Why is climate change not in the USA primaries?

[mountainhiker]

Not a single candidate, Republican or Democrat has touched the issue. Why?

Many think that the answer lies in "Al Gore". He may have won an award but he got a "F" in presentation. Gore, did an outstanding job of doing a "Chicken Little" impression and then turned it into a political football. Two strikes against the message!

Keep in mind that in the academic world the "publish or perish" rule is supreme, and you had the "its good science" crowd followed by the "its bad science" all racing to publish their competing views. The average candidate is wanting to appear calm, cool and collected. The fact that not a single Democrat in the race has raised the issue, or had Al Gore campaign for them, is a clue to the fact that Gore really did climate change a major disservice in the way he presented it.

[Simon]

Not a single candidate, Republican or Democrat has touched the issue. Why?

Many think that the answer lies in "Al Gore".

This is actually really disturbing. Here we have the number one climate criminal country in the middle of a presidential race and there is absolutely no discussions about man-made climate change.

Why? Many think that the answer lies in "Al Gore".

Well, I believe it's because of many things. Mainly due to your corrupt corporate media who rather focuses on "family values" than the real hard questions that actually matters.

I also believe it's your whole political system that is failing to do its duty. You have for two long been distorting democracy via company funds, TV-ads etc etc. Al Gore writes nicely about just this in his book "The Assault on Reason".

I dont believe it's Al Gores fault. He cant help that the american society is ignorant.

He may have won an award but he got a "F" in presentation. Gore, did an outstanding job of doing a "Chicken Little" impression and then turned it into a political football. Two strikes against the message!

Well this is typically an US impression of it. Around the world Al Gore is highly respected due to his work. It's only in the USA that people are trying somehow put dirt in his message. His documentary (an inconvenient...) was mainly directed to the USA market and consumers. I dont believe it has done such a huge impact here in Europe or the rest of the world. Unfortunately the documentary seemed to have failed to bring it message to the american people. But you can hardly blame Al Gore or his documentary for that.

The fact that not a single Democrat in the race has raised the issue, or had Al Gore campaign for them, is a clue to the fact that Gore really did climate change a major disservice in the way he presented it.

Again, this can only happen in the USA. The problem is not Al Gore or his message. The problem is that not a single politician in USA wants to take their responsibility.

Just look at the main democratic candidates standpoints when its comes to climate change. They are far from being "green". They even support coal! Oh sorry, I mean "clean-coal"....

But then again, why should the democratic candidates talk about climate change and what they intend to do about it when they dont have the support of the voters in these questions? Fighting climate change requires sacrifices and I dont believe the american people are ready for that.

Now Im gonna go and take some pain-killers

[mountainhiker]

Excellent points however,

there is absolutely no discussions about man-made climate change

The problem many see is the claim that 100% of the cllimate change is man-made

There are discussions about climate change, reducing emissions and many projects aimed at alternate energy and many power plants are working on "green energy" so it is not as bad as many want to make it sound. And much of the issue with Gore was not so much entirely the movie but content of speeches he made promoting the movie and book.

corrupt corporate media

This is a world wide problem, the USA has no lock on this problem!

american society is ignorant

Not really true, what we have is university scientists with conflicting view points that clearly do not agree that this is 100% the fault of man.

Unfortunately the documentary seemed to have failed to bring it message to the american people.

There in is one of the key points, presentation

It failed because it was too alarmist and "the sky is falling". IE, to much of a turn off instead of a turn on to a problem and a solution.

Fighting climate change requires sacrifices and I dont believe the american people are ready for that

Once again not entirely true. In order to make a sacrifice, people have to have a clear picture of the problem and the solution. Gore failed on in that regard when he got too extreme in the message. Wind farms are current making an inroad in the USA because people do realize that green energy is the future.

But people tend to shy away from people that are 100% left or right from a political perspective. When Gore pictured him self as 100% to the left he became a political hazard in the election process. And sadly made climate change a touchy topic in the process.

[Simon]

(with so many spelling errors its amazing you could understand that)

Excellent points however,

The problem many see is the claim that 100% of the cllimate change is man-made

There are discussions about climate change, reducing emissions and many projects aimed at alternate energy and many power plants are working on "green energy" so it is not as bad as many want to make it sound. And much of the issue with Gore was not so much entirely the movie but content of speeches he made promoting the movie and book.

What we face now is man-made. There is no scientific doubts about it.

This is a world wide problem, the USA has no lock on this problem!

Well it's not like every country has this problem.

Not really true, what we have is university scientists with conflicting view points that clearly do not agree that this is 100% the fault of man.

"conflicting view points", yes, but where is the evidence that contradicts the IPCC findings etc?

There in is one of the key points, presentation

It failed because it was too alarmist and "the sky is falling". IE, to much of a turn off instead of a turn on to a problem and a solution.

But what is "too alarmist"? Here we are talking about the end of the human race. By the way, have he exaggerated anything in the movie? The answer is no. The climate changes we are facing are many, huge and awful. I think it's bullshit and suicidal calling Al Gore or anybody else warning about the effects of climate change alarmists.

Once again not entirely true. In order to make a sacrifice, people have to have a clear picture of the problem and the solution. Gore failed on in that regard when he got too extreme in the message. Wind farms are current making an inroad in the USA because people do realize that green energy is the future.

If we are to "win" over climate change we will need to make sacrifices. Especially when overpopulation and overconsumptions are the roots of the problem. We wont survive if we just recycle and build wind farms. Believing that is foolishness.

But people tend to shy away from people that are 100% left or right from a political perspective. When Gore pictured him self as 100% to the left he became a political hazard in the election process. And sadly made climate change a touchy topic in the process.

First off all. Al Gore is not a leftist. He is a right winger. Its just that when you compare the Democrats to the far-right Republicans they tend to look a bit more leftish.

Also, climate change is a political question aswell, no mather what Al Gore or anybody else says.

[mountainhiker]

We wont survive if we just recycle and build wind farms

Not what I said, just using that as an example. Americans are much more into "green" than you think.

And Al Gore on the "Right". Suspect the Left and Right may not have the same definition where you are then. He has always been on the "left" side of the Democratic party. In the US, the Democratic party has always had a left, middle and right. Hillary is not in true favor by the "left" since she is too far to the "right".

[Simon]

Not what I said, just using that as an example. Americans are much more into "green" than you think.

Of course they are. It's just that the majority rules and unfortunately green issues isn't a top priority for the majority in USA.

And Al Gore on the "Right". Suspect the Left and Right may not have the same definition where you are then. He has always been on the "left" side of the Democratic party. In the US, the Democratic party has always had a left, middle and right. Hillary is not in true favor by the "left" since she is too far to the "right".

Thats true. From here the Democrats should have been the right wing party while the Republicans would have been the far right/nazi party.

I would rather want to see Al Gore over Hillary. And John Edwards over Al Gore. (we know more about John Edwards on different questions besides the green ones)

[mountainhiker]

From here the Democrats should have been the right wing party while the Republicans would have been the far right/nazi party.

Your are way off on that comparison. The Republicans are not "far right" and trying to compare them to the nazi party shows how little you know of what the nazi party was and stood for. You need to read something other than democratic rags....

[Simon]

Your are way off on that comparison. The Republicans are not "far right" and trying to compare them to the nazi party shows how little you know of what the nazi party was and stood for. You need to read something other than democratic rags....

No I am not. I am just telling you how and what people here would think of the Republicans if they were a political party here.

But yes, maybe "nazi" is the wrong word to use here. I should probably have said "facist" instead.

[mountainhiker]

But yes, maybe "nazi" is the wrong word to use here. I should probably have said "facist" instead

hardly any better and clearly no major party in the USA or England for that matter is "facist".

[Simon]

hardly any better and clearly no major party in the USA or England for that matter is "facist".

Don't be fooled, not all fascism looks like Adolf Hitler.

Also, have I said anything about England?

[mountainhiker]

Don't be fooled, not all fascism looks like Adolf Hitler.

Also, have I said anything about England?

Sweden - England not much difference if you think any party in the US is Facist.

Appears that you are locked into an anit-American mindset with little grasp of the reality of what people in the US really think.

[Simon]

Sweden - England not much difference if you think any party in the US is Facist.

Appears that you are locked into an anit-American mindset with little grasp of the reality of what people in the US really think.

Why are you adding Sweden into the discussion now?

"Anti-American".. Oh my..

It seems you can't really understand what fascism looks like. Maybe I should say war corporatism instead?

[mountainhiker]

Why are you adding Sweden into the discussion now?

Well, your location says Sweden, so, one would thing that is where you live

Or is that where you work?

[Simon]

Well, your location says Sweden, so, one would thing that is where you live

Or is that where you work?

Yes, I live in Sweden. But what has that to do with this discussion?

[mountainhiker]

Yes, I live in Sweden. But what has that to do with this discussion?

Well, lets see, you asked why I added Sweden?

[mountainhiker]

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, religious attributes. The key attribute of Fascism is intolerance of others: other religions, languages, political views, economic systems, cultural practices, etc.

The term is now used more as an epithet than as a term for any existing systems.

The term hardly applies to any party in the US, except for maybe Hillary who seems to be a party within a party

To get back to the question, Hillary has made a point of putting a lot of distance between her and Gore. You may not see the political posturing that Gore uses in the US, but he does a great disservice to the issues by being playing the "chicken little" role to the hilt.

You will note the she (Hillary) has said ZERO about climate change, global warming, etc.

[Simon]

The key attribute of Fascism is intolerance of others: other religions, languages, political views, economic systems, cultural practices, etc.

Yeah, and the current republican US government hold those values so high, now dont they?

The term hardly applies to any party in the US

Let me copy and paste what you and wikipedia says: "The key attribute of Fascism is intolerance of others: other religions, languages, political views, economic systems, cultural practices, etc." Hmmmmm

You will note the she (Hillary) has said ZERO about climate change, global warming, etc.

That is true. She have said just as much (or just as little) as the other candidates, and thats the problem.

[mountainhiker]

That is true. She have said just as much (or just as little) as the other candidates, and thats the problem.

And it appears that Obama is not going to fare any better in this area, seem to be too busy throwing rocks to put any real meat on the bones of the race.

[Simon]

And it appears that Obama is not going to fare any better in this area, seem to be too busy throwing rocks to put any real meat on the bones of the race.

Yes, it seems none of the candidates have the guts to bring forward the green issues in the race.

Also, the two top Democratic candidates supports coal as an energy form:

Hillary Clinton: Supports "clean coal." Supports coal-to-liquid fuels if they emit 20% less carbon over their lifecycle than conventional fuels.

Barack Obama: Supports "clean coal." Supports coal-to-liquid fuels, but has qualified that support, saying they must emit 20% less carbon over their lifecycle than conventional fuels.

[mountainhiker]

Also, the two top Democratic candidates supports coal as an energy form:

Hillary Clinton: Supports "clean coal." Supports coal-to-liquid fuels if they emit 20% less carbon over their lifecycle than conventional fuels.

Barack Obama: Supports "clean coal." Supports coal-to-liquid fuels, but has qualified that support, saying they must emit 20% less carbon over their lifecycle than conventional fuels.

Well, coal IS an energy form so that much is true, however, how much pot do you have to smoke before you can think it is "clean".

But wait, they are politicians and their lips are moving, and you know what that means!

[Simon]

But wait, they are politicians and their lips are moving, and you know what that means!

Yea I know what that means...

By the way, here is something I found over at Making Waves:

With the news is dominated today by 'Super Tuesday' in the US I saw this interesting graphic[/url:dwdzxsyh] yesterday on which candidate gets the most money from oil companies. Who do you think, for instance, gets the most cash from climate trashing Exxon[/url:dwdzxsyh]? Barack Obama.

The graphic from OilChange International[/url:dwdzxsyh] definitely looks like it was inspired by our own Exxon Secrets website[/url:dwdzxsyh].

The oil info is interesting but after looking again at Grist's candidates comparison[/url:dwdzxsyh] on climate, (notice how they all support dirty coal) it would be interesting to see which one the coal industry or coal dependant energy utilities are funding. Know a good source of this info? Post it in the comments.

[mountainhiker]

With the news is dominated today by 'Super Tuesday' in the US I saw this interesting graphic[/url:berdaowt] yesterday on which candidate gets the most money from oil companies. Who do you think, for instance, gets the most cash from climate trashing Exxon[/url:berdaowt]? Barack Obama.

Will do some checking, but wait, checked out that site, surely there must be some mistake, they have Hillary as receiving money from big oil - gasp!

[Steve_Barker]

There is an alternative:

http://www.runcynthiarun.org/

Whilst we continue voting for the politicians because they are less wrong than the rest, we just get taken for granted

[mountainhiker]

There is an alternative:

http://www.runcynthiarun.org/

Whilst we continue voting for the politicians because they are less wrong than the rest, we just get taken for granted

McKinney got tossed out of Atlanta because she did not represent the people that elected her. Alternative, only for the brain dead!

She went to the Green Party, who took seconds to realize that she was anything but green so NOW she wants to form the Reconstruction Party.

The woman was totally self centered in Georgia, taking the people who voted for her for granted and moving to California appears to have done nothing to change her for the better.....

[Steve_Barker]

Living in the UK, I am not too well up on the people of the US Green Party.

However, I know that whist alternative thinkers continue to vote for the better of two unpalitable parties (2.5 in the UK) the "lefter" party takes for granted the more radical green thinkers, and the more rightwing party takes for granted the "conservationists".

I have stood several times for the greens in England, and although never actually elected, I have forced the green agenda upon the main parties quicker than if I had worked from within. Further, I have held up a 10,000 house development on green fields for 10 years; building work has now started - but without delays, they would now be building on the ajacent fields. Also, other green inovations have occured to stop votes being lost to myself. I know from experiance standing/voting green works.

Whilst there were a few things that I was unsure of with http://www.runcynthiarun.org/ , she seems the most likely candidate from what I have seen on the web. Nader, has always struck me as a very reluctant green.