (feasible) bold initiative and an (infeasible) hare-brained scheme, but that, too, seems to be outside the feasible set.
Permalink