Organizers of a proposed presidential debate on science and technology have set a date and place: April 18, in Philadelphia, just before the Pennsylvania primary. All four viable presidential candidates have been invited. Will they show up to debate the United States' paltry investment in energy research, the necessity of taxing fossil-fuel use, and more? "This has never been about a science quiz," says Shawn Otto, CEO of debate organizer Science Debate, Inc. (really!). "It has always been about the big policy issues facing the next president ... whether we're going to do something about climate change or not, what kind of world your kids are going to be living in in ten or fifteen years, how [we are] going to respond to peak oil." None of the candidates has yet responded to the invite, and chances are decent that they'll all decline.
source: The New York Times, BusinessWeek, MSNBC
Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Skeptics claim global warming is fake after top scientists’ emails hacked at CRU
Comments
View as Flat
chazzaw Posted 2:16 pm
11 Feb 2008
I'm a Barack supporter, but they should at least try to make it fair. Besides, he's probably the only one that would agree to attend.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 3:22 pm
11 Feb 2008
Permalink
javaearth Posted 1:42 am
12 Feb 2008
Also I think even if one candidate turns up, it would be good as it would show that there are will to make a change. Plus they can have all that time talking about their plans!
Permalink
danielbell Posted 3:08 am
12 Feb 2008
There are fewer voters (like Grist readers) who are intellectually engaged and interested in voting for a candidate who will take the most reasoned and scientifically based stance on a particular issue.
There are far more voters who are less interested in challenging their beliefs to stand up to scientific and rational arguments. In fact, they publicly and proudly reject the rationalism and nuance that science requires.
Therefore, I'd be surprised to see the candidates touch this thing with a ten foot pole. Yes, yes, yes - We need a better understanding of the science in our country and in our politics. The sad truth is that the voters aren't ready. Perhaps with a few decades of honest political leadership, enough children will have been given an education equal to this challenge.
On the topic of political honesty and politics:
I was inspired to hear Barack Obama's words on the climate crisis and the need for a new energy policy. He had just gotten done saying that he would not tell the American public what they want to hear, but what they need to hear. Directly after this was the energy policy subject, which elicited very few cheers. This is what the people in that room needed to hear, even if they didn't want to cheer for it.
I hope this debate happens.
Carbon's Number
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:12 am
12 Feb 2008
http://greyfalcon.net/iraqvsenergy.png
Permalink
inkabinkaboo182 Posted 6:26 am
12 Feb 2008
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 12:22 pm
12 Feb 2008
Candidates who mainly pander to voters in order to get elected don't deserve to win. I realize that pandering is often effective and that many, if not most, politicians do it, but those facts don't excuse doing it.
The electoral system in the U.S. has become completely dysfunctional for the purposes of representing the population and doing good things for the country and the planet. Only radical, deep-seated changes will fix that, and excusing pandering won't help.
Permalink