Eventually we will have presidential candidate forums. Hopefully the network newspersons will rise above the trivial in their queries. Here are a few nontrivial questions to ask John McCain and Barack Obama.
· Global climate change is a scientifically well-established fact. A key cause is our heavy use of fossil fuels, especially coal and oil. How would you move us to clean, renewable energy sources [such as] wind and solar? How would you encourage conservation? With all its problems, how can you justify your support of nuclear power?
· The current war in Iraq was a U.S. war of choice, launched under a cloud of deception. Gen. William Odum, former head of the National Security Agency, has called the attack on Iraq the greatest strategic blunder in American history. Moralists say it was a war crime. Do we really have a right to violate the U.N. Charter and attack a nation—like Iran—that has not attacked us? Or an ally? Explain.
· Some projections put the U.S. population at some 600 million by the year 2100. Roughly 80 percent of the growth within the next 50 years will be due to immigration. The effect on our environment (given the way we consume energy and pollute), farmland (lost to housing), schools and infrastructure will be huge. How would you address this?
· Despite the end of the Cold War, both the United States and Russia continue to hold some of their strategic nuclear-strike forces on hair-trigger alert. During the Cold War, there were several incidents where accidental nuclear war was narrowly averted. Holding nuclear-strike forces on high alert needlessly continues the mortal danger of accidental nuclear war. How would you safely de-alert those forces?
· House Resolution 1078 proposes a Global Marshall Plan wherein the wealthy countries contribute a couple of percent of their GNP annually over 20 years to rid the world of poverty, homelessness and hunger; support good health; make good education available to poor children; and restore the global environment. How could you support the new Global Marshall Plan?
· Many see ours as a society that is selfish, overly materialistic and dominated by the old bottom line of money and power. Activists are promoting a new bottom line that emphasizes love, generosity and compassion (as do the great wisdom traditions) and puts the well-being of people and Earth at the top. How might you support this?
— Edwin Shealy, senior producer
The Global Report-Radio Edition
Asheville
Global climate change is a scientifically well-established fact. A key cause is our heavy use of fossil fuels, especially coal and oil. How would you move us to clean, renewable energy sources [such as] wind and solar? How would you encourage conservation? With all its problems, how can you justify your support of nuclear power?
Actually, there is no consensus that climate change is significantly impacted by human activities with regard to CO2. There is also no consensus that climate change means long term global warming caused by human beings. In fact based on recent trends in this current decade, we are seeing a mixed bag with cooling trends across much of the globe. While none of this establishes a long term trend it does raise serious questions around the current political hype of the “global warming movement”. More to the point, our energy strategy needs to include all our resources including oil, coal, natural gas, shale, solar, wind, hydrogen, water and certainly, nuclear. That is what I am looking for from a candidate and right now, Obama does not fit the bill.
Because you don’t consent means there is no concensus?
Please look at any satellite pics of the arctic over the last ten (or less) years, it should be obvious they have shrunk considerably.
What is causing it? Probably manmade something….but that doesn’t matter at this point. We need to do whatever we can to return the earth to some semblance of it’s former self.
Like you say, we need to do all we can for our energy needs, but one you left off that is huge, conserve what is left, and what we use. Americans in particular are spoiled (me included). We somehow need to curtail our wasteful lifestyles….
I’m for the candidate that will better care for the planet as a whole.
nuvue, my opinion doesn’t matter much. It is a fact there is no consensus on this matter. While you are glancing at sat. photos, do the same over the antarctic . Look at the ice sheets spreading down through the Bering Sea the past couple of years. Ask the folks in upper New England about their “balmy” winters the past couple of years.
Curbing our lifestyles? No. There is no need to accept a decline in our standard of living. If in your words, “Probably manmade something….but that doesn’t matter at this point”, is the standard by which we act, then nothing at all matters than one’s political philosophy. At the end of the day, this is all about social and economic politics and nothing else. CO2 is not the culprit. Man is not the culprit. For that matter, termites generate more CO2 than all humans on the planet. This issue is one of those things that baffles the imagination. Poorly educated college students working two and three jobs are out supporting a candidate and political view that will ensure they stay in that employment situation. Green is nothing but a political slogan. I even find it one my package of Frito-Lay Sun Chips. … a complete joke.
Dr. trav is at it again…authority on everything, he’s smarter than all the scientist of the world. Maybe I should watch fox news so I can know everything.
Big E, you have come out of your slumber ….. nah, I’m just smarter than you. There’s LOTS of people smarter than me.