Dec. 11, 2007
The Candidates On Climate Change
Katie Couric Asks The Candidates In "Primary Questions:" Is The Global Warming Threat Overblown?
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Question: Climate Change
Global warming is one of the hottest debates in the country right now, but is the threat over-hyped? Katie Couric asked ten of the leading presidential contenders to weigh in on the issue.
-
Video
Primary Questions: Loss
As part of a special ten-part series, Primary Questions: Character, Leadership and the Candidates, Katie Couric asked ten leading presidential contenders to share what they are most afraid of losing.
-
Video
Primary Questions: Mistakes
In the first installment of a ten-part series, Primary Questions: Character, Leadership and the Candidates, Katie Couric asked ten leading presidential contenders to share their biggest mistake.
-
Photo
(CBS)
-
Video Library
Primary Questions
Katie Couric asks the top presidential candidates 10 questions about what makes them tick.
-
In-Depth
2008 Presidential Hopefuls
Profiles and the latest news on the Democrats and Republicans running for the White House.
Related Stories:
- Most Influential Person? Text | Video
- Biggest Mistake? Text | Video
- Afraid Of Losing? Text | Video
- Climate Change? Text | Video
- Feared Country? Text | Video
- Lost Temper? Text | Video
- Views On Infidelity? Text | Video
- Worst Advice? Text | Video
- Disillusionment? Text | Video
- Key Book? Text | Video
- Fix The Economy? Text | Video
One of the hottest debates in the country is about global warming. Is it over-hyped? The public doesn’t think so. A new CBS News/New York Times poll shows that more than half of those surveyed said global warming is a serious problem that’s having a serious impact right now.
But more Democrats feel that way than Republicans: 71 percent to 42 percent.
For the third part of the special series "Primary Questions," Couric asked the candidates: “Do you think the risks of climate change are at all overblown?"Check out the complete poll results.
Check out the candidates' full responses in our "Primary Questions" video library.
JOHN EDWARDS
Edwards: It seems to me that every time we get more scientific information it indicates the problem is more severe, more serious than we though. So, no, I don't think it's being over-hyped.
Couric: What three things would you do about it?
Edwards: Have a national cap on carbon emissions. I'd make polluters pay, people who below the cap are still putting out carbon dioxide. And that money from making the polluters pay for a permit to do that should be invested in clean, renewable sources of energy, wind, solar, fuels. We have to clean up our act. As we start cleaning up our act, I think we're in a place to be able to go to China, to India, to the other countries that need to be part of the solution and say "we're developing the technology. We're willing to make this technology available to you. But we're gonna have to solve this problem together.”
FRED THOMPSON
Thompson: There are a lot of unanswered questions. We don't know to the extent this is a cyclical thing. This may or may not effect very much. The extremists, I think, are the ones who want to do drastic things to our economy before we have more answers as to how much good we can do, and whether or not people in the other parts of the world are going to contribute. It's the fact that our entitlements are bankrupting the next generation. We're spending the money of those yet to be born and we can't continue that way.
Couric: You think that the state of entitlements is a more serious problem than global warming?
Thompson: It's a more obvious problem. I mean, ultimately global warming may be a greater problem. I don't think we know the answer to that. I can't give you a list of specific items I would address. I think research and development has got to be at the top of that list.
HILLARY CLINTON
Clinton: I don't think that it's over-hyped. I think we have time but we have to start acting now. I would put a heavy emphasis on energy efficiency. We cab drastically lower our use of electricity, thereby drastically lowering our use of coal-powered electricity. We need to have higher gas mileage and I have advocated 40 miles per gallon by 2020 and I believe that's achievable. But we're gonna have to help Detroit do it. I don't want to sacrifice jobs to do it. I want to leave the world in a post-Kyoto agreement that I hope we can get resolved and signed that will include China and India.
Want to have energy independence bonds like we had during the World War when we had war bonds. If we have people buying those bonds, we will take that money and put it into what I would call a strategic energy fund. This has to be change from the lowest level of the family and business level all the way up to the national and international level.
JOHN MCCAIN
McCain: I have been to Greenland, I have been to the South Pole. I've been to the Arctic and I know it's real. I believe that we've got to go back to nuclear power. We've got to do alternative energy. We've got to have a cap and trade proposal which Joe Lieberman and I have proposed.
We need to do green technologies. Let me put it this way to you. Suppose I’m wrong, there's no such thing as climate change, and we adopt green technologies. Then we've just left our kids a better world. Suppose I am right and we do nothing? Then what kind of planet have we handed to our children.
I've been involved in this effort for many years. And we've got to act. And unfortunately, we have not acted either as a federal government or a Congress.
Couric: Why has it taken so long, Senator?
McCain: Special interests. It's the special interests. It's the utility companies and the petroleum companies and other special interests. They're the ones that have blocked progress in the Congress of the United States and the administration. That's a little straight talk.
BARACK OBAMA
Obama: No, I think they're serious. We have to take significant steps now to deal with it. So I've put forward a very substantial proposal to get 80 percent reductions in greenhouse gases by 2050. That is going to require that we change how power plants operate. That's going to require that we increase fuel efficiency standards, that we develop clean and renewable sources like solar and wind and biodiesel.
And, you know, we're going to have to charge for pollution and create a market for pollution abatement and create green technologies that can, over the long term, generate jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities all over the country. But we've got a moral obligation to deal with this. And you're already seeing the effects in not just the United States but all around the world in ways that ultimately could affect our national security.
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Video and Galleries from CBS Evening News
-
Video
Evening News Online, 07.04.09
-
Video
Thanks To Teddy
-
Video
National Mall Needs Work
- Latest in CBS Evening News
- National Mall Showing Its Age
- Fans Clamor for Jackson Memorial Tickets
- America's First Conservationist
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 64 CommentsThe downside on Edwards is he seems to believe what ''experts'' tell him and has unlimited faith in the government authorities...He voted for war because the intel ''experts'' sold him on it, he supported bringing vitamins and supplements under FDA regulations and now he is supporting policies based on the scientific nonsense that global climate change is man caused.
Do yourselves and our country a real big favour and vote for Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich
Huxksterbee first states that he ''honestly doesn''t know'' but then prescribes a response which calls for the Establishment solution. I understand now why he is rising in the polls--Americans identify with his kind of scrambled thinking.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads
/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf
Here''''s an article stating: Climate Warming Is Naturally Caused And Shows No Human Influence.
http://science-sepp.blogspot
.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.h
tml
Here''''s an article about a prominent scientist reversing his views on Global Warming after looking at the latest research:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/
index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&Cont
entRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dcc
b00b51a12
Here''''s an article by scientists calling for a review of the UN''''s IPCC''''s and it''''s procedures:
http://nzclimatescience.net
/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&
id=155&Itemid=1
If all you Human-Caused Global Warming Sheep dare to read these articles, there''''s plenty more where they came from.
Your Consensus is Melting, Melting, MELLLLLTING!!!!!
They have all jumped on the bandwagon to get notoriety and a joke of a nobel peace prize! ( boy how far that has fallen)!
Try to find some "articles" supporting your position in reputable scientific journals. Hint: blogs don''t count.
Vist RonPaul2008.com for more info on the true leader. Thank you!
They don%u2019t stink and they don%u2019t pollute, caustic *** : ) and I guess will end the global warming stuff.
There is something stinky about US Politicians
Usual political bull
US Politicians are too wimpy and afraid to support HYDROGEN H2 fuel cells stuff
USA U Suck *** big oils *** : (
USA wins brown nose award for sucking big oils oily but.
Too bad and it is saddening that US Politicians are too wimpy and afraid to support HYDROGEN H2 fuel cells stuff:(
What could be done to stop these Politicians sucking big oils oily but.
Excuse me while I throw up : )
They are not fooling me
A British woman who had an abortion 10 years ago and was later sterilized did so because she believes pregnancy is bad for the environment, the London Daily Mail reported Sunday.
Toni Vernelli, 35, hopes her actions would ensure her carbon footprint would be kept to a minimum, the Mail reported. The environmental advocate also sees having children as an egotistical act.
"Having children is selfish. It''s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," Vernelli told the Mail, adding she believes bringing new life into the world only adds to the problem.
This is tipical of the "Inconvenient Truth Doctrine" that the Liberals & Mainsstream Media here in this country have become mesmorized about.
Rove vs Wade 1973 - Like it or not the truth is that close to 50,000,000 million of our little people have been aborted since 1973 in Our Country alone.
The INCONVENIENT TRUTH is that with all these human sacrifices made to the Global Warming God hasn''t made any change to this Natural Occurring Phenomena.
We here in the real world have to struggle to pay for the rising costs of fuel, heating oil, & other day to day necessities.
The liberal news media constantly bombards the average American with this type of Journalism to exist.
Just when and where are We The People going get to hear the rest of the story. We deserve better than this.
CACKLE CACKLE CACKLE go CBS, Hilliary & Al!
Did you listen to the CBS Nightly News tonight? They interviewed all the candidates in both parties on this subject. Interestingly, all the Republicans except Thompson acknowledged a human role to global warming and a ned to respond aggressively to it. They need to get the word out to their followers on this board.
The only one talking about further study and inaction. There''s a bed at the retirement home with his name on it.
Huckabee was the only one to acknowledge the succes of a cap and trade system and its success with acid rain. Obama intimated the same, but only Huckabee spoke directly to what is the most important action that can be taken in bali this week; to establish an international carbon market.
Its not typical of those concerned about Global Warming. Maybe it''s just typical of your psyche. Got an Oedipal complex? Dreams of omniscience? Cuz that''s got to be one of the most bizarre arguments against those concerned about Global Warming that I''ve ever read.
Its not typical of those concerned about Global Warming. Maybe it''''s just typical of your psyche. Got an Oedipal complex? Dreams of omniscience? Cuz that''''s got to be one of the most bizarre arguments against those concerned about Global Warming that I''''ve ever read.
Mr.Ubrew12 - If you will, here''s another of those bizarre arguments concerning to what extent this Global Warming Facade is going in Austrialia. A Queer Solution to me, but then I''m not you!
Don''t blame me I''m just the messenger. You seem intelligent enough to be able to separate the truth from fiction.
Australian Expert Suggests $5,000 Tax on Babies
An Australian obstetrician wants families to pay a $5,000 levy on the birth of a baby and up to $800 annually to offset the child%u2019s greenhouse gas emissions.
Associate Professor Barry Walters wrote in the Medical Journal of Australia that every couple with more than two children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over a child%u2019s lifetime. He said that use of contraceptives and sterilization procedures could help earn %u201Ccarbon credits%u201D to offset the baby taxes.
I, in fact, blame you the messenger. Your implication in these posts is that we shouldn''t believe that Global Warming is real because it might lead us to believe in population control and abortion. Global Warming is a scientific question (mostly answered), not a popularity contest. Your decision to post these messages indicates that you don''t understand the conflict as an objective one. You paint it with your subjective ''End-times'' world-view, and encourage the rest of us to do the same. That''s bizarre, and you should get help for that.
Australian Expert Suggests $5,000 Tax on Babies
An Australian obstetrician wants families to pay a $5,000 levy on the birth of a baby and up to $800 annually to offset the child%u2019s greenhouse gas emissions.
Posted by pepperwood2 at 11:08 PM : Dec 11, 2007
That is strange.
As an Australian, I can say categorically, that I have never heard this garbage before now.
Apparently Climate change deniers will sink to any level, or they would check the truth or otherwise of what they post
I must also add,obstitricians are no doubt the type of experts, the climate deniers take notice of.
I, in fact, blame you the messenger.
Mr.Ubrew - Please read on here as we have more bizarre, queer studies presenting just the facts. The inconvience truth for those in denial in need of help.
Humans Not to Blame for Global Warming, Study Says
A new study reveals that humans are not responsible for global warming and that the earth is not in a state of %u201Cplanetary emergency.%u201D
Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, University of Alabama and the University of Virginia reported in the International Journal of Climatology that atmospheric warming patterns over the last 30 years are not caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Rather, the current warming trend is most likely due to changes in the activity of the sun.
"We have to remember that the climate has always been changing ever since we have records," said S. Fred Singer, an author of the report. %u201CWe know that there have been huge climate changes on the earth long before human beings actually came into existence.%u201D
The report, which challenges claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, also shows that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and so current attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective, pointless and extremely costly.
The earth has been undergoing these transitions now for billions & billions of years. That''s another inconvenient truth.
He''s a paid shill for Phillip Morris who has denied the link between secondhand smoke and cancer and he''s a paid shill for Exxon. Dangle a few dollars in front of him and he''ll also tell you the moon is made of cheese.
He''s "Professor Emeritus" which in his case is code for being too old and too stupid to teach classes anymore.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/11/ap/tech/main3606898.shtml
All of us must join in a concerted effort to put a stop to global-warming climate changes by electing those candidates who promote alternative energy sources: wind energy, terrestrial solar power, space-based solar power using satellites to beam energy down as David Kagan wrote in his book Sunstroke, hydrogen fuel-cells, and we have to continue researching-and-developing other renewable energy sources.
We have to remember that the climate has always been changing ever since we have records," said S. Fred Singer, an author of the report. %u201CWe know that there have been huge climate changes on the earth long before human beings actually came into existence.%u201D
Posted by pepperwood2 at 12:09 AM : Dec 12, 2007
I am amazed that you are so uninformed, that you would even consider using any report published by this proven fraud.
This site makes him out to be a "neocon" (neoconservative) to the max.
Bless you Rheola.
http://ecosyn.us/adti/AdTI_Contents/AdTI_Contents.html
All the neocons who support him will read this and weep.
Posted by zuggerjack1 at 02:51 AM : Dec 12, 2007
Thank you I shall have a look.
Thanks for the support, some of these people can certainly be a laugh.
you should be a speech writer for Bush.
IPCC - It exploits public ignorance over quantitative matters. It exploits what scientists can agree on, while ignoring disagreements, to support the global warming agenda. And it exaggerates scientific accuracy and certainty and the authority of undistinguished scientists.
Indeed, characterized the report as the work of 2,000 (3,000 in some instances) of the world''s leading climate scientists. IPCC''s emphasis, however, isn''t on getting qualified scientists, but on getting representatives from over 100 countries. The TRUTH is only a handful of countries do quality climate research. Most of the so-called experts served merely to pad the numbers.
It is no small matter,that routine weather service functionaries from New Zealand to Tanzania are referred to as ''the world''s leading climate scientists.'' It should come as no surprise that they will be determinedly supportive of the process.
The IPCC clearly uses the Summary for Policymakers to misrepresent what is in the report and that''s not funny.
The Sheep are Going BAAAA BAAAA BAAAA all the way to the bank predicting.......
WE predict the bad moon arising - WE predict trouble on the way.WE predict earthquakes and lightin. WE predict bad times today.
WE predict hurricanes ablowing. WE predict the end is coming soon. WE predict rivers over flowing. WE hear the voice of rage & ruin.
You deride the unanimous conclusion of the National Academies of Science of every developed nation because they don''t agree with your view. You''ve stated that you
have 30 years of experience in earth science. Are you possibly the employee or contractor of a firm involved in fossil fuel production or supply. I''m basing this contention on incomplete and flimsy evidence, much like you.
Posted by fitedafuture at 08:27 AM : Dec 12, 2007
.............
That''s the best climate change I have ever heard of!
...........
Not exactly to the level of a "snidegrass" post...
...but with a little practice, you''ll get there.
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth''s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century''s modest warming?"
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".
Edwards win this one. His ideas are practical and will work, as long as there are no loop holes in the legislation that allow the companies to escape penalities.
Don''t let any lobbiest have input on the bill will solve that problem.
Whether or not you believe in global warming, it just makes good sense to reduce pollution and our dependency on oil.
"All the rep candidates talk about nuclear power!! That is no better than oil. We still have NO SOLUTION for the radioactive waste that is produced now. So we are going to create more??"
We DO have a solution. This material came from the earth, just put it back. We have a site at Yucca Mountain that will hold it for thousands of years, plenty of time to devise a better way.
You want cheap, reliable energy and lower pollution? Nuclear is by far the logical choice.
Wind power would take huge amounts of land to be feasible, but it is still flawed in that wind is not constant.
Ethanol suffers from the excessive land issue also. We can power everything with ethanol or we can eat, but not both.
Solar panels are not yet good enough to provide for all of our needs. Also, what about the materials they are made of?
Hydrogen for cars is THE best way to go for vehicles. Zero emmissions! Screw hybrids, they are just a feel-good, stop-gap dead end. (Read up on how and when the hybrid engines work). But, the DEMS & REPS are too tied to big oil for the hydrogen option to happen anytime soon.
Even if the residents living near Yucca Mountain wanted the wase, which they don''t we will eventually run out of space there too. This stuff is going to be radioactive for 500 years, can we store it in your backyard?
We can''t totally eliminate anything from the mix. The point is that we need a mix and to the degree that we do use nuclear we build newer/safer models and decommission the old 3 Mile Island coal burning model Ts(and we require the utilities and their shareholders to pay for it, not just the rate-payers). Jabber40 is right, we need to reprocess the spent fuel 100%!
Someday, SOME of you Global Warming Sheep are going to wake up to the fact that this whole hysteria has been overblown and exagerrated, and was another Chicken Little type scare.
The rest of you Global Warming Sheep will notice temps NATURALLY go down some day and pat your selves on the back because you think you saved the Earth by driving a Prius and buying Carbon Credits from Algore''s GIM.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 64 Comments