Neither of these answers is faultless – both have an excess of winner picking sickness but no prizes for guessing which is the more firmly grounded
Obama and Romney answer questions about science policy
SCIENCE FILE
The presidential candidates answer questions from ScienceDebate.org on technology, climate change and other science policy issues.
October 05, 2012|By Karen Kaplan, Los Angeles Times
What is your position on cap-and-trade, carbon taxes and other policies proposed to address global climate change — and what steps can we take to improve our ability to tackle challenges like climate change that cross national boundaries?
Obama: We have to meet this challenge by driving smart policies that lead to greater growth in clean-energy generation and result in a range of economic and social benefits. Since taking office I have established historic standards limiting greenhouse gas emissions from our vehicles for the first time in history. My administration has made unprecedented investments in clean energy, proposed the first-ever carbon pollution limits for new fossil-fuel-fired power plants and reduced carbon emissions within the federal government. We are also showing international leadership on climate change, reaching historic agreements to set emission limits in unison with all major developed and developing nations. I will continue efforts to reduce our dependence on oil and lower our greenhouse gas emissions while creating an economy built to last.
Romney: I am not a scientist myself, but my best assessment of the data is that the world is getting warmer, that human activity contributes to that warming, and that policymakers should therefore consider the risk of negative consequences. However, there remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue — on the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution and the severity of the risk — and I believe we must support continued debate and investigation within the scientific community.
The reality is that the problem is called global warming, not America warming. China long ago passed America as the leading emitter of greenhouse gases. Developed-world emissions have leveled off while developing-world emissions continue to grow rapidly, and developing nations have no interest in accepting economic constraints to change that dynamic. In this context, the primary effect of unilateral action by the U.S. to impose costs on its own emissions will be to shift industrial activity overseas to nations whose industrial processes are more emissions-intensive and less environmentally friendly. That result may make environmentalists feel better, but it will not better the environment.
So I oppose steps like a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system that would handicap the American economy and drive manufacturing jobs away, all without actually addressing the underlying problem. I believe we should pursue what I call a “no regrets” policy — steps that will lead to lower emissions, but that will benefit America regardless of whether the risks of global warming materialize and regardless of whether other nations take effective action. For instance, I support robust government funding for research on efficient, low-emissions technologies that will maintain American leadership in emerging industries.
Perfect answer by Romney. Although personally I wish he would mention nuclear even though politically I can understand why he wouldn’t.
TerjeP
8 Oct 12 at 4:04 pm
FAIL.
Rabz
8 Oct 12 at 4:37 pm
Romney continues his tack towards the centre. Good to see.
Jarrah
8 Oct 12 at 4:41 pm
It was a loaded question (… a question which contains controversial or unjustified assumptions …) which Romney handled adroitly.
manalive
8 Oct 12 at 4:44 pm
remember that the 2008 Republican Party presidential nominee supported cap-and-trade.
See http://www.cfr.org/climate-change/candidates-climate-change/p14765 which says that ‘McCain has been one of the most outspoken members of Congress on the issue of climate change’ and he “managed to force the first real Senate vote on actually doing something about the largest environmental peril our species has yet faced.”
In a March 2008 speech, McCain called for a “successor to the Kyoto Treaty” and a cap-and-trade system” that delivers the necessary environmental impact in an economically responsible manner.”
In January 2010, the Pew Research Center asked Americans to rank the importance of twenty-one issues. Climate change came in last.
After winning the fight over health care, another issue for which polling showed lukewarm support, Obama moved to the safer issue of financial regulation. Many others including McCain soften or reversed positions as voter support waned as the recession worsened.
CO reduction action will be limited to modest reductions of a largely token character. There are many expressive voting concerns that politicians must balance to stay in office and the environment is but one of these. Once climate change policies start to actually become costly, expressive voting support for these policies will fall away.
p.s. there were 5 republican senators who would have voted for cap and trade in April 2010: Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Scott Brown, and George LeMieux. Obama could have pushed the Bill that passed the House, but he did not.
Jim Rose
8 Oct 12 at 4:45 pm
Romney, I like his style (says she with a flirty smile). As manalive posted, it was a loaded question however he answered it adroitly. Hope Tony Abbott’s research assistants are taking notes.
delfino
8 Oct 12 at 5:16 pm
Romney shows once again why he is and always has been the only sensible choice for President.
Fisky
8 Oct 12 at 5:18 pm
A fantastic, well-reasoned statement. Agree with every single word.
Fisky
8 Oct 12 at 5:19 pm
expressive voting summarised to a tee.
Jim Rose
8 Oct 12 at 5:27 pm
Neither of them said it’s none of the government’s business. If you’re worried take cold showers, walk to work and go to bed at sunset.
Forester
8 Oct 12 at 5:43 pm
Yeah but I bet Romney can’t lower the oceans and heal the planet like Obama.
Gab
8 Oct 12 at 5:47 pm
Anthropogenic global warming, AGW, as a theory, has been rebutted.
Romney’s comments therefore, I would hope, are like Abbott’s in Australia; meant to keep the MSM away and the section of his party which still believes this tripe off his back.
cohenite
8 Oct 12 at 5:48 pm
Not AGW. CAGW, cohenite, CAGW. As for AGW, if it doesn’t cause catastrophe (except to exploding greenie heads) who cares?
As for AGW, quite a lot of human actions cause it, since we chuff out waste heat all the time. And soot. And we have this bad habit of paving perfectly good earth with asphalt. Etc. Be precise. The warmies can’t stand precision since if they did they’d have to ante up some actual real data, which they can’t.
Bruce of Newcastle
8 Oct 12 at 6:20 pm
Obama’s response was full of meaningless climate change™ cliches and neologisms.
WTF is “clean energy” anyway? If I turn on a power outlet without a plug, I can’t see anything coming out let alone “carbon pollution” and most of my electricity comes from brown coal.
James Thurber writing about his grandmother:
“… the latter years of her life [she had] the horrible suspicion that electricity was dripping invisibly all over the house. It leaked, she contended, out of empty sockets if the wall switch had been left on. She would go around screwing in bulbs, and if they lighted up she would hastily and fearfully turn off the wall switch and go back to her Pearson’s or Everybody’s …” (the ‘Everybody’s ..’ wording has been added to the original).
manalive
8 Oct 12 at 6:47 pm
One of those two blokes is an adult. The other is an “empty chair” (I do love that analogy from Clint Eastwood). Tony Abbot needs to learn a thing or two from Romney and perhaps “grow some balls” and confront the issue full on instead of pussy footing around the edges in the vain hope of garnering some votes. Word to the wise, the people who still believe in AGW will probably never vote for you Tony anyway!
Fred Furkenburger
8 Oct 12 at 6:56 pm
Hi Bruce; I take your point about CAGW and AGW but I don’t think a case for even AGW has been made.
If you define AGW as the increase in global average temperature primarily caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide [CO2], then the links I provided show that definition has fallen down.
The things you mention, cement, asphalt, waste heat, granted, all contribute to UHI but UHI does not change the radiative balance at the tropopause, which is the parameter of AGW.
Soot and O3, as sourced from humanity, as climate forcers, are still in the problematic basket.
cohenite
8 Oct 12 at 7:20 pm
You’re a good man, Jarrah.
Tom
8 Oct 12 at 8:56 pm
Cohenite – I understand your points but the term is “anthropomorphic global warming”. Therefore it means anything which humans do which raises global temperature. We must be precise in contrast to the CAGW nutters who use ‘climate change’ as a convenient get-out when the world inconveniently doesn’t warm as they want it to.
Remember most of the woeful polls ask ‘do you believe in global warming’. They never ask ‘do you think it is dangerous’ or ‘do you think man has caused all or most of it’. I would answer yes/no/no to these questions, but I never get to answer the latter two, much to my frustration as a scientist.
We are fighting against a propaganda offensive, for which the best counter argument is the precise and accurate truth.
Bruce
9 Oct 12 at 6:58 am
Bruce, the adjective is anthropogenic, meaning made by humans. Anthropomorphic would describe somebody with a tendency to attribute human charateristics to animals.
Doesnt the phrase “robust government funding” sound some bells of warning?
Jannie
9 Oct 12 at 10:36 am
an·thro·po·mor·phism ( n thr -p -môr f z m). n. Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.
You’re right anthropogenic is it, although Tim Flannery might disagree.
Bruce
9 Oct 12 at 10:53 am
Mmm no doubt Tim Flannery does agree, and there is a weird crossover.
There should be a word to describe the tendency of Gaianists to attribute animal characteritics to inanimate objects such as earth, or phenomena such as weather.
On second thoughts, Anthropomorphic Global Warming is a better fit with the Gaia gestalt.
Jannie
9 Oct 12 at 11:25 am