Let the Record Speak: McCain and Obama on Climate Change

Every day for the next two weeks we'll be unpacking the record behind the rhetoric

By Stuart Fox Posted 10.07.2008 at 5:19 pm 7 Comments

Both candidates' Science Debate answers also included mentions of cap and trade for carbon emissions reduction and mention of returning atmospheric carbon content to 1990 levels by 2050. It is not a coincidence that the exact same language was used in 2003 bill S 139, better known as the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act. This amendment proposed a market for carbon trading, emissions limits and research grants for alternative fuels. The bill was so successful that it was defeated not once, but five times.

Regardless of its obvious unpopularity, the bill does establish a clear link between McCain’s legislative history and the programs he proposed in his Science Debate answer. It also supports Obama’s answer in regards to cap and trade, as Senator Obama managed to make his way onto the bill as a co-sponsor, along with Senator McCain, in the bill’s third incarnation.

However, the candidates did disagree over HR 2419, the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill for 2006. That $32.93 billion appropriation funded energy and water development and “other purposes” (read: pork). It also, though, set aside $3.7 billion for scientific activities and $257 million for clean coal development. Obama voted for the bill, once again proving his love of clean coal, while McCain voted against the bill, showing his distain for omnibus bills that build bridges to nowhere.

So again, the candidates’ legislative history seems to back up their Science Debate 2008 answers. Tomorrow, we look at the broader question of energy, which seems to sit at the intersection of all the other Science Debate questions, excluding stem cells, (unless, that is, someone has figured out a way to squeeze fuel from them).

Previous Article: I Want That On My Desk By Two Million Years Ago

Next Article: Let the Record Speak

7 Comments

link to this comment

laurenra7

10/08/08 at 2:32 am

Both candidates seem to be true believers who think that global warming is a problem and it is human-caused. Of course they're both wrong. It doesn't take much intelligence to analyze graphs of CO2 levels and global temperatures over the last 100 years or so and conclude that there is little connection, if any, between the two. That doesn't stop politicians from proposing pie-in-the-sky schemes to cap carbon emissions and trade carbon credits even though it will have no effect on global temperatures. As Bjorn Lomborg has suggested, we could do so many more useful things with all the money wasted on this issue.

link to this comment

chrisb

10/08/08 at 8:41 am

From laurenra7:

"It doesn't take much intelligence to analyze graphs of CO2 levels and global temperatures over the last 100 years or so and conclude that there is little connection, if any, between the two."

1. Put down the crack pipe
2. Look up "critical thinking" someplace other than Wikipedia
3. Try again...

link to this comment

SciTek

10/08/08 at 9:29 am

Laurenra is correct. If you dont understand these concepts, look them up on your own time before you mount an argument influenced by the mainstream media or tree hugging activists.

1. There is no scientifically valid mechanism for CO2 causing global warming.

2. Oceans regulate the amount of CO2 in the air through absorption equilibrium.

3. Water vapor would swamp any effects by CO2, if greenhouse gasses were really creating global warming.

4. The public is being misled through propaganda to assume CO2 is like a sheet of plastic holding in heat.

link to this comment

clustertim

10/08/08 at 9:59 am

Once again I think Obama kicked McBush right to the curb!

www.anonymity.at.tc

link to this comment

georgie745

10/08/08 at 10:08 am

Did I miss something along the way? I thought the weather specific scientific community had already decided we were about 2 years into a cooling cycle headed toward the next Ice Age. Can't remember where on the Internet I saw it; but, some world wide consortium of weather scientists, and a think tank in Florida couldn't find the global hot spot that should be present should man-kind or animal-kind be the cause of Global Warming. The have analyzed polar ice thickness, surveyed average temperatures, and several other indicators that they utilize, and decided by about 2040 we will be in a dangerously cool summer situation which will adversely affect crop growing seasons. They have come up with a theory that the planet goes through a 300 to 400 year cycle of heating and cooling and we passed the high temperature point in the cycle about 2 years ago. I think I found the report somewhere on a link, off about two or three other links, while perusing the National Hurricane web site.

link to this comment

taylorhengen

from New York, New York

10/08/08 at 2:21 pm

Great comments guys! Let's get this discussion rockin' the new Popsci.com Elections forum: http://www.popsci.com/forum. Go ahead in and help kick off our great debate.

Taylor
Popsci.com

link to this comment

Tom_G_Iowa

10/11/08 at 10:54 am

Confucius say: "In room where everyone is lying, who do you believe?" Time for everyone to learn enough science, math and logic to begin debunking all the lies, from both sides. Lets start with "Cap and Trade". How does it work, and is it good or bad? Simplify an example to a world with only 2 electricity producing plants: one is very clean and the other is a big polluter. The first is awarded millions of dollars in green-tag credits it can sell to polluters. The second has 2 choices: 1) spend billions on smokestack scrubbers and carbon sequestration equipment, or, 2) buy green-tags from company one. If our dirty producer picks option number 1, then it will also be paying gigantic fines at the same time it is paying billions for the "cleaning" equipment for its plant - not a likely choice. So it buys green-tags. Same pollution, but company number one gets millions for selling its green tags, and the directors all get million-dollar Christmas bonuses. Some will say "Eventually things will change", but why wait for "eventually"? Wouldn't the world be better off if we just legally required companies that emit too much to spend the money on equipment to fix the problem, now?