John McCain or Barack Obama -- who better champions the environment?

A neighbor told me last winter that global warming was “a crock,” invented by Al Gore and the Democrats.

I wish I'd have quipped something like, "I know some polar bears that might argue otherwise."

Or informed her that the Northwest Passage became fully navigable last year. Or that Pacific gray whales are migrating to Mexico later and red squirrels in Canada are breeding 18 days earlier -- most likely because of climate change.

I might also have told her that only a truly gullible person could ignore all evidence contrary to such a statement and believe that billions of citizens and their attendant pollution could never alter Earth’s environment.

But there was no winning an argument with this woman, so I just shrugged and walked away.

Nine months later, on the eve of the election, both major presidential candidates presumably acknowledge global warming to be a pressing concern.

It's been so long since the subject has come up, I can't remember.

Indeed, were it not for a flagging economy, we may have actually heard John McCain and Barack Obama express their views on the subject in the weeks leading to the election.

Can anyone remember what those views are?

I vaguely recall both senators voting yes, a few years ago, on a resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the removal of coal- and oil-fired electric generating units from the list of hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

I recall McCain saying, fairly recently, that global warming is "an issue we can no longer afford to ignore," and I wondered what my neighbor's reaction to this might have been.

It was McCain, I believe, who planned the Lexington Project to encourage new technology to make us less dependent on foreign oil.The details escape me.

It is Obama -- or is it his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden -- who wants to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 through an extensive cap-and-trade system?

McCain is more of a proponent for domestic oil drilling than Obama, I believe, though at last check, both favor a ban on drilling in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

What am I missing? Who is the better champion of the environment? Which candidate is more genuine in this regard? Will it even matter, with the economy in such a slump?

Outposts is interested in your views. And don't forget to vote!

--Pete Thomas

Photo: A polar bear wanders through the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 2003. Credit: Subhankar Banerjee / Associated Press

Comments

[COL. A.M.Khajawall[Ret[]

Dear undecided Voter,

Please vote.

In the final analysis this election has been fought on following emotional presumptions by the both campaigns.

1. Presidential Temperament.
2. Sound presidential Judgment.
3. Meaningful plans, policies, and positions'
4. Understanding and knowledge of workings in & around Washington.
5. Vigor, wisdom and vision" for the future of our beloved Great-grand Nation.
6. American Values, Virtues, Vastness, and Strong soul.
7. Fear & hope & future & past.
9. Culture unite and Culture Divide.
10.Tactics of tearing people down & showing past scars and Inspiring people up and fearing people away.
11. Restoring Global standing and threatening global dominance.
12. Building nation up all around and Scaring people away from the tickets.

As a Independent registered voter I have decided to vote for the Obama-Biden ticket. I am sure they will protect our national security, strengths, stamina and soul as well as rebuild our nation from the bottom up in all areas of need. The OBAMA-BIDEN ticket will restore our global standing with the use of maximum, firm international diplomacy and minimal force if and when necessary.

Yours sincerely,

COL. A.M. Khajawall [Ret] MD., Forensic psychiatrist, Colonel, US-AR
/ MC Combat Stress Control[Ret], Disabled American Veteran and Iraq
Freedom team.

[Jon K.]

Nothing like having an argument with a fool over global warming. I call these people "fools" beause they think they know more about climatology than 10,000 scholars with doctorates on the subject even they only have a high school diploma or a business degree from a state college. That level of arrogance makes them a fool.

Regarding McCain versus Obama on the environment... both will be better than George W. Bush. Overall, Obama will probably be a bit better because he does not favor offshore drilling and nuclear power as aggressively as McCain does.

[Jon K.]

The notion behind global warming is very simple: Greenhouse gases retain heat better than non-greenhouse gases. There are a lot more people on the planet and their society is producing a lot of greenhouse gases which is causing heat to be retained longer in the environment, thus increasing the global temperature. In addition, the natural mechanisms by which greenhouse gases are normally limited (namely plants, but specifically forests) are being limited by global deforestation. So, as a result the temperature of the planet is not only increasing, but increasing at an accelerated rate.

It's very simple, but some people don't want to hear it because they don't like the idea of their personal choices affecting this situation. They don't want the responsibility.

[Ben]

Nothing like being a fool then. Here's my argument.

The globe is warming. That much is relatively clear. The Northwest passage was opened for the first time since the 30's and the world is about 1 degree F warmer than 50 years ago.

Now, there is no evidence that this is out of the ordinary. Please note the "first time since the 30's" in the previous paragraph. Also note the Roman and medieval warm periods were wine was grown in Britain (only now becoming a stable commodity once again) and the Cherry trees in Kyoto blossomed in March (instead of April, as they did in 1900). There is even less evidence that CO2 is responsible. I challenge you to find some evidence that CO2 is the cause of warming does not rely on the following logical falacies:
Appeal to Authority: "So and so said that CO2 is the cause of warming"
Post Hoc: "It warmed after CO2 increased this century therefore CO2 caused it"
Circular Reasoning: "I programmed my model with the assumption that CO2 produced the last century's warming and now it shows that CO2 causes warming"
Negative Proof: We can't think of anything else, so it must be CO2 (I wish I was being facetious on this one).

For such a consensus, there must be strong evidence, right? Unfortunately not. Direct evidence does not exist, only theoretical modeling. Theory is great, ask any chemist. Then ask an engineer and they will laugh in your face. The relationship of chemicals in the atmosphere is anything but simple, and the nice, linear relationships in your textbook don't work as expected due to all the interactions. You need empirical data to prove anything in a complex system.

Now, why should we spend tens of billions of man-years of labor to eliminate greenhouse gases without direct, compelling evidence? Now, if CO2 is not the reason for warming, we have just crippled our abilities to adapt to climate change because we are relying on unreliable energy sources and put a large fraction of the planet back into energy poverty. Does this sound like a smart idea to you?

[Jon K.]

Ben,

There is a reason why 10,000 climatologists around the globe believe that greenhouse gases are resulting in global warming...

It's been proven.

Listen, if you take a jar with a mixture of gases and put it under a light, it will heat to a certain temperature.

If you then change that mixture by adding some greenhouse gases and put that jar under a light, it will heat to a higher temperature.

We have records of what the average atmospheric mixture of gases were at different times in our history. It's been proven that the amount of greenhouse gases is increasing in our atmosphere and we've been able to identify the source of these gases: human activity and farming/raising of animals.

It's not rocket science. It's very simple. Greenhouse gases hold more heat than non-greenhouse gases. We've recorded that the amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is increasing and we know the source of those gases AND we've been recording a progressive increase in our atmospheric temperature directly in proportion to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

You need more proof than that?

Why people continue to argue against what has been scientifically proven is completely beyond me. It's irrational and foolish.

[The Fly Fisher]

I only know that I have fished the silver salmon run on the Mulchatna River in Alaska about 20 times over the past 25 years. I used to bring multiple jackets and sweaters. This August, I was in a T-shirt or light poly jacket most days. I have pictures of Portage Glacier (near Girdwood); today the glacier has receded beyond the mouth of the fjord - perhaps a half mile, maybe more. Trust me. A half mile or more of glacier is a gang of ice. Gone!

Why is it people won't believe anything from a Harvard professor, but will latch on to every word from some dipstick bartender? Yes, global warming is real! Yes, we did it to ourselves.

[Donna]

Sorry Ben. It's not just due to natural causes like increased solar activity as some like to claim. In fact, we have been in a period of low solar activity, and yet temperatures have risen. A real relationship between global temperature and the concentration of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere has been proven. And it's not just from CO2, there are other gases such as methane, which most of us are familiar with. Yes, it's a complex system and there are many other interactions that can have effects. For example, the increased particulate matter in the atmosphere (also due to human acitivity) has actually reduced some of the effects of global warming by blocking some of the incoming sunlight (a process called global dimming). But this particulate matter also causes numerous health problems such as asthma and other respiratory problems. We know there is a relationship between what we put in the atmosphere and what happens to global temperature. So enough waiting and experimenting with our future, we need to start taking responsiblity and reduce emissions now.

[Anarchist]

If you want to stop AGW, stop whining and do something yourselves

Above all, if anyone wants to do something, then DO IT. Stop whining about it, stop expecting your nanny governments to stop evil corporations from making a profit (for you, BTW). Here is a simple two step plan. If you do not already do it, YOU are the problem, not the SUV drivers.

2 Step plan:

1. BUY RENEWABLE ENERGY. That's right, vote with your feet. Buy it instead of that evil CO2 producing energy. It costs more, sure it will hurt, but that's the point, isn't it? Does Al Gore buy 100% Renewable Energy? No, he just buys Carbon Credits from his own company! These days anyone can, so just do it. Talk to your energy provider and go 100% renewable today.

2. BUY ETHICAL INVESTMENTS. Investing in high gain investments directly instructs corporations to MAKE MORE PROFIT FOR YOU. That's right, those billions are made for the shareholders, who in the main are pension holders like you and me. YOU CAN CHOOSE WHERE TO INVEST. Pick ethical investments. Again, it will hurt, but again, that is the point. YOU are fuelling Big Oil with your investments, not some shady group of conspirators.

If all Al Goreans just did these two simple things instead of whining about the issue, the issue will no longer be an issue.