Last night's vice presidential debate featured an important exchange on climate change. Grist is posting the video and transcript excerpt below:
Moderator Gwen Ifill's question to Sarah Palin: "Governor, I'm happy to talk to you in this next section about energy issues. Let's talk about climate change. What is true and what is false about what we have heard, read, discussed, debated about the causes of climate change?"
Here's the transcript of this section of the debate:
IFILL: Governor, I'm happy to talk to you in this next section about energy issues. Let's talk about climate change. What is true and what is false about what we have heard, read, discussed, debated about the causes of climate change?
PALIN: Yes. Well, as the nation's only Arctic state and being the governor of that state, Alaska feels and sees impacts of climate change more so than any other state. And we know that it's real.
I'm not one to attribute every man -- activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet.
But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don't want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?
We have got to clean up this planet. We have got to encourage other nations also to come along with us with the impacts of climate change, what we can do about that.
As governor, I was the first governor to form a climate change sub-cabinet to start dealing with the impacts. We've got to reduce emissions. John McCain is right there with an "all of the above" approach to deal with climate change impacts.
We've got to become energy independent for that reason. Also as we rely more and more on other countries that don't care as much about the climate as we do, we're allowing them to produce and to emit and even pollute more than America would ever stand for. So even in dealing with climate change, it's all the more reason that we have an "all of the above" approach, tapping into alternative sources of energy and conserving fuel, conserving our petroleum products and our hydrocarbons so that we can clean up this planet and deal with climate change.
IFILL: Senator, what is true and what is false about the causes?
JOE BIDEN: Well, I think it is manmade. I think it's clearly manmade. And, look, this probably explains the biggest fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and Joe Biden -- Governor Palin and Joe Biden.
If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That's the cause. That's why the polar icecap is melting.
Now, let's look at the facts. We have 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. We consume 25 percent of the oil in the world. John McCain has voted 20 times in the last decade-and-a-half against funding alternative energy sources, clean energy sources, wind, solar, biofuels.
The way in which we can stop the greenhouse gases from emitting. We believe -- Barack Obama believes by investing in clean coal and safe nuclear, we can not only create jobs in wind and solar here in the United States, we can export it.
China is building one to three new coal-fired plants burning dirty coal per week. It's polluting not only the atmosphere but the West Coast of the United States. We should export the technology by investing in clean coal technology.
We should be creating jobs. John McCain has voted 20 times against funding alternative energy sources and thinks, I guess, the only answer is drill, drill, drill. Drill we must, but it will take 10 years for one drop of oil to come out of any of the wells that are going to begun to be drilled.
In the meantime, we're all going to be in real trouble.
IFILL: Let me clear something up, Senator McCain has said he supports caps on carbon emissions. Senator Obama has said he supports clean coal technology, which I don't believe you've always supported.
BIDEN: I have always supported it. That's a fact.
IFILL: Well, clear it up for us, both of you, and start with Governor Palin.
PALIN: Yes, Senator McCain does support this. The chant is "drill, baby, drill." And that's what we hear all across this country in our rallies because people are so hungry for those domestic sources of energy to be tapped into. They know that even in my own energy-producing state we have billions of barrels of oil and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of clean, green natural gas. And we're building a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline which is North America's largest and most you expensive infrastructure project ever to flow those sources of energy into hungry markets.
Barack Obama and Senator Biden, you've said no to everything in trying to find a domestic solution to the energy crisis that we're in. You even called drilling -- safe, environmentally-friendly drilling offshore as raping the outer continental shelf.
There -- with new technology, with tiny footprints even on land, it is safe to drill and we need to do more of that. But also in that "all of the above" approach that Senator McCain supports, the alternative fuels will be tapped into: the nuclear, the clean coal.
I was surprised to hear you mention that because you had said that there isn't anything -- such a thing as clean coal. And I think you said it in a rope line, too, at one of your rallies.
IFILL: We do need to keep within our two minutes. But I just wanted to ask you, do you support capping carbon emissions?
PALIN: I do. I do.
IFILL: OK. And on the clean coal issue?
BIDEN: Absolutely. Absolutely we do. We call for setting hard targets, number one...
IFILL: Clean coal.
BIDEN: Oh, I'm sorry.
IFILL: On clean coal.
BIDEN: Oh, on clean coal. My record, just take a look at the record. My record for 25 years has supported clean coal technology. A comment made in a rope line was taken out of context. I was talking about exporting that technology to China so when they burn their dirty coal, it won't be as dirty, it will be clean.
But here's the bottom line, Gwen: How do we deal with global warming with continued addition to carbon emissions? And if the only answer you have is oil, and John -- and the governor says John is for everything.
Well, why did John vote 20 times? Maybe he's for everything as long as it's not helped forward by the government. Maybe he's for everything if the free market takes care of it. I don't know. But he voted 20 times against funding alternative energy sources.
Earlier in the debate, Biden defended Obama's record on 2005 energy bill:
Just ahead of the climate change question, Palin focused again on energy:
washingtonpost.com has a cool feature that lets you watch the video of the debate and read the transcript at the same time. Here's a direct link to post.com's treatment of the climate change question.
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
One year after his election, Obama on verge of audaciously fulfilling his promise as the green FDR
Comments
View as Flat
frankbi Posted 4:18 am
03 Oct 2008
Man, this is hopeless.
-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism
Permalink
birdboy Posted 6:34 am
03 Oct 2008
Just as the fate of our children can be attributed to the actions of our leaders.
If they see no problem,
they will seek no solution,
and the changing climate
will force evolution.
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
saluki Posted 11:57 am
03 Oct 2008
From the debate:
Biden:
"When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon"
Did he just smoke one too many joints? Is he having flash backs? Is he living in his own imaginary universe? It this a little like his explanation of graduating near the top of his class when he actually graduated near the bottom. Or is this more like the plagiarism that he used to get through school?
Personally, it think the man has long ago lost touch with reality.
Permalink
saluki Posted 12:10 pm
03 Oct 2008
Two new studies summarised in a news article in Science magazine point to wind-induced circulation changes in the ocean as the dominant cause of the recent ice losses through the glaciers draining both the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, not `global warming.'
The two stuides referred to are:
`Acceleration of Jakobshavn Isbræ triggered by warm subsurface ocean waters' by Holland et al, published in Nature Geoscience.
The Abstract states:
Observations over the past decades show a rapid acceleration of several outlet glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica1. One of the largest changes is a sudden switch of Jakobshavn Isbræ, a large outlet glacier feeding a deep-ocean fjord on Greenland's west coast, from slow thickening to rapid thinning2 in 1997, associated with a doubling in glacier velocity3. Suggested explanations for the speed-up of Jakobshavn Isbræ include increased lubrication of the ice-bedrock interface as more meltwater has drained to the glacier bed during recent warmer summers4 and weakening and break-up of the floating ice tongue that buttressed the glacier5. Here we present hydrographic data that show a sudden increase in subsurface ocean temperature in 1997 along the entire west coast of Greenland, suggesting that the changes in Jakobshavn Isbræ were instead triggered by the arrival of relatively warm water originating from the Irminger Sea near Iceland. We trace these oceanic changes back to changes in the atmospheric circulation in the North Atlantic region. We conclude that the prediction of future rapid dynamic responses of other outlet glaciers to climate change will require an improved understanding of the effect of changes in regional ocean and atmosphere circulation on the delivery of warm subsurface waters to the periphery of the ice sheets.
And:
`Modelling Circumpolar Deep Water intrusions on the Amundsen Sea continental shelf, Antarctica' by Thoma et al, published in GRL.
The Abstract states:
Results are presented from an isopycnic coordinate model of ocean circulation in the Amundsen Sea, focusing on the delivery of Circumpolar Deep Water (CDW) to the inner continental shelf around Pine Island Bay. The warmest waters to reach this region are channeled through a submarine trough, accessed via bathymetric irregularities along the shelf break. Temporal variability in the influx of CDW is related to regional wind forcing. Easterly winds over the shelf edge change to westerlies when the Amundsen Sea Low migrates west and south in winter/spring. This drives seasonal on-shelf flow, while inter-annual changes in the wind forcing lead to inflow variability on a decadal timescale. A modelled period of warming following low CDW influx in the late 1980's and early 1990's coincides with a period of observed thinning and acceleration of Pine Island Glacier. "
Permalink
frankbi Posted 12:22 pm
03 Oct 2008
-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 1:34 pm
03 Oct 2008
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 1:37 pm
03 Oct 2008
"climate change."
Is there a college these people go to where they pump carbon monoxide into the dorm rooms or something? Are their neurons unable to shake hands or do they put notes in bottles to get messages around their brains.
I'm not sure that Sara Palin understands that what happens to the oil and gas she's so excited about is that it gets burned and contributes mightily to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Her proud gas pipeline will do double duty since it is supposed to terminate in the Alberta tar sands and provide the fuel to pull even more oil (loosely termed) out of the ground.
It is nonsensical to be for oil drilling and concerned about climate change. Of course since copulation seems to be her families abstinence program I'm not sure this is a challenge for her.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 1:50 pm
03 Oct 2008
It would be nice if Canis. could chime in and tell us which misbegotten shard of mythology she represents but I can't recall.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 12:36 am
04 Oct 2008
Permalink
saluki Posted 12:44 am
04 Oct 2008
There are no historical patterns. Wind patterns are like AMO PDO and ENSO. They change from time to time regarless of CO2.
"Of course since copulation seems to be her families abstinence program I'm not sure this is a challenge for her."
Sorry that you aren't getting any Pangolin. But that's no reason to be jealous of those who do. By the way, what is your position on Palestinians having 8 children per woman?
Speaking of copulation, I figured out how we can solve our financial crisis. Since it was people like Barney Frank that caused this crisis by pushing subprime loans and by preventing the republicans from regulating Fanny and Freddy, I think that he should contribute to solving the problem. I say that we let Barney reopen the male prostitution ring that he was running out of his house. Not only do we let him open that again, but we let him have a national franchise of male prostitution rings. He could call it Barney's Blow Jobs. The only catch is that Barney would have to contribute all of the profits back to pay off the 700 billion bill that he has stuck taxpayers with. Of course Barney wouldn't make any money, but I'm sure that he would be anxious to be of service.
Permalink
frankbi Posted 12:53 am
04 Oct 2008
Science! Civility! GALILEO!!!
-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism
Permalink
saluki Posted 1:02 am
04 Oct 2008
It's only nonsensical if your ability for playing chess is restricted to one move ahead.
First, let's look at what she is acknowledging. She believes that we have had global warming. But the fact is that we have only warmed .8C in 157 years. She also believes that man is responsible for some, but not all of that. This is pretty much the position of most scientists. None attribute all of that .8C to mankind. So the magnitude that we are dealing with is some unknown fraction of .8C to this point. Hardly a scenario for alarm.
Second, even if we do acknowledge some contribution by mankind, what is the solution. We know that Palin supports nuclear. Something that the left wing loonies violently oppose. So you could also ask the loonies, how can you oppose CO2 when you also oppose a power source the puts out no CO2. So even if Palin wants to reduce CO2, she realizes that in the short term we are going to need fossil fuels. People are not suddenly going to throw away the tens of thousands in investments in fossil fuel transportation that they already have just to make the eco nuts happy. There is going to have to be a transition period. During that transition period we should not be sending 700 billion a year out of the US to pay for our fossil energy. We should be getting that energy here in the US. Our economy depends on it.
So you see, Palin's position makes 100% perfect sense. It's just that you eco fascists are to dense to think beyond the simplest and most ignorant level. That's why you want a moron like Biden, who thinks that the US and France kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, to be your vice president.
Permalink
frankbi Posted 4:09 am
04 Oct 2008
GALILEO!!! would've been proud.
-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism
Permalink
saluki Posted 4:33 am
04 Oct 2008
Once again I have to explain things for a simple minded leftist. I support drilling for oil, but I also realize that it is a limited source of fuel. It will probably be much longer than most eco cultists think, but eventually we would run out of fossile fuel. I believe that the warming effect of CO2 is small, but not noexistent. So I want to develop nuclear plants at a steady unhurried pace. If we can be getting most of our energy from nuclear 50 years from now, that would be fine with me. But we should start a program now. Until that transition is complete, we will need oil. And it should be American oil. Our economy cannot afford to send 700 billion a year to other countries.
This is fairly close to what Palin wants to do. You see, the contradictions that you eco cultists always seem to come up with are simply caused by your inability to think in any but the most basic and single track methods.
Permalink