ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Plugged In

Plugged In


More than wires - exploring the connections between energy, environment, and our lives
Plugged In HomeAboutContact

Should climate change have been on the agenda at last night’s debate?

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



The first rule of climate change is you don't talk about climate change. Getty Images.

If you were hoping to hear President and Mitt Romney get down on climate change at last night’s Presidential debate, you were left unfulfilled. President Obama and Governor Romney only peripherally approached climate change last night when talking about domestic energy issues like green jobs, Solyndra, and Romney’s love for coal.

Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic posted an article late last night with a list of topics that he thought should have made the debate, climate change being one of them. I’m with Revkin in being content at not hearing climate change last night. It’s a complex global issue, which is not to say that relinquishes any one countries responsibilities, it just didn’t belong in the domestic policy debate.

Now, climate change is something that affects, and will affect, many in this country. From farmers and ranchers who might lose crops or herds because of changing rainfall patterns or extreme droughts, to infrastructure that will become unusable, to increased diseases and outbreaks.

And at the end of the day, climate change is going to come down to dollars that people, businesses, and governments are going to have on the line for crops that will be lost, and insurance money on those crops that will be paid out, and government aid to cover even more losses. Etc.

But ultimately, while relevant to domestic policy, climate change is more at home in a foreign policy debate where we juggle our national interests (which is to say: fairly carbon intensive economic growth) with the needs of others (others’ rights to industrialize, like China or India) and where the effects (both favorable and unfavorable) will be experienced globally.

Even if climate change were a domestic policy issue, with the gift of hindsight, it’s clear that any prolonged discussion of science or climate change would have immediately become a train wreck, or mired in wonk speak. The debate was barely under control as it was.

The worst case scenario is climate change isn’t brought up at all in either of the next two debates, which cover foreign and domestic issues.

For those that didn’t catch the debate, The New York Times has a great transcript with fact checking.

David Wogan About the Author: An engineer and policy researcher who writes about energy, technology, and policy - and everything in between. Based in Austin, Texas. Comments? david.m.wogan@gmail.com Follow on Twitter @davidwogan.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 4 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. tucanofulano 3:44 pm 10/5/2012

    Such ‘Debates’ rightly focus on actual-factual real issues, not some academic phony bias un-supported by anything except east Anglia false data put out by crooked so-called researchers.

    Link to this
  2. 2. itschrisnow 5:02 am 10/6/2012

    tucanofulano,
    here is a video which proves with real data that climate change is gonna decimate the US agricultural industry very soon

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkFVs_UVRzM&feature=plcp

    Link to this
  3. 3. Postman1 4:33 pm 10/6/2012

    itschrisnow How can you ‘prove’ one thing is ‘gonna’ do something? You can theorize that one thing may result from another, but to prove something you need to show an example. Since it hasn’t happened yet, there is no example and no proof. There are competing theories, one of which is supported by a majority, but AFAIK, theories aren’t proven by belief, but, rather, controlled experimentation. Right now the ‘experiment’ is being played out on our planet and, when the results are in, we will hopefully have ‘proof’, one way or the other.

    Link to this
  4. 4. stateofjermaine 10:31 am 10/7/2012

    I readily admit that I am no expert, but I would not consider researchers at NASA to be “phony”, or “so-called”.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/index.cfm

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Holiday Sale

Give a Gift &
Get a Gift - Free!

Give a 1 year subscription as low as $14.99

Subscribe Now! >

X

Email this Article

X