Do you believe climate change will be a campaign issue?

I was kind of surprised to see Obama make this assertion. Do you think he’s on the right track to challenge Romney on this front?

It all depends on the audience. The readership of Rolling Stone is, I imagine, pretty left-wing, so an interview with them is for getting the enthusiasm of the base. So, sure, emphasize climate change there. I don’t for a minute expect that he’ll mention it at all at a campaign stop in West Virginia, though.

I would have to agree for the “simple” reason that fossil fuel companies are financing a lot of the “climate zombie” congress critters that do tell their districts and states that there is nothing to worry about, and then just by “coincidence” then pass laws that are the less inconvenient to the fossil fuel companies or attempt to dismantle environmental rules.

I doubt they’ll actually debate the issue. If you look thru the article, you see how Obama contrasts the Republican party’s current position with the views of their nominee (McCain) in 2008 to illustrate how much the GOP has changed in just four years.

I believe Obama is raising this because Romney’s stance on global warming has been an embarassing flip-flop. Here’s Romney last summer answering a question at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire:

Two months later during the NH Primary, he reversed his position:

It might be a minor side issue, but it’s not going to be a major game changing issue. Basically, most people who ‘believe’ in AGW are already going to be voting for Obama, and most people who think it’s a hoax will be voting for Romney…and that accounts for the 20/20% of hard core voters that vote by party regardless. Most VOTERS probably don’t care, or don’t care enough to make it a vertical issue on which their vote will hinge. This campaign is going to hinge on the economy and unemployment, and the two candidates vision for how we improve both and revitalize that economy in the face of all the shit happening not only in the US but world wide. THAT is going to be the main issue and theme being debated. Climate change? It may get something on page 2, if it’s lucky…probably more like page 10.

JMHO, but that’s how I see it. Things like climate change get more traction in years where the economy is doing well and unemployment is fairly low and people can focus on other things.


As it turns out a green economy also means jobs.

But that is not where I think the environment and the climate will turn into campaign issues, it will be thanks to the intransigence of the Republican politicians.

Now why is this bill moronic? Besides its implied conspiracy theory origins:

A few months ago I mentioned that universities and local planners do listen to scientists, not to politicians, as NPR reported they were working to deal with the most likely outcome of global warming in a place like Arizona; with planned underground reservoirs and other public works. Meaning that while climate republican zombies are oozing around the capitol, they were mostly harmless and just did pandering talk on this issue.

This is way different, it is now politicians telling the experts and engineers to actively ignore science and do nothing. I do not see how this would not become a campaign issue, although I agree it would not become a leading one.

(And it will be not as important thanks also to the so called “liberal media”)

Not climate change per se, but environmental regulation will certainly be an issue.

You mean like this? Yes, I could see how the Romney campaign might be able to make a bit of hay out of that, especially if overzealous regulation of oil and gas companies can be linked in the public’s mind to rising gas prices at the pump.

Except, isn’t the price of gas at the pump actually falling? It certainly is in my area…it’s down about $.10-.15/gallon lately around here.


I don’t know if I’d call that “overzealous regulation” so much as “abject stupidity.”

Obama is just pandering to the people on the left he alienated in his first term in office. He can go fuck himself.

Short answer - a very minor one.

Should it be an issue? I certainly think environmental issues as a whole should be. Not just climate change, but over-fishing, strip mining, air and water pollution, etc. And why not? Aside from avoiding blowing up the planet, what is more important than the health of our only home?

A related issue would be the anti-science, anti-objectivity of the climate change (and evolution) deniers. This is a major failure of the American education system. The facts and the science should be the starting point of a debate, not the very subject.

Look, cut him some slack. Consider the breadth and bitterness and energy of the backlash provoked even by the things he dared to do. Did you see that coming?! I didn’t.