The Candidates On Climate Change

Katie Couric Asks The Candidates In "Primary Questions:" Is The Global Warming Threat Overblown?

(CBS)  For the series “Primary Questions: Character, Leadership & The Candidates,” CBS News anchor Katie Couric asked the 10 leading presidential candidates 10 questions designed to go beyond politics and show what really makes them tick.

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.

---

Check out the complete poll results.

---

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 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.

[the_quietman]

Every answer politically correct. No one who thinks that they have a chance at getting elected is going to ''deny'' global warming, regardless of what they actually think. Stupid Question.

[pepperwood2]

1976-1977 We here at home was experiency one of the coldest & snowiest winters in years. Oil & gasoline shot up to unheard of levels.

Blame was placed accordingly & no one was left out.
Jimmy Carter was just elected. Many scientist & environmentalist studied the matter very carefully & thoroughly. They claimed that the oil reserves in world, could only last another 20 -25 years before becoming depleted...said Chicken Little.

Programs of alternate energy sources were implimented. Gas rationing was considered . You were encouraged to use the buddy system when going to & from work, shopping, parties, church, etc.

Being in the same age bracket that many of you are now in, it made good sense & was the thing to do, I cringed. Alternate forms of energy, insulating your home, no more gas guzzlers, downsizing, drive less, etc.

Very faithfully & religiously I took them at their word. I lashed out at those that just didn''t get it.

Well you know the story. 30+ years later there seems to be no end to our world oil reserves. Extra money came in for oil explorations, few create jobs here at home, but most created jobs overseas. Russia, Venezula (sp), Mexico, Canada, etc.

Now they come up with trying to sell us The Global Warming Agenda.

Fool me once shame on me. Fool me twice shame on you. One is born every minute. How do I know? Because 25-30 years ago I was one of those believers.

[jabber40-2009]

1) Did you really expect a Texas oil-man to lead you to alternative fuels?
2) Of course Big Oil is profit-motivated, every major company is. For that matter, so are most people. Don''t you look to make as much money as you can so you can support your family better?

[samsel3]

The Bush administration has rejected reduction of fossile fuel burning citing severe economic impacts.The Cheney energy policy expands US interests in The Caspian Sea region where one third of the world''s oil remains untapped. Big Oil does not want alternative energy because they are profit motivated. Big Oil & Corporate America dictate US policy not the people. We are just pawns in their game.

[co2max]

ubrew12 - We have plenty of evidence that global warming is happening. You seem to be fixated on proving that it is real when the vast majority of people, deniers, skeptics and most lunatics included, accept that premise. What remains in serious doubt is the human influence upon climate. The more I study the situation and seek to find clues that point to human causality, the more I realize that climate really is driven by natural forces and could not possibly be modified in any significant way by what we do. So, sure half of Florida could be submerged in coming centuries (or maybe not), but that situation would not by itself implicate humans as the culprit.

And, by the way, injeanuity1-China may well be the biggest emitter of CO2 in the world today. Their output has been picking up speed in the last few years while the U.S. output actually REDUCED by 1.5 percent during 2005.

[injeanuity1]

Great candidate questions BUT
MITT ROMNEY WAS FLAT OUT WRONG saying China is the biggest CO2 emitter: INCORRECT!!!!!
China is not estimated to surpass the United States till 2020 in CO2 emissions. I''m surprised Katie didn''t correct this at least by today. (Discover Magazine Jan 2008 p.18) P.S. couldn''t post using Safari

[ubrew12]

Infidel_Us said: "all the repblicans want more conclusive evidence"
Yeah, for 30 years all they''ve wanted was more evidence. Its a red herring, designed to divert people from taking the issue seriously. ''Gosh, if we just had more evidence.'' I''m convinced from your and others posts that even if half of Florida went underwater you wouldn''t be convinced: ''we need more evidence''.

What more evidence do I need that you''re a moron?

[ubrew12]

CO2Max said: "Better to adapt than to try to control nature." You must mean human nature.

[co2max]

Aside from the tenuous idea that hurricanes are getting more frequent and stronger because of global warming, which most obviously they are NOT!, did the Red Cross specify which or what kinds of natural disasters were caused this year by this natural phenomenon? It''s all based on assumptive reasoning and a desire to foist blame on someone, especially the capitalists. If you can''t blame someone for trouble, it makes suffering a lot less fun.
Better to adapt than to try to control nature.

[thetinleys]

I do have a few things to comment on. One is you have to spend money on research to save lives. The global warming is the same issue. If not for us then for our children. John Edwards talks about getting other countries to help. Does he know that some of the other countries already have the upper hand. I do agree with getting out of purchasing oil from other countries. We do have natural resources. I do think there is ways to improve the global warming in the world. I would like to see legislation be a little quicker passing grants. Bring back the boys and save some money and put it into this country where we can not even provide for ourselves.

[rheola-2009]

Posted 1 hour 9 minutes ago

The International Federation of the Red Cross (IFRC) says global warming caused a record number of natural disasters across the world in 2007, up nearly 20 per cent from a year


http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/

[mchld-2009]

Just watched Katie interviewing the "frontrunners",
Hogwash. Every informed American KNOWS the only viable candidate is Ron Paul. He is the only candidate not controlled by the military industrial complex (big buiseness), as is all of the main stream media, which is uniformly not even mentioning his name, and your false reporting of "front runners" has no merit, no honesty. The American people are not all fools as you insist on playing us for. Most of us know Ron Paul is getting average of 70% of all polls, even such biased forums as Glenn Beck, he is the only candidate the can beat the Bilderberg Society''s choice, Hitlery.

[co2max]

Just because I go against the general grain on the climate change frenzy, it would not be true to assume that I am on the take or payroll of any interest involved with energy or a related energy. I dissent from the seemingly popular view that humans are the cuase of present climate change because the claims by the zealots go exactly counter to my education, training and experience with earth sciences. It''s a cheap dodge to accuse me of have a special paid-for interest to substantiate my position, because it relieves the rest of you from taking me head-on in the scientific realm. This is the tactic and practice honed so well by the Algore.

[infidel_us]

So basically, all the leftwing bedwetters are in Gore''s camp, and all the repblicans want more conclusive evidence (not junk science or ALGore''s word.) I think I''ll stick with the republicans.

All you libs need to park your cars and start peddling! Buy your carbon offsets from ALGore and keep the faith - morons! :)

[hawksprings]

YOu all should be reading and re-reading Jabber40''s posts.

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.

[rf35]

Ron Paul can bite me! How about RuPaul instead?

[marc411]

What about Ron Paul? Is the media overlooking him or eliminating him?

[rf35]

I could care less if global warming is real or not, if humans, cows, or geese are responsible, or if anything can be done. I do, however, support clean, renewable electric production; fuel efficient cars, preferably not using gasoline; and limits on carbon emission. I no longer care about climate change%u2026I won%u2019t be around for the really bad stuff. However, I%u2019d like to avoid paying a Muslim in order to drive my car. I%u2019d like to be able to laugh as the Middle East self-destructs and know it will have no effect on the USA whatsoever. I%u2019d like to have an energy independent nation so I don%u2019t have to go back to Iraq, Iran, or any other SW Asian Hell-hole. And mostly, I%u2019d like to breathe cleaner air and look out at my home town from the top of Pikes Peak without that hideous brown cloud ruining the view.

[realpatriot1]

Red1530,

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%!

[sbb2211]

clestes

"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.