Home | About | Donate

'Shameful': Another Presidential Debate Basically Ignores Climate Change


'Shameful': Another Presidential Debate Basically Ignores Climate Change

Andrea Germanos, staff writer

As environmental organizations denounce climate change's near total absence from the second presidential debate, a new analysis highlights the starkly differing attitudes backers of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump hold on the issue.


Wait.. what? Is there a problem? Climate what?
< sarcasm/>


Gee, I guess we have all been wrong about climate change, since it was not deemed important enough to be mentioned in the debate; but now, locker room talk, that must be really important! Since it was mentioned over and over and over again ad nauseum !


Clinton did mention it but since the journalists continue to ignore it she should have said more about it. Somehow she seems timid about saying much about climate change in this type of setting. She would not have a problem with it if is she was giving a speech to her supporters but I think she has a concern that it would hurt her with working class voters. She is probably thinking about all the people making a living from fracking in critical states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Colorado. She has probably written off all the main coal mining states although there is some coal mining in Pennsylvania. And there is oil drilling in Colorado. I think she is content to make it clear that she will address climate change but does not want to make it a focus in the debates. Remember, Obama would not even mention it for a few years and totally avoided the subject during the 2012 campaign. Once he started his second term he made it a top priority.


The US government is the #1 polluter in the world. Exactly, please. How did Obama make global climate collapse top priority?


Hillary is right about natural gas being a bridge fuel - a bridge to extinction. It doesn't matter, if she maintains or expands the military we're finished anyway. Stein-Baraka


Didn't watch the debates -- it's obvious both of these parties are finished and should
be voted down. From what I've read THE FLY was the star of the show.
Vote JILL STEIN 2016 --

Meanwhile, did watch an interview on the debates with Jill Stein being interviewed
by Maria Shriver. Shriver really pushed on why we don't see Jill Stein's family with
her in the campaign. As Jill Stein pointed out, we might see the children of candidates
but the public isn't voting for them -- and quite assuredly, few of us know a lot about
those grown children.

Was wishing that Jill Stein had continued on in that regard to point out that what we
do know is that both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump are accused of sexual assault on women.
And, ironically, so is Maria Shriver's husband -- Schwarznegger -- accused of, at the least,
sexual indiscretions which led to his having a child with the family housekeeper -- and a
number of accusations of sexual harassment of women.


You may not know that HC and BO are oil industry lackies. She"s been circling the globe promoting fracking.
See Abby Martin"s expose of the Clintons on "The Empire Files".


Am I the only one who noticed the flys flying about the candidates during the debate (yeah, rich in metaphor)? At one point, early in the debate, one briefly alighted in Hillary's forehead. Trump kept pacing about with his Mussolini face, and this seemed to keep the flys off him.

Of course, normally, temperatures would be cool enough so that flys would be largely gone for the season in where the debate was held.


Please explain how the US government is the number one polluter in the world. Do you mean by economic sector, individual industry or individual organization? And which pollutants are you referring to? Can you provide some citations?


The facts are that natural gas emits half the CO2 as coal. My state's CO2 emissions are way down due to a shift from coal to natural gas for electric generation. Yes, it purely a short term measure after which gas needs to be phased out too except small amounts for manufacturing feedstock such as plastics. That is which is why it is called a bridge. BTW, plastics are overall carbon negative because their use in making vehicles and aircraft lighter saves CO2 emissions and they are also are a form carbon sequestration when disposed. The serious issue of discarded plastic in the seas is a separate issue easily solved by appropriate global regulations.

Note that fugitive methane emissions are not intrinsic to natural gas usage, but occur because there are currently no regulations controlling them.

I only wish the world was as simple a place as many commenters here believe it is.


Then why are HC and BO not saying the sort of things (eliminate regulations, shrink or close the EPA) that Trump is? Believe me, Obama's Clean Power Plan, and Hillary's proposed renewable energy program are costing them a lot of votes among ordinary USAns.


Here's a link I just duck ducked.


Now then, you answered my question with a question. My question is; How did Obama make global climate collapse top priority? What did he actually do?


We're finished if a democrat or republican wins. Not finished if Stein/Baraka win.


They say what will get them votes on any given day. Plans? What have they done so far?
Did you miss where HC said yesterday that she said she's goinh to bring back the coal industry?


The methane emissions from natural gas wells may be at least as dangerous as the supplanted CO2, given their relative impact on greenhouse effect / longevity in the atmosphere.

But in any case, this is another example of binary thinking that misses the important point: we should refuse the false choice between coal or gas. Enabling the latter through new infrastructure, continued subsidies, externalization of costs will continue to help drive market demand / usage while countering / inhibiting investment (including private sector) in renewables technology / production; making more remote the possibility of ending the climate-destabilization process now well underway.


Clinton......"Climate Change was started by Abraham Lincoln".


No surprise here. Everyone knows that there ain't no profit in climate change even if it is real but even a fool would know that us doin anything to make it happen is dumb. How are you gonna turn a buck putting the fossil fuel industry down? Besides these companies are one lot that can't take the jobs away.


As noted by previous poster, Clinton did mention climate change.
But where were the questions about climate change?


Nothing is simple, how true. The last I knew most natural gas produced in the U.S. comes from fracking. Fracking releases methane into the atmosphere and most environmentalists think that negates its impact as a clean or bridge fuel. Add in all the water fracking requires and the chemical pollution of that water and you get a disastrous result, especially for people who live nearby.