The hot topic of energy and climate change has been part of the presidential debates since 1988. This election is the first time since that candidates have been silent on the issue.
Domestic energy production is reaching into our every day lives. This year, it’s the collegiate National Debate Tournament topic. Yet the topic of energy policy and climate change wasn’t a question during the 2012 presidential debates. How is our next president planning to secure energy so the United States can keep driving cars, use computers, or even cook food?
Energy policy and climate change came up a few times during the debates, embedded in other arguments, but it wasn’t a question that allowed candidates a meaningful amount of time to discuss their plans for making sure the United States has the energy it needs. There was no mention about the precautions we need to take as a country to reduce emissions that encourage climate change.
Candidates did say they like “renewables,” but as a person who studies and researches multiple kinds of energy sources and theories of different ways to harness energy, I want to know exactly what they mean by “renewables.”
Addressing climate change is imperative; the sea level continues to rise, storms are becoming more intense and weather patterns are having a negative effect on agriculture all over the world.
We need a president who will accept the science; emissions such as carbon dioxide are speeding up climate change. Something needs to be done to reduce these emissions.
There is a campaign started by American environmentalist Bill McKibben that discusses reducing the rate of climate change. It’s called “350,” a reference to what scientists believe is the highest “safe level” of parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
“Since the beginning of human civilization up until about 200 years ago, our atmosphere contained about 275 parts per million of carbon dioxide,” the campaign’s website reads. Right now, there is about 400 parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere.
James Hansen, who heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, is best known for climatology and making global climate models of earth’s atmosphere. Hansen set the magic number to McKibben’s campaign to address climate change.
“By decreasing use of other fossil fuels, and improving agricultural and forestry practices around the world, scientists believe we could get back below 350 by mid-century. But the longer we remain in the danger zone—above 350—the more likely that we will see disastrous and irreversible climate impacts,” he wrote.
Our presidential candidates need to recognize this very real situation we are in and tell citizens what we’re going to do as a country to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ignoring climate change doesn’t make it go away.
lmreilly@mail.usf.edu
