ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

The Sound Of Climate Silence: Romney And Obama Spar Over Who Wants To Drill For More Fossil Fuels During Debate

“The door is closing. I am very worried – if we don’t change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum [for climate safety]. The door will be closed forever.”

No, that was not President Barack Obama or his Republican Challenger Mitt Romney speaking in the presidential debate. It was Fatih Birol, the renowned chief economist of the International Energy Agency, speaking about the pressing need to transition away from fossil fuels.

You’d be hard pressed to hear either of the presidential candidates make a statement like that. Or any statement on climate at all.

Those concerned about climate change were sorely disappointed during Tuesday night’s town hall-style debate when both the candidates and the moderator — CNN’s Candy Crowley — failed to address the issue of climate change, even during a lengthy and heated exchange about energy issues.

“I had that question for all of you climate change people,” said Crowley in the post-debate coverage. “We just, you know, again, we knew that the economy was still the main thing so you knew you kind of wanted to go with the economy.”

Obama started off the debate with a strong nod to renewable energy, explaining that we need to invest in “solar and wind and biofuels, energy efficient cars.” But after a voter asked about gas prices, both Obama and Romney proceeded to battle over who could drill more fossil fuels. (At one point, the two men closed in on each other, pointed fingers, and raised their voices over how much oil production had increased).

Obama separated himself by focusing on the need to develop more renewables and lower consumption of petroleum through better efficiency measures. But when talking about why he believes those investments are important, he never mentioned the reasons that alternatives to fossil fuels are so important.

Perhaps Australian climate scientist Will Steffen can explain: “This is the critical decade. If we don’t get the curves turned around this decade we will cross those lines. We are on the cusp of some big changes. We can … cap temperature rise at two degrees, or cross the threshold beyond which the system shifts to a much hotter state.”

Below is the full discussion on energy issues. Can you find the mention of climate? (Don’t strain too hard. We’ve already ruined it for you — there are none).

QUESTION: Your energy secretary, Steven Chu, has now been on record three times stating it’s not policy of his department to help lower gas prices. Do you agree with Secretary Chu that this is not the job of the Energy Department?

OBAMA: The most important thing we can do is to make sure we control our own energy. So here’s what I’ve done since I’ve been president. We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years.

Natural gas production is the highest it’s been in decades. We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment. But what I’ve also said is we can’t just produce traditional source of energy. We’ve also got to look to the future. That’s why we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars. That means that in the middle of the next decade, any car you buy, you’re going to end up going twice as far on a gallon of gas. That’s why we doubled clean – clean energy production like wind and solar and biofuels.

And all these things have contributed to us lowering our oil imports to the lowest levels in 16 years. Now, I want to build on that. And that means, yes, we still continue to open up new areas for drilling. We continue to make it a priority for us to go after natural gas. We’ve got potentially 600,000 jobs and 100 years worth of energy right beneath our feet with natural gas.

And we can do it in an environmentally sound way. But we’ve also got to continue to figure out how we have efficiency energy, because ultimately that’s how we’re going to reduce demand and that’s what’s going to keep gas prices lower.

Now, Governor Romney will say he’s got an all-of-the-above plan, but basically his plan is to let the oil companies write the energy policies. So he’s got the oil and gas part, but he doesn’t have the clean energy part. And if we are only thinking about tomorrow or the next day and not thinking about 10 years from now, we’re not going to control our own economic future. Because China, Germany, they’re making these investments. And I’m not going to cede those jobs of the future to those countries. I expect those new energy sources to be built right here in the United States.

That’s going to help Jeremy get a job. It’s also going to make sure that you’re not paying as much for gas.

CROWLEY: Governor, on the subject of gas prices?

ROMNEY: Well, let’s look at the president’s policies, all right, as opposed to the rhetoric, because we’ve had four years of policies being played out. And the president’s right in terms of the additional oil production, but none of it came on federal land. As a matter of fact, oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production was down 9 percent. Why? Because the president cut in half the number of licenses and permits for drilling on federal lands, and in federal waters.

So where’d the increase come from? Well a lot of it came from the Bakken Range in North Dakota. What was his participation there? The administration brought a criminal action against the people drilling up there for oil, this massive new resource we have. And what was the cost? 20 or 25 birds were killed and brought out a migratory bird act to go after them on a criminal basis.

Look, I want to make sure we use our oil, our coal, our gas, our nuclear, our renewables. I believe very much in our renewable capabilities; ethanol, wind, solar will be an important part of our energy mix.

But what we don’t need is to have the president keeping us from taking advantage of oil, coal and gas. This has not been Mr. Oil, or Mr. Gas, or Mr. Coal. Talk to the people that are working in those industries. I was in coal country. People grabbed my arms and said, “Please save my job.” The head of the EPA said, “You can’t build a coal plant. You’ll virtually – it’s virtually impossible given our regulations.” When the president ran for office, he said if you build a coal plant, you can go ahead, but you’ll go bankrupt. That’s not the right course for America.

Let’s take advantage of the energy resources we have, as well as the energy sources for the future. And if we do that, if we do what I’m planning on doing, which is getting us energy independent, North America energy independence within eight years, you’re going to see manufacturing jobs come back. Because our energy is low cost, that are already beginning to come back because of our abundant energy. I’ll get America and North America energy independent. I’ll do it by more drilling, more permits and licenses.

We’re going to bring that pipeline in from Canada. How in the world the president said no to that pipeline? I will never know.

This is about bringing good jobs back for the middle class of America, and that’s what I’m going to do.

CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me just see if I can move you to the gist of this question, which is, are we looking at the new normal? I can tell you that tomorrow morning, a lot of people in Hempstead will wake up and fill up and they will find that the price of gas is over $4 a gallon.

Is it within the purview of the government to bring those prices down, or are we looking at the new normal?

OBAMA: Candy, there’s no doubt that world demand’s gone up, but our production is going up, and we’re using oil more efficiently. And very little of what Governor Romney just said is true. We’ve opened up public lands. We’re actually drilling more on public lands than in the previous administration and my – the previous president was an oil man.

And natural gas isn’t just appearing magically. We’re encouraging it and working with the industry.

Read more

Security

Watch Romney Get Fact Checked On Libya On Live TV

During tonight’s presidential debate, moderater Candy Crowley corrected Mitt Romney’s suggestion that President Obama did not refer to the attacks in Benghazi “an act of terror” the day after the assault occurred:

ROMNEY: I think it’s interesting that the president just said something which is on the day after the attack he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.

OBAMA: That’s what I said.

ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror? It was not a spontaneous demonstration? Is that what you’re saying?

OBAMA: Please proceed governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

CROWLEY: He did in fact sir, so let me call it an act of terror and —

OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder Candy?

CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror. It did as well two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out, you’re correct about that.

Watch the clip:

Indeed, on Sept. 12, one day after the attack, in “remarks by the President on the deaths of U.S. Embassy staff in Libya” in the Rose Garden, Obama said:

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

On Sept. 19, National Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olsen also called the assault in Benghazi an “terrorist attack” in testimony before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.

Election

32 Seconds After The Debate Ended, Fox Started Blaming The Questions

Exactly 32 seconds after the debate ended, Fox anchor Megyn Kelly began spinning the debate as biased as a consequence of the questions asked by the undecided voters in the audience. Here’s what she said:

KELLY: And the questions! 11 questions asked in all, and some of which will certainly be discussed tomorrow. Topics that we haven’t heard at all in this campaign — equal pay for women, in fact there were a lot of women’s issues discussed…abortion, contraception, women’s pay as I mentioned. Some might argue it was obvious pandering to women because the female vote is so important in this election. Apart from equal pay for women, we heard a discussion about assault weapons ban, a question to Mitt Romney about how are you different from President Bush, and then a question to President Obama, what have you done to earn my vote? The one question on foreign policy by my count was about Libya, and seemed to cover ground that we already knew the answer to: it was who denied the request for increased security. Well, we heard great testimony about that last week, there were State department officials who answered that question. So there will be some questions about those selections, Bret.

Watch it straight from the end of the debate:

Contra Kelly’s implication, State Department cables prove that there was no request for increased security at the Benghazi diplomatic location, let alone a denied one.

Politics

ThinkProgress Liveblogs The Second Presidential Debate

Welcome to ThinkProgress’ live coverage of the second presidential debate, hosted by Hofstra University, in Hempstead, New York.

We’ll fact-check both candidates’ claims in real time and offer a wide range of multimedia content. Tonight’s debate is moderated by Candy Crowley, CNN’s Chief Political Correspondent.

LATEST UPDATE
10:59 pm

Our post-debate Google Hangout

We’re talking about the debate with @reason @rollcall and @csmonitor:

10:54 pm

Alex Castellanos on CNN: Women won't be 'turned on' by debate

On CNN just now, conservative pundit Alex Castellanos said that women in America saw Romney and Obama as competing “jocks” in tonight’s debate, and that he doesn’t think women will be “turned on” by the performance they saw:

I think — I thought a lot of women in America saw a debate tonight where two high school jocks didn’t like each other very much and I’m not sure they are going to be turned on by this debate.

10:43 pm

Romney campaign's instant response

Romney campaign chair and former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu (R-NH) in the spin room: “The president quite often is a liar.”

10:38 pm

Obama isn't anti-business

Corporations are doing very well under Obama. “The Fortune 500 generated a total of $824.5 billion in earnings last year, up 16.4% over 2010. That beats the previous record of $785 billion, set in 2006 during a roaring economy.”

10:37 pm

Where government investment has created jobs

Clean energy is a great example. Spurred by federal investment in clean energy projects, the clean energy sector is growing at a rate of 8.3 percent, nearly double the growth rate of the overall economy.  And these jobs pay a higher median salary: 13 percent higher in green energy careers than the economy average. Median salaries for green jobs are $46,343, about $7,727 more than the median wages across the broader economy.

Read the full live blog

NEWS FLASH

ThinkProgress Will Liveblog The Second Presidential Debate | ThinkProgress will live blog tonight’s second presidential debate, starting at 8:45 PM. Stay tuned for our reporting and real-time fact checking. But as we wait for President Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney to take the stage, here are 5 facts you should commit to memory and 8 important economic questions town hall audience members should ask that have nothing to do with taxes or the deficit.

Health

Find Out How Much Money Big Tobacco Is Spending In Your District

A new interactive map from the non-profit Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) breaks down campaign donations from the tobacco industry to Congressional races by state and district. The goal of the map, according to a press release issued by ASH, is to educate Americans about the extent of the industry’s influence in American politics despite its conflict with public health goals:

“The United States has joined with the rest of the world in calling for serious action about tobacco, and part of that is acknowledging that the tobacco industry is the vector of the disease,” said ASH director Laurent Huber. The U.S. signed on to a UN political declaration last year that recognizes the need to tackle the tobacco epidemic and highlights “the fundamental conflict of interest between the tobacco industry and public health,” the reason why big tobacco should stay away from public policy. Huber added, “The public interest and the interests of the tobacco industry are diametrically opposed. It is simply unethical for politicians to take tobacco money.” [...]

The tobacco industry is bi-partisan when it comes to buying political favors. Dozens of Democrats as well as Republicans gladly accept donations from tobacco corporations, and for decades members of both parties have returned the favor by voting for tobacco interests. After years of effort, Congress finally gave FDA limited authority over tobacco in 2009, but only after Philip Morris, the number one tobacco industry donor, said it was OK. Even now the tobacco industry seeks to undermine the effectiveness of FDA regulation.

Smoking rates are still high around the world and, in the United States, tobacco-related illnesses disproportionately afflict the LGBT community. Smoking cessation programs, in addition to their obvious health benefits, have proven highly efficient in economic terms.

When Mitt Romney was President of Bain and Co., the consulting firm advised Phillip Morris to slash cigarette prices, a move that helped raise profits partly by increasing sales among teens.

Climate Progress

Someday A Climate Hawk Will Run For President, Energizing Democrats And Independents, But Not This Year

Climate change and clean energy are twin wedge issues. They both divide Tea Party extremists from Democrats, independents, and even moderate/liberal Rebuplicans.

As one of the leading experts on public opinion analysis in this area, Stanford’s Jon Krosnick, said earlier this month, candidates “may actually enhance turnout as well as attract voters over to their side by discussing climate change.”

Countless polls have made this clear (see links below), though obviously President Obama and the White House communications office didn’t get the memo: See “Polling Expert: Is Obama’s Reluctance to Mention Climate Change Motivated by a False Assumption About Public Opinion?” So I’m doubtful climate will be a topic of much debate tonight. It looks like we’ll have to wait at least until the next presidential election to get a candidate who runs on this winning wedge issue.

The latest poll is from Pew, which shows the U.S. public’s understanding of climate change is on the rebound:

Currently, 67% say there is solid evidence that the earth’s average temperature has been getting warmer over the past few decades, up four points since last year and 10 points since 2009….

A majority of Democrats (56%) say that global warming is a very serious problem. By contrast, just 19% of Republicans think it is a very serious problem while the majority (55%) says it is not too serious or not a problem at all. Among independents, 39% say that global warming is a very serious problem.

Another 26% of independents say it is a “somewhat serious problem” — so nearly 2 out of 3 independents so it is a very or somewhat serious problem. Again, that’s why climate change is a wedge issue.

Chris Mooney interviewed me on this subject for a widely disseminated article. Gotta love The Atlantic‘s headline on this:

Note to self: I told you so.

That article led to an interview with Current TV’s Michael Shure (video here), where I said, among other things:

“It would be great if a member of the media actually asked even one question on what most of us think is the story of the century, which is that we are in the process of ruining this livable climate of ours. And we can still solve the problem if we act now, but obviously if no one talks about it, it’s very hard to solve the problem”

Finally, The Climate Desk sponsored a panel on this subject that I participated in with Paul Bledsoe and Betsy Taylor, author of the must-read Guide For Engaging and Winning on Climate And Clean Energy. Chris Mooney was host and moderator. Here’s his story on the panel and the full video:

Read more

Justice

U.S. Jails Hold Kids As Young As 13 In Solitary Confinement

Kevin DeMott, who is bipolar and was subject to solitary confinement after he was transferred to adult prison at age 15, with his mother Lois DeMott.

U.S. jails around the country subject juveniles under 18 to solitary confinement for weeks or months at a time, stunting their development and exacerbating mental disabilities, according to a new report by the ACLU and Human Rights Watch.

A video that accompanies the report notes that children as young as 13 are subject to this treatment, with 22 hours or more a day spent in total physical and social isolation, “usually in a small cell with a solid steel door.” According to the report:

Sometimes there is a window allowing natural light to enter or a view of the world outside cell walls. Sometimes it is possible to communicate by yelling to other inmates, with voices distorted, reverberating against concrete and metal. Occasionally, they get a book or bible, and if they are lucky, study materials. But inside this cramped space, few contours distinguish one hour, one day, week, or one month, from the next.

This bare social and physical existence makes many young people feel doomed and abandoned, or in some cases, suicidal, and can lead to serious physical and emotional consequences. Adolescents in solitary confinement describe cutting themselves with staples or razors, hallucinations, losing control of themselves, or losing touch with reality while isolated. They talk about only being allowed to exercise in small metal cages, alone, a few times a week; about being prevented from going to school or participating in any activity that promotes growth or change. Some say the hardest part is not being able to hug their mother or father.

Solitary confinement is considered cruel when applied even to adult prisoners. But it can have particular long-term impacts on youth, who have an even more difficult time recovering from this traumatic experience during development.

The youths at issue in this report were convicted as adults and placed in adult jails where conventional solitary confinement is practiced, although some media reports suggest that juvenile facilities also have forms of solitary isolation. The placement of juveniles in adult facilities is a recent phenomenon that has grown over the last 30 years, and in these facilities, they are too often subject to treatment like any other adult, without regard to their vulnerability, particular needs, and heightened potential for rehabilitation if their age is taken into account.

While many of the juveniles subject to this punishment were accused or convicted of violent crimes like murder, others were convicted of non-violent offenses like burglary or drug possession. Sometimes they are placed in isolation as punishment; other times it is ostensibly for their own protection from the adults with which they are sharing cells, or as a purported form of treatment for mental health issues. Below are quotes from some of the more than 125 youths interviewed:

“In seg[regation] you either implode or explode; you lose touch with reality, hear voices, hallucinate and think for hours about killing yourself, others or both. The anger and hurt gets so intense that you suspect everyone and trust no one and when someone does something nice for you, you don’t understand it.” – “Douglas C.” Colorado, April 2012.

“I just felt I wanted to die, like there was no way out – I was stressed out. I hung up the first day. I took a sheet and tied it to my light and they came around … The officer when she was doing rounds found me. She was banging on the window – ‘Are you alive? Are you alive?’ I could hear her but I felt like I was going to die. I couldn’t breathe.” – “Luz M.,” New York, April 2012

“Me? I cut myself. I started doing it because it is the only release of my pain. I’d see the blood and I’d be happy … I did it with staples, not razors. … I wanted [the staff] to talk to me. I wanted them to understand what was going on with me.” – “Alyssa E.,” Florida, April 2012.

“If I would describe isolation to another person I would tell them it’s bad. … They say it’s to protect us but I think it puts us in more danger… [H]ow could we be charged as men but be separated from men. It makes no sense. If that’s the case, keep our cases at juvenile if they want to protect us.” – “Charles O.,” Pennsylvania, April 2012.

Just last year, the U.S. Supreme Court again recognized that children are fundamentally different from adults and must be treated differently. As ACLU/Human Rights Watch fellow Ian Kysel explains, juveniles should not be in adult facilities to begin with. But if they are there, it’s hard to justify widespread use of solitary confinement.

LGBT

Suspended Gallaudet Diversity Officer Defends Anti-Gay Petition Signature

Last week, Gallaudet University suspended its chief diversity officer, Dr. Angela McCaskill, after a faculty member filed a complaint that she had signed the petition to challenge Maryland’s marriage equality law. McCaskill suggested she might pursue legal action, but said little else before the end of the week. Today, she spoke out for the first time, explaining her signature and suggesting she would be seeking compensation for emotional distress and reputation damage:

MCCASKILL: Signing that petition is a right that I have as a citizen of the state of Maryland. It simply means that I want to see this very sensitive issue put on the ballot as a referendum in the state of Maryland. [...] I am dismayed that Gallaudet University is still a university of intolerance, a university that manages by intimidation, a university that allows bullying among faculty, staff and students.

Gallaudet President Alan Hurwitz released a statement this morning welcoming McCaskill back to her job, but explaining that the administrative leave was a “prudent action” to allow the university to consider whether her actions violated her job responsibilities. Hurwitz did not specifically address the LGBT community or how McCaskill’s actions may have impacted gay students and staff on campus.

Though many of the governing variables differ, the situation resembles the 2008 case of Crystal Dixon, who as associate vice president for human resources at the University of Toledo wrote a letter to the Toledo Free Press condemning homosexuality as a choice and countering the notion that gay people are “civil-rights victims.” Dixon was fired, and in turn sued the university for violating her free speech. The federal district court ruled that her remarks, as a public employee, were sufficiently insubordinate to her job responsibilities and dismissed her suit. It’s unclear if McCaskill would fare any better in her complaint.

Still, her defense of her signature was clearly fed to her by opponents of marriage equality. There was no valid reason to sign the petition except to support an obstacle to the law taking effect. The argument that people should have the opportunity to vote on civil rights is no less offensive — nor different in any way — than directly opposing marriage equality. Given that her lawyer has said she will not express her personal view on the matter, concerns about her ability to support gay Gallaudet students, as outlined in the vision statement of its Office of Diversity and Equity for Students, may be legitimately warranted.

Economy

Romney Adviser Scoffs At Notion Of Capping Bank Size

Federal Reserve Board governor Daniel Tarullo last week suggested placing limits on the size of the nation’s biggest banks, making him one of the highest-ranking American economic policy officials to endorse such a step. But the Romney campaign will not be jumping on board with the idea any time soon, according to Glenn Hubbard, one of its chief economics advisers:

“I understand Dan Tarullo gave those remarks. I disagree with them. First of all I’m not quite sure what a cap would be and how I would figure it out,” Hubbard said in response to a question at a National Association for Business Economics conference.

“The reason we’re concerned about big banks is that they’re too big to fail,” he added. “If the market forces say these banks are too big and too complex, they will be wittled down to size. And I think that’s a much better (solution) than arbitrary limits on bank sizes.”

Hubbard seems to have forgotten that the market did not whittle banks down before the financial crisis of 2008, which then showed that the banks were absolutely be too-big-to-fail. As David Min explained when other conservatives made similar comments, “While this line of thinking is intrinsically appealing in its simplicity, it reflects a dangerous ignorance of what happened in the financial crisis of 2008 and of what it means to be ‘too big to fail.’”

President Obama, of course, has not endorsed breaking up the nation’s biggest banks or capping their size, but the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, which he signed, includes a provision aimed at preventing banks from engaging in risky trading with federally backed dollars. Romney has pledged to repeal Dodd-Frank, while laying out no plan for what he would put in its place.

A slew of former Wall Street bankers — including those who were instrumental in the creation of too-big-to-fail — have recently said that the biggest banks should be broken up. The six biggest banks are back to making pre-recession profits, even as they complain about new regulations.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up