For the first time in this year's presidential debates, the two candidates were asked point-blank about what they would do to address climate change in the first two years of their administration.
This morning, Grist caught up with the young woman who asked the question -- Ingrid Jackson, 30, a senior psychology major at Tennessee State University in Nashville and a Children Services Officer for the Tennessee Department of Children Services. She said that while she "kind of leaned toward Obama" prior to last night's debate, his answer to her question confirmed her inclinations.
"I'm for Obama now," said Jackson. "I think McCain, really when he answered my question, he just kind of went through his same spiel, and brought the focus back to offshore drilling, which is not going to help the environment."
"I liked Obama's response, just because he seemed to agree that it was a very important issue," she said. "McCain, his response was good, but I feel like he was just giving the same thing ... he used it to plug his offshore drilling."
Jackson said she liked Obama's response that "we can't simply drill our way out of the problem."
"There's no need to do offshore drilling when we don't even have the capacity. We don't have the oil reserves as compared to the rest of the world. And I think that the focus should be on not using fossil fuels, not drilling for more. I believe that Obama is more like me in that respect."
But Jackson criticized both candidates for not really addressing the time-frame of two years that she stated in her question. "I don't think the either one dealt with the urgency issue," she said. "I think it's very feasible for them to do things within the first two years, especially since the green jobs would help the economy ... It's possible -- it's just going to cost money."
Jackson said that climate change and environmental destruction have been issues concerning her for years now, and that the lack of action has been frustrating.
"I remember being in grade school and talking about the hole in the ozone layer, and it just really affected me, because we only have one planet. What would we do? How would we change it? What could we do? It's kind of like a death sentence," said Jackson. "So, fast-forward and it's 20 years later and we still haven't done anything, really."
Unfortunately, said Jackson, it's not an issue that politicians often -- if ever -- focus on, which prompted her question last night.
"I knew when they asked me to come that my question was going to be about the environment, because everybody always focuses on what's hot at the moment, and people forget about the environment," said Jackson. "It's not something they have to deal with constantly. They have bills, or they have children in Iraq, and they focus on that. It's easy to use those things to not deal with the environment."
"The only time [candidates] deal with the environment is ... well, actually, they don't seem to be dealing with it at all," she said.
U.S.-Russia climate and energy efficiency cooperation: A neglected challenge
Americans United praises Congress for passing ACES
Comments View as Flat
Kit Stolz Posted 4:12 am
08 Oct 2008
excellent follow-up
Too bad Ms. Jackson couldn't follow up with a question about the time frame in the debate, but at least she had a chance to follow up in print.
Permalink
tboggia Posted 8:01 am
08 Oct 2008
Thank you Ingrid
You brought light in a frustrating and boring debate. Before your question, all that they were talking about was drilling and coal. Thank you for making the debate bearable and giving hope to America's future.
www.campusprogress.org
Permalink
mwildfire Posted 1:17 pm
08 Oct 2008
thanks, Ingrid
I cheered when I heard your question, too. Neither candidate answered it adequately, but that's not your fault. Just like neither answered the one about "Should health care be a commodity?" because they aren't ALLOWED by the powerful inbsurance industry, to answer that one honestly.
Elsewhere just now on Grist I saw something stating that a poll shows West Virginians actually want alternatives, not so-called "clean coal." But the dirty secret is, where WV politics is concerned, it isn't the opinions of the PEOPLE that matter, it's the interest of the big money, and in WV that's the coal industry. I'm sure it's the same elsewhere, although less so in places not so dependent on a single industry.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 7:29 pm
08 Oct 2008
Quite a moment
It was galvanic. The Leviathan twitched.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book)
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Green Granny Posted 7:48 pm
08 Oct 2008
Thank you Ingrid
Thank you for asking the most important question during that debate.
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
Permalink
vakibs Posted 9:20 pm
08 Oct 2008
ingrid, next time you see obama
please grill him on his support for coal.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 4:14 am
09 Oct 2008
I'm confused
We have made major progress in addressing the hole-in-the-earth's-ozone issue, through unprecedented international action, in spite of Ingrid's comments to the contrary.
It's on the issue of greenhouse gas emissions where we've made almost zero progress -- while our time to dally around on this problem has largely been squandered.
Does Ingrid understand the distinction? I'm confused by the fourth-to-last paragraph in this article.
Permalink
Russ Posted 6:05 am
09 Oct 2008
gonzodon
I think she was probably referring to environmental issues in general, using the ozone hole as an example because that was her personal wake-up call.
Just like I might use habitat destruction and how it devastates wildlife (my entree to environmental concerns).
Permalink