Why are the presidential candidates so soft on CO2 and global warming issues?

Question

Assume - just take for granted for this argument - that global warming is absolutely catastrophic, and CO2 is the main cause. Why is it that so many presidential candidates (on both sides of the fence) have taken such a weak position both on the issue and for the US? By and large the positions have been that the US drops emissions, and depending on the flavor the proposal, African countries get a windfall in cap-and-trade dollars and China/India/developing countries get free passes. Here's what I mean - anyone who has visited China and India can attest that industry there is much more polluting than those in the US. So why is it beneficial to force out a manufacturer, say in New York, so that the same product can be made with more pollution in China or pay some African country a royalty for the privilege to do so (cap and trade)? And I havent even factored in the corruption factor in those countries where they will cheat on the carbon figures.

Answer 1

here is a documentary explaining how both sides have failed to act:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...

Answer 2

Excellent Question!!

And, I agree with all the answers.

Yes, one of them contradicts another but that illustrates, and answers, the question.

Answer: The answer is too complex, compared to anything that requires global or universal agreement.

Even if you ask about Democracy or Freedom of Speech, you will not get a unanimous agreement.

In short the issue is too complex and some have concluded that, therefore, it is hopeless.

Another fact is that many voters will automatically vote against anyone that declares Global Warming is real.

Even heroic politicians are not willing to lose votes on an issue many do not understand, at all. I mean officials with college degrees that do not understand the technical aspects of Global Warming.

Perhaps, they reached a position of high political power due to their debating skills, good looks, pleasing personality, ability to seem to respond to voters, who knows -wish I knew.

They will have to learn about Global Warming or be replaced, as soon as voters turn against Global Warming, that is a weakness, inherent, in a Democracy.

But, progress is being made. India and China have decided that they are willing to participate in negotiations that will lead to Mandatory national limits on rates of emission of all global warming gases.

More progress: It is a given that the next US President will be a Democrat and will quickly begin world negotiations to lead to the strongest measures possible to limit Carbon Emissions. This will be followed by other increasingly severe restrictions.

Another issue is that GW is so unpopular that we cannot go directly to the last step, we are going to need the support of all U.S. voters and, later, all the world in support of restrictions well beyond what Europe has already adopted.

For example, Europe has already specified the maximum pollution of jet engines by 2020 and these engines are running, already, in test tunnels in the U.S.

These restrictions have been met, already, in wind tunnel tests here but, there are no U.S. limit requirements, yet.

Since the restrictions are global, no nation will have an unfair advantage.

But, we must wait for January 20th, 2009, when we inagurate a new President. (I heard a Republican is breaking ranks and is willing to accept the reality of Global Warming. Forgot his name.)

Incidentally, the Nuclear Power Plants in the East, including the big ones in the Tennessee Valley Authority, designed with the most conservative criteria imaginable, then, are in the verge of running out of cooling water and may have to be shut down and, of course, this is due to the long drought which is more clearly identified with Global Warming.

This also points up the fact that proponents of Nuclear Power to fight Global Warming never mention that Nuclear Power is grossly inefficient, in the thermodynamic sense, they put about three to five times more heat in the air for each Kilowatt they produce than Natural gas or oil Power Plants do. That is why they need so much water.

Also, it is important to note that Nuclear Reactors produce a lot of steam vapor which is also a major cause of Global Warming. For these reasons, many consider Nuclear Reactors not a viable alternative, after you understand these factors. Now, that "secret" is out in the open.



The inefficiency is inherent in Nuclear Power, they operate with pressurized, liquid water heated by the Nuclear Reactor which is kept at a, relatively, low temperature, about 600 deg. Regular plants use steam heated to about 2,000 deg. Fahrenheit, approx.

Answer 3

because global warming issues are stupid and pointless.

Answer 4

Here's someone who knows their economics.  Good points!

Answer 5

Because being tough on global warming will mean less campaign donations from oil companies.

Answer 6

They ignore the issue because nobody will voe for a Presidential Candidate who says "$4.00 a gallon gas is a GOOD thing!"

No one will vote for a candidate who says "You are using too much energy, and the only way to stop you is either ration energy or make it cost more - and I'm the man to lead the way!"

The only way to drastically cut emissions is to cut use of fossil fuels.  The only way to cut fossil fuel use is for MOST Americans to turn their  thermostats down (10 degrees or more), drive less (or buy shiny new cars that cause more emissions to build), and turn off their lights more (or put mercury contaminated Compact Fluorescent Bulbs into their homes).

Since the only way to get Americans to do anything is by hitting them with regulations or making them spend more, any Candidate who pledges to "go green" is pledging bigger government and higher taxes!

Run on that, while promising full Health Coverage for everyone, working or not, and see where it gets you!

Answer 7

co2 is not like other pollution.

if you can see it, it's not co2.

China is working on renewable energy.  (link)

did you not know, or do you just not want to admit it?

<<Why are the presidential candidates so soft on CO2 and global warming issues?>>

because there are no good solutions.

and people in this country seem to want a tax cut, even when it makes the deficit larger.

that's stealing from our children.

these are the morals that everyone around the world sees when they look at the US.

the fact is that there are no good solutions.

per capita, the US is far and away, the largest polluter in the world.

we get no credibility anywhere in the world when we say that someone else has to reduce their emissions before we do.

no-one could make up for the amount of CO2 we create.

complain all you want.

we are the problem.

in truth, because India and china use more manual labor in their manufacturing process, it does help reduce co2 creation to transfer American jobs to their economy.

got any more ideas?

maybe ones that will benefit your grandchildren.

Answer 8

because there are actually REAL issues to worry about.

Answer 9

because both parties need the donations from big business, which is why the get all the tax cuts even though they send jobs overseas and lay off americans so they don't have to pay their pensions and health insurance.

Answer 10

CO2 is plant food. Give a hoot, plant a tree.

Answer 11

Because conservative political voices have undermined the credibility of the science by exaggerating the existence of a debate, making it look less one-sided than it is. The public still mistakenly thinks it's up in the air. Since the campaign has worked so well to misinform the public, the issue still is not at the top of the list where it belongs, which favors conservative politicians- Which was the purpose for the distortion campaign in the first place. Look at all these people- Limbaugh, Beck, Ingraham, Medved, and all their clones. Can you seriously tell me that they all looked at the science objectively and decided that they should denounce it? And they all just happen to be conservative talk radio pundits? No, they are politically motivated hacks with no free will who are intentionally misleading their listeners as an organized political strategy. Makes me sick.