Which candidate will be better for GW? Obama or McCain?

Question

Which candidate will be better for GW? Obama or McCain?

Answer 1

McCain...

he likes beer!!

Hoooray beeer!

Answer 2

The serious scientific indications of global warming are being blatantly misused to promote a very dangerous agenda.  Here's some of the evidence:

- We're told to focus on reduction of CO2 by developed nations, yet elementary school math shows that growth in the 80% of the world population not covered by all curent and proposed treaties (including growth in China and India) will easily wipe out all potential CO2 savings in the remaining 20%.  The failure of the current approach is measurable: measured CO2 levels have increased in spite of Kyoto.

- Each person has an impact on the carbon cycle, from cooking fires to heating homes to transportation, yet population growth is never discussed as a factor.

- Mankind's black carbon soot air pollution, such as Asia's "brown cloud", has been determined to have as much as 60% as much warming influence as CO2.  The removal of black soot takes effect almost immediately while CO2 remains a warming force in the air for hundreds to thousands of years.  

http://www.igsd.org/docs/BC%20Briefing%2...

Yet CO2 is the poster child problem we're told to fix, instead of the easily addressed and proven step of cutting air pollution.

- The IPCC reports claim that human breathing is a "closed loop" that we should not be concerned with, because that CO2 comes from the crops we eat, which pulled that CO2 out of the air.  

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

However, those crops require cropland and land use changes as human population skyrockets.  Clearly with 6.6 billion people to feed today there has been a huge carbon cycle impact since 1970 when we only had 3.7 billion people on the planet to feed, or 1900 when we had 1.5 billion.  Here again the topic of population is avoided, hidden under the disguise of "land use changes", and we're expected to miss or ignore the cause of those changes.

So if a substantial portion of the problem boils down to population growth, and our most effective way of taking a first step would be to reduce black soot air pollution, why is the IPCC focusing so much on CO2, which we can't remove from the air and for which all current proposals result in a global increase in emissions(!)?  How stupid could we be?

I can't help but notice that the IPCC is a United Nations organization, and that population growth and black soot emissions (heavy industry and cooking fires) would require the third world to participate in a solution.  In fact, addressing CO2 clearly requires third world participation as well, but we're told to pay no attention to the guaranteed continued global CO2 increase behind the curtain.  The situation would be laughable if the consequences of climate change weren't so deadly serious.

The bottom line: current CO2-only, developed nation only proposals would be a fool's errand to pursue.  Claiming current CO2 treaties and tax proposals would address the problem is a blatant lie, one which needs to be exposed before we can get serious about addressing the problem.  By giving people false hope at a high financial cost, the U.N.'s designed-to-fail proposals may be more dangerous as the original problem itself.  

We have a shared, global responsibility for creating it, and only a shared, global effort will stand any chance of addressing it.

We need to educate the public and politicians that this is not a CO2-only issue, and that the current U.N. proposals only delay the day when all nations globally will recognize and work on reducing their share of the problem.

Currently I expect that McCain would probably do the least harm, but I'll reserve judgement until the two candidates are running directly against each other and more information comes out.

Perhaps the most promising and important that could improve our lives is McCain's pledge to pursue campaign finance reform (America's institutionalized politician bribery system), so we won't get hit by quite so many pointless and money-wasting new tax schemes.

Answer 3

Obama.  He has a concrete plan to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions 80% by the year 2050.

McCain considers the issue a big problem and supports a cap and trade system, but he doesn't have a concrete reductions goal or plan like Obama does.

Answer 4

obama is working with Al Gore to reduce the us's emissions.