Frankly, I’m not betting the farm on Obama vetoing the bill, particularly if Republicans in exchange go along with his cherished hike in infrastructure spending, designed precisely to create jobs. As the article says, even his Democratic base is split on the pipeline, at a time when jobs truly are THE issue in this election.

The case for a veto no matter what is, I believe, stronger. Politically, he shows backbone and principle, can blast Republicans for the same anti-job position they want to pin on him, and secures the grassroots support he so desperately needs from his environmental base, the same base he has mutilated into apathy with other antagonistic ecodecisions.

But then again, on the subject of backbone and principle, the president has been quite convincing of late that he doesn’t have any when it comes to climate change. The signs are anything but reassuring.

The U.S. was one of the countries that most blocked progress (even simple steps) at Durban. Obama’s new all-or-nothing energy policy proudly includes record hikes in American oil and gas exploration. And when he “killed” Keystone, I’ve warned earlier that we would be ill advised to celebrate much, so absent from his statement was any mention of climate change. Now, if he was willing to turn on the climate at these crucial moments, what makes us think he’ll stick to the Keystone decision in the face of potential political risk?

The writing is all over the wall, folks. This man has simply abandoned the climate in favor of his reelection. He fails to see the political, historical and economic value (to him!) of standing up to the Republicans on this all-important issue. So don’t let his support of cleantech fool you. On Keystone, we simply do not know which way he’ll go.

But what does Romney, Bachmann and Perry say about environmental and climate issues? Below is a quick summary on the three front-runners and just where they stand politically when it comes to the climate and our environment.

As a quick note before I start I must say that it’s sad to see that the American climate debate has taken a completely wrong direction since the last elections. The former Republican Presidential candidate John McCain, who proudly said he was a “coal booster” and his (joke to a) Vice President Sarah Palin who in the elections couldn’t even name a single man-made cause to climate change, supported a cap-and-trade system in the previous election. But none of the three Republican front-runners would today even consider a cap-and-trade system in the US. And somehow Rick Perry’s and Michele Bachmann’s rhetoric sounds remarkably similar to the Norwegian terrorist’s crazy ramblings about climate change being some sort of “eco-Marxist plot”. It is also sad that Mitt Romney is facing such strong criticism among Republican voters for his (weak) pro-climate and pro-science stance. It shouldn’t be “political suicide” to believe in basic climate science these days.

Rick Perry

Rick Perry is an religious, right-wing conservative who currently is the Governor of Texas. Many political commentators have likened Perry and his cowboy-like rhetoric and style to the former President George W. Bush. Which might say a lot where he stands political on environmental issues considering Bush’s awful climate record.

From his statements regarding climate change one can clearly see that Perry is a global warming denier. Perry wrote in his book Fed Up! that he believes that Al Gore and climate scientists belongs to a “secular carbon cult”, and that global warming is a “contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight.” Here is a quote from his book:

“For example, they have seen the headlines in the past year about doctored data related to global warming. They know we have been experiencing a cooling trend, that the complexities of the global atmosphere have often eluded the most sophisticated scientists, and that draconian policies with dire economic effects based on so-called science may not stand the test of time. Quite frankly, when science gets hijacked by the political Left, we should all be concerned. . . .

And it’s all one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight. Al Gore is a prophet all right, a false prophet of a secular carbon cult, and now even moderate Democrats aren’t buying it.”

When Perry campaigned for Governor in Texas last year he was labeled as one of the twelve dirties state office candidates in the country by the Texas League of Conservation Voters. “Rick Perry has consistently put corporate polluters and other special interests ahead of protecting our natural resources and working to make Texas a leader in the new clean energy economy,” said David Weinberg, Executive Director of the Texas League of Conservation Voters. Jonathan Hiskes wrote a longer summary about Perry’s environmental record last year saying that while Perry fights climate action he embraces wind power. He also writes that Perry “relishes his role as a foe of national climate action” and that he have said that the climate bill that passed the House in 2009 was as an “economic disaster”. Perry has also tried to fast-track permits for 11 new coal plants in Texas.

According to the liberal blog Thinkprogress, Perry has received massive amounts of campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry:

“Since his 1998 candidacy to be George W. Bush’s lieutenant governor, Perry has raked in $117,091,642 in campaign contributions, with the oil and gas industry the top contributor. Big oil has fueled Rick Perry’s career, the top industry contributor at $11,189,103, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Top oil company contributions include $189,188 from Exxon Mobil, $147,895 from Valero Energy, and $116,000 from Koch Industries.”

So what kind of solutions does Perry have for Texas, which currently is experiencing one of the state’s worst droughts in history most likely due to man-made climate change? Well, Perry believes that the only viable solution is prayers. Jeff Goodell over at the Rolling Stone magazine writes:

“The other day, Texas Governor Rick Perry took dramatic action to save his state from the ravages of a changing climate. He issued a proclaimation for Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas. For three days, Perry asked Texas to kneel at the pew, or at the foot of their beds, and silently ask God to bring water to their parched state.”

When it comes to EPA Perry says the Environmental Protection Agency and their regulations “are killing jobs all across America” and that he wants the president to “put a moratorium on all regulations across this country.” And like ThinkProgress notes, this would mean complete anarchy and a literal end to the rules of law in the USA.

Michele Bachmann speaking at CPAC 2011 in Washington, D.C. Photo credit: Gage Skidmore.

Michele Bachmann

Michele Bachmann is a congress member in the United States House of Representatives and a strong supporter of the populist, right-wing Tea Party movement. Bachmann is, similar to Rick Perry, a conservative right-winger who is supportive of corporations and doesn’t like environmental regulations. She is also a climate change denier.

During a GOP debate in New Hampshire last month, Bachmann said she wanted to stop EPA and repeal the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act:

“What we need to do is pass the mother of all repeal bills, but it’s the repeal bill that will get a job killing regulations. And I would begin with the EPA, because there is no other agency like the EPA. It should really be renamed the job-killing organization of America.”

And just two weeks ago during a campaign rally in Iowa she continued with her attacks against EPA saying that she would lock it down and shut of its lights:

“I pledge to you I’m not a talker. I’m a doer,” she said. “[...] And I guarantee you the EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) will have doors locked and lights turned off and they will only be about conservation, ” she said earlier today at a campaign stop in Cedar Rapids. “It will be a new day and a new sheriff in Washington, D.C.”

During a radio interview in 2009 where Bachmann talked about the cap-and-trade bill, which she has described as “tyranny“, that was being debated in the House back then she called on citizens to get “armed and dangerous” in their opposition against the bill. This is what she said:

“I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people – we the people – are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.”

One can wonder that if by “armed and dangerous” Bachmann meant something along the lines of what the Christian right-wing terrorist succeeded with in Norway this summer?

When it comes to climate change Bachmann is just like Rick Perry a global warming denier. During a debate at the House floor on Earth Day in 2009 she claimed that “carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of nature” and that this would somehow disprove man-made climate change.

In 2008 Bachmann said that she believed that climate change was just a hoax and a conspiracy. This is what she said:

“The big thing we are working on now is the global warming hoax. It’s all voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax…”

Bachmann also supports oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) saying the federal protected area would be “perfect for drilling” and that “it beast Saudi Arabia”. But allowing oil drilling in the ANWR is pretty mainstream Republican opinions. Republican John Boehner, who is currently the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, said in 2008 while pushing for oil drilling in the area that he didn’t believe that there is any wildlife at all in the ANWR.

Former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts speaking at CPAC 2011 in Washington, D.C. Photo credit: Gage Skidmore.

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney, the former Governor of Massachusetts, also wants to see oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). During a GOP debate in 2007 Romney said that to be able to reach energy independence USA needs to increase all their domestic energy productions. This would include investing more in nuclear energy and “more drilling in ANWR.”

But unlike Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann, Romney has actually supported the idea of a cap-and-trade plan in the US saying he was “convinced” such a plan would be “good for business”. Unfortunately those opinions didn’t last very long. Andrew Schenkel writes:

But in just a few short years, Romney’s cap-and-trade feelings shifted. “We’re going to move our new facilities from the U.S. to China, where they don’t have those agreements. You end up polluting and putting just as much CO2 in the air because the big energy users go there. That’s why these ideas make sense, but only on a global basis. They don’t call it ‘America warming.’ They call it ‘global warming.’”

During a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire, earlier this summer Romney said that he believes “the world is getting warmer” and that he “believe that humans have contributed to that”. This is what he said:

“I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that,” he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire. “It’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.”

Al Gore even (sort-of) applauded Romney for ignoring the “anti-science wing of the Republican Party”. But Gore also noted that “we’ve long passed the point where weak lip-service is enough on the Climate Crisis”. Romney, unlike his fellow Republican presidential candidates, believing in global warming sounds good, don’t it? But just like Alexander Burns over at Politico notes, Romney is still not completely sure about the warming or how much responsibility we humans actually have:

“But Romney also says he’s not sure how much the globe is warming or how much responsibility humans bear, or what exactly the best climate policies would be. That’s not exactly a bold, maverick stance, and would seem to put Romney within the same ballpark on the issue as George W. Bush.”

And just like the other two Republican front-runners, Romney doesn’t think the EPA should be allowed to regulate greenhouse gases. Darren Samuelsohn over at Politico writes that Romney doesn’t believe that carbon pollution is a threat to public health:

“”Gov. Romney does not think greenhouse gases are pollutants within the meaning of the Clean Air Act, and he does not believe that the EPA should be regulating them,” said Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul. “CO2 is a naturally occurring gas. Humans emit it every time they exhale.” Last week, Romney responded to a question at a town hall meeting in Derry, N.H., by saying he doesn’t think carbon pollution threatens public health or merits regulation under the Clean Air Act.”

So while Romney at least acknowledges climate change he is still unsure about it and has no real plans or ideas on how we can combat the climate crisis. Last week in Iowa, Romney said that “corporations are people, my friends.” So it seems we shouldn’t put much hope to Romney that if he gets elected as president he would enforce environmental regulations against his friends, the corporations.

Gore does acknowledge the “incredible challenges” that is confronting President Obama and recognizes the climate-friendly efforts Obama has achieved, such as the historic improvements in fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles and for instructing EPA to “move forward on the regulation of global-warming pollution under the Clean Air Act”. But despite this Gore says Obama has “failed” to present “bold action on climate change” and that Obama has only “slightly” moved the country forward on the climate issue. Gore writes:

“But in spite of these and other achievements, President Obama has thus far failed to use the bully pulpit to make the case for bold action on climate change. After successfully passing his green stimulus package, he did nothing to defend it when Congress decimated its funding. After the House passed cap and trade, he did little to make passage in the Senate a priority. Senate advocates including one Republican felt abandoned when the president made concessions to oil and coal companies without asking for anything in return. He has also called for a massive expansion of oil drilling in the United States, apparently in an effort to defuse criticism from those who argue speciously that “drill, baby, drill” is the answer to our growing dependence on foreign oil.”

Because Obama failed to pass legislation to limit global-warming pollution in the US he also contributed, Gore writes, to the disappointing failure of securing a global climate treaty at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen (Cop15) in 2009.

“The failure to pass legislation to limit global-warming pollution ensured that the much-anticipated Copenhagen summit on a global treaty in 2009 would also end in failure. The president showed courage in attending the summit and securing a rhetorical agreement to prevent a complete collapse of the international process, but that’s all it was a rhetorical agreement. During the final years of the Bush-Cheney administration, the rest of the world was waiting for a new president who would aggressively tackle the climate crisis and when it became clear that there would be no real change from the Bush era, the agenda at Copenhagen changed from “How do we complete this historic breakthrough?” to “How can we paper over this embarrassing disappointment?”"

Gore also directed strong criticism against Obama for failing to defend the climate science from “dishonest attacks” by the climate deniers and the fossil fuel industry.

“President Obama has never presented to the American people the magnitude of the climate crisis. He has simply not made the case for action. He has not defended the science against the ongoing, withering and dishonest attacks. Nor has he provided a presidential venue for the scientific community — including our own National Academy — to bring the reality of the science before the public.”

There is really no denying. Since taking office in 2008 Obama has failed to bring the change he promised. His track record has so far been a huge disappointment, especially when it comes to the climate crisis. Gore is just saying what has been on many environmentalists minds for a while now. And yet people who want to see real change on the climate issue doesn’t have many political options. As Dina Cappiello from the Associated Press writes:

“Regardless of views such as Gore’s, environmental voters may see little choice in the 2012 election. Those in the Republican field so far either deny global warming is a man-made problem altogether or say actions to address it would hurt the economy. For Obama, the biggest risk is that some environmental voters may not go to the polls.”

And this is really where the problem lies. The current two-party system in the US is undemocratic and is now also clearly responsible for killing our climate. But it’s a political system that Al Gore still remains a firm supporter of.

“The cuts it proposes are much lower than those being pursued in the UK or in most other developed nations. Like the UK’s climate change act (pdf) the US bill calls for an 80% cut by 2050, but in this case the baseline is 2005, not 1990. Between 1990 and 2005, US carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels rose from 5.8 to 7bn tonnes.

The cut proposed by 2020 is just 17%, which means that most of the reduction will take place towards the end of the period. What this means is much greater cumulative emissions, which is the only measure that counts. Worse still, it is riddled with so many loopholes and concessions that the bill’s measures might not offset the emissions from the paper it’s printed on. You can judge the effectiveness of a US bill by its length: the shorter it is, the more potent it will be. This one is some 1,200 pages long, which is what happens when lobbyists have been at work.”

Monbiot says that lobbyists from the dirty industries, thinktanks, pr consultants and politicians like Republican Joe Barton are to be blamed for the weak climate and energy bill. He even goes as far as saying that the corruption of public life in the USA is Obama’s “real challenge”:

“A combination of corporate money and an unregulated corporate media keeps America in the dark ages. This bill is the best we’re going to get for now because the corruption of public life in the United States has not been addressed. Whether he is seeking environmental reforms, health reforms or any other improvement in the life of the American people, this is Obama’s real challenge.”

But Monbiot still want the bill to be passed “as it at least provides a framework for future improvements”.

Also read: Top experts: Carbon Tax needed NOT Cap-and-Trade Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)

Photo credit: jurvetson

This past Friday the House of Representatives in USA voted yes to the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, a cap-and-trade energy bill, by a vote of 219 to 212. This historic climate change bill will require limits on pollution responsible for man-made climate change and it will help USA create a green economy, if it also gets thumbs up in the Senate.

“After a tense debate, in which the margin of success or failure never moved beyond a handful of votes, the House of Representatives passed the most sweeping climate change policy ever considered by Congress early Friday evening, the Huffington Post reports.

The outcome had remained up in the air up until the actual vote, with the White House and the president himself engaging in a heavy lobbying campaign aimed at restoring Democratic Party unity that seemed to be fracturing.”

President Barack Obama said in his weekly address that this new bill will help “create green jobs, ensure clean air for our children, move towards energy independence and combat climate change.”

Steve Bouchard, Campaign Manager for Repower America, said in a statement after the vote that the House of Representatives had just passed a “landmark bill that will propel our nation toward a clean energy future.” But Bouchard also warned that the fight wasn’t over yet:

“It’s not over though. The debate moves on to the Senate where our opponents will redouble their efforts. There will be more distortions and foot dragging, but the momentum is on our side.

Today, we have something to celebrate. For the first time in decades, we have taken bold action to help solve the climate crisis.”

But not everyone is happy about the bill. Republicans have complained that the energy bill is just a new “energy tax” and falsely claims it will cost households in USA $3,100 every year. The Daily Green reports:

“This debate has sprung largely from a Republican misreading (why not be generous?) of an MIT study that led pundits and politicians to cry about the perils of a new “energy tax” that might cost American households $3,100 every year. (Though that claim has been thoroughly debunked, I seem to hear it every other Saturday in the Republican response to President Obama’s weekly address.) The author of the MIT study puts the cost at $800, while the conservative Heritage Foundation estimated the annual cost at $1,500 and the Environmental Protection Agency estimated the cost at just $140 or lower.”

Thomas Friedman, author of the book “Hot, Flat, and Crowded – Why We Need a Green Revolution – And How it Can Renew America”, writes on the New York Times that he thinks the energy bill is a “mess” and that it “stinks”. Friedman blames the Republicans, President Barack Obama and “We the People” for being responsible for such a weak bill. But he still calls for the Senate to pass the bill:

“Why? Because, for all its flaws, this bill is the first comprehensive attempt by America to mitigate climate change by putting a price on carbon emissions. Rejecting this bill would have been read in the world as Americavoting against the reality and urgency of climate change and would have undermined clean energy initiatives everywhere.

More important, my gut tells me that if the U.S. government puts a price on carbon, even a weak one, it will usher in a new mind-set among consumers, investors, farmers, innovators and entrepreneurs that in time will make a big difference — much like the first warnings that cigarettes could cause cancer. The morning after that warning no one ever looked at smoking the same again.”

In advance of the vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act in the House of Representatives, Greenpeace USA Deputy Campaigns Director Carroll Muffett said that the bill “chooses politics over science” and that it “elevates industry interests over national interest.” She even called for the Congress to reject the bill and instead begin “immediate and urgent work on legislation that treats seriously the dire threat of climate change”.

“As it comes to the floor, the Waxman-Markey bill sets emission reduction targets far lower than science demands, then undermines even those targets with massive offsets. The giveaways and preferences in the bill will actually spur a new generation of nuclear and coal-fired power plants to the detriment of real energy solutions. To support such a bill is to abandon the real leadership that is called for at this pivotal moment in history. We simply no longer have the time for legislation this weak.

[…]This legislation sends a strong and unmistakable signal to the world that the United States is not yet ready to show the leadership necessary to reach a strong agreement at Copenhagen in December. Already, we are seeing the impact of this signal as one country after another retreats from the aggressive targets needed to avoid catastrophic climate change.”

In a response to the thumbs up for the energy bill in the House of Representatives Muffett called the bill “a victory” for coal, oil and other dirty industry lobbyists. She also said that “it is a tremendous loss for the American people and for the world in our common fight to avert climate catastrophe.”

“To avoid the worst effects of global warming, we must reduce emissions by 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020, and the short term target of this bill is a paltry 4%. The massive offsets in this bill means that we can continue at our current emissions level for years, and huge giveaways mean a new generation of nuclear and coal plants.

Unless the bill is substantially strengthened in the Senate, we have a lot more work ahead of us. We are calling upon President Obama to use every tool at his disposal, both within and outside Congress, to get us back to the science-based targets he promised.”

The energy and climate bill has a long way to go before becoming law as it has to pass voting in the Senate were more right-wingers, lobbyists paid by the coal and oil industry and even some environmentalists will try to fight the bill.

One fact to note when looking for the candidates policies on their respective websites is that Barack Obama has a category named “Energy and Environment” under the “Issues” section. On the other hand, John McCain has “American Energy” and “Climate Change” listed as separate categories under the “Issues” section. This seemingly subtle difference represents some conflicting policies between the two candidates. While McCain believes in global warming, he is resistant to associate the call for more oil with his global warming concerns because supporting the two issues is a sheer contradiction. In sum, Obama wants to rid our dependence on all oil (not just foreign) and McCain wants to use every available resource needed to end our dependence on foreign oil.

McCain calls his energy plan “The Lexington Project,” which is an all of the above energy solution according to his website. Included is expansion of domestic oil and natural oil exploration, tax credits for automakers and consumers who buy cars with low carbon emissions, $2 billion annually reserved for clean coal technology, 45 new nuclear power plants and he will “encourage”  the market for alternative fuels such as wind, hydro, and solar power. He has greenhouse gas emissions targets listed in the climate change section that includes dropping it 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 66 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

Obama calls his plan “comprehensive” and puts added emphasis on new forms of energy. He wants to provide $1,000 to American families through a windfall profits tax, calling it an “Emergency Energy Rebate.”  He will invest $150 billion over the next 10 years to build a clean energy future, and in that same allotted time, rid American dependency of foreign oil. He wants to put one million plug-in hybrid cars on the road by 2015 and ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025. In addition, Obama wants to implement an economy–wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

Interestingly, by 2050 many of those reading this article still won’t be as old as John McCain is now. Moving on, there are other issues that you may not hear about quite as much.

The use of asbestos in products and the manufacturing industry could come to a close in 2009. Senator Patty Murray introduced the “Ban Asbestos in America Act” that has been introduced and passed by the entire U.S. Senate. However, the bill does contain a harmful pro-industry amendment eliminating coverage for workers exposed to products containing one percent or less of asbestos. CWA and the AFL-CIO will work to have this language omitted in the final Senate-House legislation.

Congresswoman Betty McCollum has introduced the “Bruce Vento Asbestos and Prevent Mesothelioma Act of 2008.” This legislation is not expected to be passed by the full house during 2008, so this is basically groundwork in order to get the bill passed in 2009. Right now there are now mesothelioma treatments that result in a cure.

Another bill is the “Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2008.” These are all supported by the Blue-Green Labor/Environmental Coalition.

With Barack Obama as president and a Congress dominated by democrats, the above legislation should all pass. With John McCain as president, the bills could be vetoed.

In paying for all of these plans, Barack Obama pledges to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans (annual income of $250,000) and raise taxes on oil companies. While John McCain will actually lower taxes for oil companies, he pledges to cut small business taxes and promote fiscal responsibility within the government. He says that with bi-partisan efforts, he can bring the budget to balance by 2013. Until then, expect a dirty fight in efforts toward a cleaner America.

Jesse Herman is the National Awareness Coordinator of the Mesothelioma Cancer Center.

The Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama has chosen Joe Biden as his running mate and Vice President. But how green is really Joe Biden? Well, it seems he is green enough for the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) to applaud Barack Obama’s choice and to hail Joe Biden in regards to his environmental records.

“With a lifetime LCV environmental score of 83%, Joe Biden recognizes that ending our addiction to oil is vital to our national security,” LCV President Gene Karpinski said. “Senator Biden is a long-time leader on key energy and environmental issues, and the members of LCV enthusiastically support Senator Obama’s choice.”

ScienceSays.net lists “Biden’s awesome environmental record” saying he is just as strong on the environment as Obama and that Biden “isn’t afraid to say it”:

• Supports an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050
• Supports 40 miles-per-gallon fuel efficiency standards by 2017
• Wants the US to use 20% renewable energy by 2020
• Opposes offshore drilling or drilling for oil in the Arctic (ANWR)
• Take Big Oil’s $2 billion dollar tax breaks to pay for offshore wind farms
• Ensured protection of 100% of the coastline in his home state
• Wrote a plan to exchange debt-relief for rainforest protection
• Believes polluters should pay Superfund fees to clean up their toxic waste
• Wants the US to take a stronger stance to end commercial whaling

The League of Conservation Voters also says that Obama’s Energy Plan for America “is the most substantive, comprehensive plan ever put forward by a nominee for President,” and that Biden’s “progressive energy stance” will help to boost Obama’s “visionary plan.”

“They will usher in a new era of environmental leadership,” Gene Karpinski said.

Image credit: Barack Obama @ Flickr. Image licensed under a Creative-Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike license.

Having spent the last week in the United States and having watched all the presidential candidates debate, I’m struck by how little talk there is of climate change and what the United States intends to do about it!

The climate threat that faces us today is the important issue that should be among the top things discussed between the different presidential candidates. Cause the climate threat will affect everything from healthcare to immigration and Iraq to education and welfare.

Libby Rosenthal acknowledges this and put weight on America’s most foolish decision to attempt to disrupt the climate actions that needs to be done around the world by not signing the Kyoto Protocol.

But from the world’s perspective, the issue of whether America will join with other countries in controlling global warming is a key issue, and one that should be discussed in front of the American public: The United States is, after all, the major developed nation that has not signed the Kyoto Protocol.

After the Australian federal election last year were decided on the climate change inaction by John Howard, Australia signed the Kyoto Protocol and left USA alone.

Libby Rosenthal continues by adding that “the most disturbing thing in some ways is not what the candidates think, but how little this important issue is being discussed, despite 24/7 television coverage. That means the candidates have not had to explain how they will handle tough questions like how to get U.S. car makers to participate in emission reductions; how to discourage Americans from driving gas guzzlers; and whether the United States will step up to the plate to control its emissions, even if China does not.”

Unfortunately, at the moment, it doesn’t seem like the USA elections will be decided upon the different candidates “green” credentials and ideas any day soon.

Image credit: Alexdecarvalho. Image licensed under a
Creative-Commons Attribution license.