Home | About | Donate

The Debates Are Over, and No One Asked About Climate Change


The Debates Are Over, and No One Asked About Climate Change

Adam Johnson

From campaign finance reform to gun violence to poverty to education to LGBTQ rights, lots of important subjects were ignored by corporate media debate moderators in the presidential (and vice-presidential) debates. All of these topics are urgent and deserve a spotlight on the national stage. But one topic stands out as a non-factor: climate change.


Heads stuck in the sand
Massive waves bashing the land
They cannot withstand.


Here is a brief rundown. They talk about nothing. All infantile theater. Send in the clowns. Don't bother, they're here.




Whistling past our prospective graveyard


Not sure what the author is implying with the HRC comment at the end.

She is part and parcel of this problem-----for her to promote fracking, say that environmentalists need to "get a life" and take money from FF and other life killing corporate behemoths is reprehensible. We are in a nightmare age of feedback loops due to AGD with 2 nightmare candidates.

In the meantime:

Any semi-intelligent, compassionate wannabe leader of this country would have been aware of this latest feedback loop and should have voiced this at the debates------even if the questions weren't asked.

None of those moderators give a shit about climate change. They are all part of the oligarchy.

Who decides the moderators:

The Commission On Presidential Debates board is currently chaired by Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr. and Michael D. McCurry. Fahrenkopf is a former chairman for the Republican National Committee and McCurry was press secretary under President Bill Clinton.

A total farce.


The lack of questions on climate change illustrate a major reason why this existential treat is so hard to address. Polls find over and over it is not a top priority issue with voters. Even among environmental issues it tends to be way down the list. It does evoke the type of fear that for example polluted drinking water evokes. It was discussed in the Democratic debates this time so at least people who watched those debates got to hear what the candidates had to say. And of course it is pretty well known that Trump calls climate change a hoax and Clinton takes it very seriously and has policy statement on her website. Some people on the left continuously misrepresent Clinton's views on climate change claiming she really does not want address the problem and it appears that nothing she can say will change that so the problem will have to be faced with people on the left side of political spectrum deeply divided on this issue with regard to Clinton.


We've long known that the corporate media is complicit with their oil industry peers. Next.
Did I miss any questions about (for example) effects of Brexit, North Korea, South China Sea controversy, etc.
The Owners and their well-paid servants treat us as children.


Po: That's it.


Thanks. Yes, I listen to DN every day. Can't imagine a world without Amy Goodman! She's amazing . . . . .


As usual, more regurgitation of Clinton's campaign spin in preference to the facts.

Not a single credible authority on climate change believes that Clinton takes this matter seriously enough to do what is needed ... many are already calling for major mass mobilization immediately after the election.

Every authority is in agreement that in order to meet even the lesser Paris goal (which itself means that we will experience significant global disruption from a destabilized climate), the US must leave all of the remaining fossil fuels in the ground.

Yet Clinton insists on an "all of the above" strategy and in particular, has pushed fracking and new fossil fuels infrastructure (e.g. Keystone XL), and clearly intends to continue. The latter is evidenced by the refusal of her surrogates at the DNC to allow a platform plank for a moratorium on fracking, along with her refusal to take any stand against it, and her silence and implicit support for DAP.

For your own credibility, you ought not be so transparently partisan that you try to mislead. Few if any others here are unaware of the facts you try to obscure.


Oh, haven't you heard, it's a "bridge fuel". We may then fairly ask, a bridge to what? The answer would not be encouraging.