The Candidates On Climate Change

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

(CBS) 
MITT ROMNEY

Romney: I think the risks of climate change are real. And that you're seeing real climate change. And I think human activity is contributing to it. I would develop within this country sources of energy which would allow us to be free of foreign oil. But sources that don't emit CO2. And that's nuclear power, clean-burning coal, all of our renewable resources and so forth. I also wanna see much greater efficiencies in our autos, in our homes, in our businesses. That'll get is energy independent.

I don't wanna have America unilaterally think it's somehow gonna stop global warming. They don't call it America warming. They call it global warming. And that means China, which is the biggest CO2 emitter in the world, as well as other nations, like Indonesia and Brazil, are gonna have to be a part of the global effort. So Kyoto was wrong, because it left major polluting nations out.


BILL RICHARDSON

Richardson: No, if anything they're underblown. Three things I would do is I would have fuel efficiency in all vehicles 50 miles per gallon. The second I would say all electricity in this country, 30 percent by the year 2020 has to come from renewable energy: solar, wind, biomass. And the third would be I would put a mandate that says that we are going to have a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by the year 2040. Mandates. Fines, to poluters, to power plants.


RUDY GIULIANI

Giuliani: There is global warming. Human beings are contributing to it. I think the best answer to it is energy independence. We've got more coal reserves in the us than they have oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. If we find a way to deal with it and use it so it doesn't hurt the environment, we're going to find ourselves not contributing to global warming and also being more energy independent. I think we have to take another look at nuclear power. France is 80 percent nuclear. We're 20, but going down to 15. We haven't had a licensed nuclear power plant in 30 years. It has to be done carefully. But we haven't lost a life to nuclear power yet. We have wind, solar, hydroelectric, hybrid vehicles. All these things need to be increased - and an appropriate emphasis on conservation. You can't do it with any one of these things. You can't just do conservation. Otherwise you're not going to have growth.


JOE BIDEN

Biden: I think Al Gore has done something really quite phenomenal. He has brought into the consciousness the reality of what is going to happen. Whether it's 2040, whether it's 2050, 2070. It's going to happen unless we change behavior. I literally would make an executive order saying the United States government will not purchase one single vehicle that didn't get 45 miles to the gallon. And would not - and as a fleet, all the vehicles we buy -- and would not build one single building that was not green. Whether I am in Iowa ... (inaudible) ... ethanol. They go "yeah, great for my state." I say "how many ethanol gas stations you got out here?" And they go like this. Like "no." There are not. So the second thing is you gotta build infrastructure. That the federal government has to be a catalyst for. The third thing I would do is I think you could when you do is announce to the nation that you’re making the same kind of commitment, it sounds kind of corny. The same kind of commitment that Kennedy made about going to the moon.


MIKE HUCKABEE

Huckabee: I don't know. I mean, the honest answer for me, scientifically, is "I don't know." But here's one thing I do know, that we ought to not let this become this big political football and point of argument. We all ought to agree that we live on this planet as guests. I think Republicans have made a big mistake by not being more on the forefront of conservationism.

I consider myself a conservationist. I think we ought to have some cap and trade. It worked with acid rain. I think it could work with CO2 emissions. I think we ought to be out there talking about ways to reduce energy consumption and waste. And we ought to declare that we will be oil free of energy consumption in this country within a decade, bold as that is.

Frankly, it's a matter of national security to get to the point where we're not dependent upon oil coming from countries who, frankly, aren't very friendly to us.

[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.