Why Is The Climate Crisis A DEAD ISSUE In This Campaign?

[RestoreGore]

There is absolutely NO URGENCY being expressed by the corporate media in debates or even by the candidates on the whole themselves regarding a crisis that will define this generation. And even when it is posted about on most blogs it gets at best two responses. WHY? Is it more important to BS about a squabble over a law that was signed forty years ago? Or to talk about crying? Haircuts? What they did as kids? I am getting VERY frustrated with the entire BS process and while I am supporting John Edwards because of his platform on climate change and because he at least mentions it, I am still VERY disappointed with the total lack of discussion of this crisis that WILL have an effect on the world our children live in.

Over two thousand questions in presidential debates and only FOUR of them were about global warming? FOUR? That's unconscienable. I can now see so clearly why Al Gore is not running in this BS system. All they do is TALK. The melting in Greenland is the most that has been seen in 50 years. The Antarctic is melting at such a rapid pace as to defy all scientific models, and the Arctic is not even able to replenish all of its summer ice which means more refraction of the sun into the atmosphere to continue the warming that will lead to sea level rise because we can't stop our addiction to fossil fuels.

We aren't talking about some ho hum issue here. This is about forever changing the relationship we have to our only home, and NO ONE in these debates is facing this as urgently as it should be faced NOW. I guess Florida or some other state has to actually go under water before people really give a damn? Georgia alone is almost out of water due to drought and it doesn't even get a GD mention. I am really hoping to see John Edwards stay in this for the long haul but I've got to say that I am not impressed with the lack of urgency on the whole regarding this, and frankly were it not for John Edwards still in this thing I wouldn't even be involved at all. Once again, Al Gore was right.

DO THESE CANDIDATES HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE QUESTION IN ORDER TO TALK ABOUT IT FROM THEIR HEARTS?

[Angela Shelley]

1. It´s not exciting, because if America would join in

then it would be uncomfortable for EVERYONE, and that´s not popular.

Nobody wants to talk about unpopular topics which affect themselves.

America has a long tradition of "wanting to be the leader", a collective behavior which has trained the people to not want to join in with the rest of the world.

Which candidate will stand up and say "we have some catching up to do"?

[mmonk]

2. Simple. You live in a corporate dictatorship.

That dictatorship controls the message.

[Echo In Light]

3. Both of the above posts are correct

Pretty obvious if you walk it through...

[Orwellian_Ghost]

22. There it is

K&R

[jus_the_facts]

4. I said the same thing Feb. 26th, 2004.....here's the link.....

....same ol' song and dance. :nopity:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=402458

[KharmaTrain]

5. Primaries Are Fought On Local Issues

The problem isn't the urgency about the environment, it's one of many urgent issues. I've heard all the major Democratic candidates discuss this issue and their plans and I feel confident that any Democrat who is elected will move forward on several front from global warming and C02 emissions to alternative fuels to other "green" projects as they not only could create a lot of jobs but also create the basis of a new economic sector. I've heard Edwards and Obama both address this area.

Right now the primary game is to deal with the local issues. In Iowa its bio-diesel and corn subsidies, New Hampshire its taxes and health care, in Nevada it's Yucca Flats...those are the issues that get the independents and cross-overs and are where the game is being played right now.

Sadly there's precious little we can do with this regime still in power and owned by the oil companies. This issue is far from off the radar, it's just fighting with other major concerns that the next President will have to deal with.

[jus_the_facts]

8. Yeah...keep bitchin' and screamin' about the same petty issues while the most important....

....get ignored....all the while none of those same social issues talked about for centuries haven't been solved either and have caused continued dessimation of the environment all in the name of *solving the worlds SOCIAL issues...it's FUBAR and will remain so until we dissapear as a species. :nopity:

[Lorien]

29. What's more local than environmental issues?

Seriously. I'm looking out my back window at mangled trees and a busted fence that are leftover damage from the THREE hurricanes that hit my home in 2004. We had not had ANY hurricanes come through Central Florida in over 40 years, then THREE hit us? What about the droughts in Georgia? Climate change is as local as it gets. People are talking-it's just the MSM that is ignoring the issue.

[RestoreGore]

50. Primaries should be fought on important issues

And climate change is as local and as important as it gets.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. It will remain a dead issue until

the lives of everyone is immediate jeopardy--and then we'll all be dead.

[Angela Shelley]

7. ... but our Hummers and our plastic toys will survive!

[Stranded]

9. There are several possible (and valid) reasons...

You ask why not speak out rather than wait for a question, well politicians are afraid to alienate potential voters, especially at a point this early in the game. A call for more stringent emission standards or setting goals for environmental initiatives end up being spun (by either the media or political opponents) as an attack on industry and the blue-collar workers it employs. So, why do you hate working-class Americans?

Furthermore, speaking out and showing the initiative asks for grandiose speeches. Frankly, in this day of extreme news being thrown at you at a break-neck speed, the sound-bites and bumper-sticker quips are far more catchy. Besides, it is much easier to take lines from a speech and use them out of context than it is with a sound-bite. It is better to have everyone remember something catchy that you have said rather than having always to be on the defensive for a misinterpretation of what you had said.

Going back to my first point. I think a lot of candidates might think that the "hard-core" environmentalists are a fringe group who tend to be either politically apathetic (viz., non-voters) or politically active and well educated about where politicians stand on the issues. You have already said that you are throwing your support behind John Edwards which tells me that you more or less agree with where he stands on the issue of the environment (and I would assume not because he is democrat and you like democrats). Anyway, apathetic or activist: apathetic voters tend to be cynical so you'll have a hard time getting them off the couch to vote; activists have probably already made up their minds by now... How many people do you think actually vote on the environment as a main issue? How many do you think would say they vote on the environment as a key issue but deep down know that really they don't?

In conclusion, and not at all alluded to above, I agree that it is a huge problem that the climate crisis is seemingly a non-issue. I'm young, but Nader was always my favorite politically prominent environmental advocate; we need figures like that--with nothing to lose and everything to gain--to step out into the spotlight and take the proverbial bull by the horns.

[RestoreGore]

31. It is truly a shame that we are risking our future out of political expedience

It is even more disheartening to see that nothing much has changed at all from one election cycle to the next in this country.

[Marrah_G]

10. Because much of it is too complicated for soundbites

[iamahaingttta]

11. It's just not sexy!

Shallow soundbite democracy and media-driven corporate capitalism want and need sexy issues to get you to give them your votes and your dollars. Talking about the end of the world as we know it is not exactly a way to get people to the voting booth and spending their money on your plastic baubles and internal combustion engines.

Seriously, if you expect the corporate media to express ANY urgency about this issue, then you are seriously deluded. If you expect the candidates, at least the ones who will be allowed a microphone provided by the corporate media to express any urgency then you are equally deluded. Please do not be deluded! We need you clear-headed and realistic.

Abortion and gay marriage should be two-bit minor issues but have such long-running media play because they ARE sexy. Literally.

[greenman3610]

12. I heard all three candidates in the debate address it

they talked about a threat to the planet, climate change, energy independence, and
green jobs. Coal came up as part of the debate - so I think they did
cover it.
They don't want to be left open to charges of levying huge carbon
taxes on the middle class, so the challenge for us as citizens is to
keep spreading the word and educating our communities about how
serious the threat is.
My experience is that people are starting to get it - even here in
the reddest of red counties in Michigan - after a recent short
climate presentation at a very conservative rotary club,
I was told so many people wanted to hear more that
I will be invited back for a long form program.
So, don't be afraid - inform yourself, write to your paper,
tell your friends, call radio stations. You will be paving the
way for our candidates to make this a larger debate.

[Labors of Hercules]

13. Because Al hasn't been brokered his nomination yet.. nt.

[FourScore]

19. LOVE this response!!! n/t

[RestoreGore]

25. They wouldn't even be covering it if he were running, which is my point

And it only proves him right. The American people on the whole are just not incensed enough to do what THEY have to do now to get this in the forefront of the discussion, and we will not see political change until that happens. I thought for sure all the people who supported Al Gore would be continuing that discussion, but I guess since he is not running it isn't important?

[Labors of Hercules]

34. We ARE continuing the discussion...

But we are not the candidates ourselves, and it is up to them to drive their own messages. (The MSM also has way too much say in what issues will come to the fore, and the Climate Crisis brings up too many issues they don't want discussed).

[RestoreGore]

47. Funny, I thought it was up to us to drive their message

Don't they work for us?

[SammyWinstonJack]

41. You were waiting for this response, weren't you?

:eyes: The corporate owned media would have to cover global warming if Gore were in the race. They wouldn't be able to ignore it. And you know it.

[RestoreGore]

45. No I don't know that

Nor do I have any faith they would.

[Pastiche423]

44. Yet...

is a nice word in this context.

[ginnyinWI]

14. Obama's 11-page plan for a clean energy future

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/EnergyFactSheet.pdf

[RestoreGore]

24. If it includes nuclear or liquid coal it isn't clean

[Lorien]

27. And it does. n/t

[orleans]

37. it includes "clean coal"-- doesn't that sound good?

:sarcasm:

[Virginia Dare]

15. Truth, you would think that McCain would be giving some..

"straight talk" about this as well.

The story from Antartica yesterday was very alarming, yet I didn't hear a peep about it last night on ABC, did any of the other networks pick it up? After what I read yesterday, there's a good chance a significant amount of land could be under water very soon, like within a few years. Not good.

[RestoreGore]

49. No, not good at all

But it isn't a "Real" issue, so we don't have to worry about it. :sarcasm:

[karynnj]

16. Because there is little real difference between the Democrats running

They all are committed to dealing with the issue, likely to Gore's credit. (In 2004, it was a big issue only for Kerry and got little traction.) That they are all serious on it is what Kerry told the international community in Bali. He has also used this as a way to support all 3 candidates, saying that all of them have been on the right side of this issue while only McCain has on the Republican side.

The other thing - which was fascinating to me watching a Republican debate a couple of weeks ago - was that all the Republicans have taken up the need to support research for alternative fuels - using Kerry's framing of 2004 that one benefit of alternative fuels is less dependence on an unstable middle east improving national security. In 2004, in one study that line of a Kerry response rated higher than anything else said.

Right now, there is not enough difference within parties to make it a top story, which it was until it became clear that Gore wasn't running. Here is a NYT op-ed on the issue that echoes a lot you are saying. (The comments on Gore and Kerry don't recognize that it wasn't their handlers - the media did not cover much either did do on the issue. I didn't follow the Gore race as closely, but in 2004, Kerry spoke of the issue several times a day in his stump speech and had many environmental events - none of which got much coverage other than the Kerry blog and CSPAN. It should also be noted that Texan, friend of Bush, Bob Scheiffer asked no energy or environment question in the domestic debate. Either would have led to a knockout Kerry response - even if he just used the lines in his stump speech.) The analysis otherwise seems a nice summary - and the disheartening thing is that as you point out, the issue is again getting little coverage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/opinion/01tue1.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

It may be different in the general election if the nominees are far apart and make it an issue. (The scary thing is that where in 2000 and 2004, we had candidates with incredible credentials on this going back decades, in 2008 if McCain is the candidate he could claim he was there before all of them. )

[OneBlueSky]

17. it's not just a climate crisis . . . it's an environmental crisis . . .

that encompasses everything from dying oceans to species extinctions, from unbreathable air to habitat destruction, from drug-resistant diseases to the clear-cutting of forests, from genetically modified "frankenfoods" to new chemical compounds that pollute the air, water, and land and will never go away . . . not to mention the unfathomable daily quantity of industrial and household waste that we have nowhere left to put . . .

we humans are fouling our nest in ways that will make the planet uninhabitable by most higher species (including humans) sooner rather than later . . .

and no one in power cares as long as the corporations are making money . . .

[lovuian]

18. Its very noticeable there is no questions about it

its really pathetic

[bryant69]

20. I think they are trying to say what they think the American people care about

And I don't know how much the American people care about this issue. THey should care, no doubt. But they don't seem to.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Johonny]

21. I imagine

Because there are actual "real" issue to talk about. Tanking health care system, tanking war, tanking economy, tanking domestic services, tanking dollar, tanking... these are issue that effect people this minute, this hour today. Compared to issues about the effects of our energy usage 100 years from now don't register on people as thoroughly. Even if these long term effects are much worse than the current "real" issues. When the country is in this bad of shape, I'm willing to give short sighted coverage of issues a pass.

[RestoreGore]

48. Sorry buit this is a real issue now

[Johonny]

53. I'm sorry

But if you have no home today, no food today, no car today, no job today... the future of the world 50, 200, 1000 years from now is very hard to focus on. My point isn't global warming isn't important or even way more important than most people realize, it's just the current situation in the country right now is a horrible time to get people to focus on long range problems.

[ProgressIn2008]

23. They've checked which way the wind blows and decided it's not a hot topic

so to speak. This has a lot to do with big money media and interests that set the agenda. The "electable" ones are not likely to buck the bucks -- it's enough to have some kind of statement to show you're green, and then get on with the race.

[Lorien]

26. I've been wondering the same thing. It is THE issue that eclipses all others

and I'm amazed that people simply can't grasp that. If you are under the age of 50, your life will be profoundly effected by climate change at some point. Probably MUCH sooner than anyone thought. If you lived in the path of hurricane Katrina or the floods in Africa then your life has already changed because of it. Though the Iraq war is important, how important will it seem when we can't grow crops? When there are severe water shortages, famine, rampant disease, rising oceans, forest failures and massive wars over dwindling resources, then how much will a debate over MLK matter? Why does our survival as a species-and the survival of every OTHER species on earth-take a back seat to taxes, immigration, and gas prices?

It's fucking insane.

[Atman]

28. When people are sleeping in the streets they don't mind a little global warming

The economy SUCKS, as I've been pointing out for well over a year, even as the corporate media propped up Bush's lies about peachy wonderfulness. A lot of people are extremely worried about keeping a roof over their heads and feeding the kids right now. It's not that they aren't concerned about the ultimate demise of the human race -- that's still a long way off. They're worried about their immediate survival.

.

[Lorien]

30. It's not a long way off-it's right around the corner.

and if the street you are sleeping on is flooded or get hit by a hurricane, then you'll know a whole new level of suffering. Climate change has the potential of creating massive new ranks of homeless in the near future if extreme weather conditions continue to increase. Food gets VERY expensive when you simply can't grow it.

[Atman]

32. "Right around the corner" is a relative term.

Seriously. The demise of the human race will not come about next year, or even in fifty years. Losing one's home and job could happen tomorrow. Even if everyone DID focus every bit of their energies on passing some serious legislation to stem the advance of gw, it will have no immediate impact. A foreclosure notice is NOW.

.

[MadHound]

33. Because the corporations backing these candidates don't want a discussion on the climate crisis.

The only one you hear talking about this is the one candidate who isn't corporately compromised, Kucinich. The rest are backed by interests who don't want this discussion, who want things to continue down this course so they can continue to make lots of money.

Once more we see how our government is now all about money and corporations, not about we the people.

[leftofthedial]

35. there also has been a resurgence of global warming deniers it seems to me

and RW ridicule of all things Gore

to raise the issue would require too much homage to President Gore.

[IndianaJones]

36. few people care. nt.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

38. Economy ties war as top issue, poll shows

The faltering economy has caught the Iraq war as people's top worry, a national poll suggests, with the rapid turnabout already showing up on the presidential campaign trail and in maneuvering between President Bush and Congress.

Twenty percent named the economy as the foremost problem in an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Friday, virtually tying the 21 percent who cited the war. In October, the last time the survey posed the open-ended question about the country's top issue, the war came out on top by a 2-1 majority.

About equal proportions of Republicans, Democrats and independents in the new poll said the economy was their major worry, suggesting the issue looms as a potent one in both parties' presidential contests. It was also cited evenly across all levels of income, underscoring the variety of economic problems the country faces.

Amid increasing trade, job, housing, stock market and gasoline price woes, candidates from each party have started talking about how they would bolster the economy. The issue looms as the dominant one in the next presidential contest: Tuesday's Republican primary in Michigan, which had a 7.4 percent unemployment rate in November that is the nation's worst.

Read More: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22621994/
..............

Economy is top U.S. farm election issue: Reuters poll

NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - As the election season kicks into high gear, farmers think the economy and immigration are the most important issues the presidential candidates should focus on as they campaign, a straw poll conducted by Reuters showed on Wednesday.

Reuters surveyed 686 of the 5,000 farmers attending the American Farm Bureau Federation's meeting in New Orleans this week. It found that 30 percent said the economy was the most important issue followed by immigration at 22 percent and taxes at 12 percent.

"A good, strong economy solves a lot of other problems in the country," said Dennis Reid, an Alabama poultry farmer.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1663046620080116
.................

A Revival of 1992’s Glum Mood

n April 1992, having just dispatched his rivals for the Democratic nomination, Bill Clinton went to the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania to give a big speech on his economic vision. He already knew that he would be able to run against “the Bush recession,” as he called it that day. But he decided to make a much broader argument.

Mr. Clinton said that the economy hadn’t really been working since the early 1970s. The recession had simply aggravated problems that existed long before George H. W. Bush took office. “Even when the Bush recession ends,” Mr. Clinton said, “most Americans will find themselves worse off.”

The economic worries of 1992 helped elect Mr. Clinton, of course. And by the end of the decade, thanks to both his policies and a huge stock market bubble, the American economy was roaring along again. The deep anxiety of 1992 seemed to be a piece of economic history.

No more. Almost 16 years after Mr. Clinton’s speech at Wharton, the economy is again dominating a presidential race. While the details have changed, the main story line remains remarkably similar. A downturn has reawakened fears that the economy no longer works very well for the middle class.

Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/business/16leonhardt.html?hp

While I agree that it's short-sighted for most Americans to worry more about if they can pay their bills right now, than if we continue to destroy the planet, it's how they think and what they're more concerned about at the moment.

The last polling that gave figures on all the top concerns I saw put the economy first, the war a very tight second and climate change was almost tied with health care as what Americans were most worried about. That was a month or more ago so I'm not sure if the numbers still hold.

The point being, climate change will be addressed in this election cycle, but it won't be the number one issue on voters minds.

[orleans]

39. now that kucinich is out of the way no one has to talk about it. n/t

[Hoof Hearted]

40. I believe you will see more of it after the nominees are chosen.

It's kind of a given that the Democratic nominee will be more knowledgeable and progressive on the issue than the Republican, and since more people are waking up every day, it's just one more issue on the huge pile of issues that should work very well for us.

[WinkyDink]

42. They'd have to mention AL GORE, and that they do not wish to do.

[RestoreGore]

46. Well, maybe they will mention it after this...

http://www.uticaod.com/homepage/x603829945

Boehlert, group commit to climate education
Jan 02, 2008 @ 07:15 AM
By JENNIFER FUSCO
Observer-Dispatch
The Alliance for Climate Protection soon will kick off a $100 million annual campaign to educate the public on global climate change, said former Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, who is a board member.

Board chairman Al Gore established the non-profit environmental group using proceeds from his 2006 documentary about global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” according to a recent article in “Plenty” magazine.

Gore then asked Boehlert to be a board member following his retirement from Congress, Boehlert said.

“I was one of the voices that kept urging my colleagues to be familiar with the issue and its implications, and to do something about it,” Boehlert said.

The group's mission is “to persuade the American people - and people elsewhere in the world - of the importance and urgency of adopting and implementing effective and comprehensive solutions for the climate crisis,” according to its Web site.

The campaign, which Gore will kick off in February, is a three-year initiative that will use media avenues such as print, television and online, according to the “Plenty” article.

[WinkyDink]

55. Awesome! I was wondering where Gore "went"!

[Spike89]

43. Not dead, just not a differentiator

Seriously, there isn't enough difference among the three dem candidates on this issue for one of them to claim the green "crown". The primaries are for highlighting and examining the differences between the candidates. Despite the incredible partisan passions found on DU for the candidates, the group is much much more alike than not. It is just the way it is--if one of the dems was a denier of climate change, it would surely be a huge issue. If one of the pukes other than McCain get the nomination, the general election campaign WILL make the environment and climate change a huge issue.

[DeepModem Mom]

51. K&R

[cooolandrew]

52. Mostly because statistically Americans aren't taking it serious. That's why we lost ecotalk on AAR.

[ThoughtCriminal]

54. Ratio of Climate-to-UFO questions

I think it's now 4:3

[zalinda]

56. Because all everyone talks about is Clinton/Obama

Edwards talks about it, and it is on his top 5 list of things to do.

zalinda

[RestoreGore]

58. Yes, Edwards talks about it the most, which is why I am now supporting him in this

He is the best candidate currently overall.

[hunter]

57. No politician is going to tell us things are going to get worse...

...possibly much worse, and there's not a damn thing anyone can do but spread the misery around justly to those who can bear it.

To get elected a candidate has to promise tomorrow is going to be a warm sunny day, even if they know a terrible storm is coming.

The candidate we elect can't stop the storm, but they'd better be able to hold the nation together when the storm hits. The next president could very well be this generation's FDR.

I don't see how any of the Republican candidates could fill that role -- all of them seem to me as venal and destructive as George W. Bush has been. But I haven't rightly decided which of the Democrats would be most capable in dealing with widespread economic and environmental catastrophe. They all seem to have the intelligence and leadership ability the office will require of them, which is why I refuse to participate in the current political infighting here on DU.

What I'm looking for is a candidate who will end our war in Iraq, appoint good Supreme Court Justices, a candidate who will clean up all the crap Bush left in the Justice Department, a candidate who will rebuild the EPA and other agencies the Bush Administration has ruined, and so on, and so on.

That's already a big order. If we get even more, things like universal healthcare that does not simply siphon more money through our corrupt health insurance industries, or gay marriage, or cuts in military spending, well, those only increase the vast chasm between the failed ideologies of the Republican candidates and the practical populist experience of the Democratic candidates. The traditional "middle ground" of U.S. politics has become a gaping tar pit of ineffectiveness, and I think most Americans will recognize the danger of the middle ground this November no matter how hard the corporate media tries to push us toward it.

We don't really know what the defining moment will be when most Americans break into a cold sweat and realize oh, shit, this climate change thing is real... but that's going to happen when it happens, and nothing the candidates say today is going to change that.

[countryjake]

59. kick for the polar bears