This year's Democratic party platform refers to climate change 20 times, and promises domestic and international action to prevent it.
The platform's heavy mentioning of "climate change" is in sharp contrast with the Republican platform, which only references "climate change" once, in quotation marks, as a false threat touted by misguided Democrats.
The 2012 Republican climate platform also makes a fascinating contrast to the GOP platform of 2008, which featured a long, in-depth section called "Addressing Climate Change Responsibly."
In fact, both parties have moved to the right on climate since 2008. Although this year's Dem platform mentions climate change more often than the 2008 document - 20 times to the 2008 platform's 15 - the promises of 2012 are much weaker. Whereas the '08 platform pledged to combat the "tyranny" of oil dependence, the '12 platform loses the "tyranny" language and promises an "all of the above" approach to energy, including more domestic oil production.
The '08 Dem platform had stronger rhetoric on international action, too, insisting on the need for "enforceable commitments" from the biggest polluters, including the US and China.
"The national security threat from climate change is real, urgent, and severe. The change wrought by a warming planet will lead to new conflicts over refugees and resources; new suffering from drought and famine; catastrophic natural disasters..."
"Our goal is an effective, international effort in which all major economies commit to reduce their emissions...and the necessary financing is mobilized so that developing countries can mitigate the effects of climate change."
You can check out the full Democratic National Platform, which Democrats will vote on this week in Charlotte, at democrats.org. And you can compare it to the 2008 platform here, or contrast it with the 2012 and 2008 Republican platforms.
All Right. We now have two documents that are perfect for comparison...
The Republican Party Platform recognizes that research in alternative energy is important but doesn't think funding the production of current technology that is uncompetitive like Obama did with Solyndra is a waste of taxpayer money. That's about it for the republican party platform with regards to an issue that doesn't even make the list of issues that voters are concerned with. It gets lumped in with "environment" and "energy policy" but usually it gets lumped in with "other."
Syntax Correction-- "The Republican Party Platform recognizes that research in alternative energy is important but DOES think funding the production of current technology that is uncompetitive like Obama did with Solyndra is a waste of taxpayer money.
Solyndra was about 1% of the department of energy's program for subsidizing clean energy. These subsidies were going specifically to companies which although they stood a chance and were a promising investment in terms of clean, efficient energy if they succeeded were considered too much of a risk for banks to give them loans. Even businesses that can get loans from banks sometimes fail. In the end what did the company in was a decline in silicon prices thanks to the Chinese dumping their product on US markets.
@Bobolinsky - I dont believe either party is concerned with protecting our rights. They are concerned with protecting their power. Obama has simply continued along with the George Bush policies of stripping our rights from us. Romney will be no different. Taking away our rights in the interest of National Security. The Supreme Court is no different - corporations aren't people yet they end up with more power than the citizens of this country.
Global Warming is the biggest scam ever and it is done on a global scale. The list of scientists casting doubt upon this voodoo science and its implications is growing. I wonder if the Democratic Party leadership are Carbon Credit investors....and I wonder how many Carbon Credits Barack Husssein Obama owns. Now, with all this said, we as inhabitants of this world must be good stewarts of our environment. But, we must not jump to embrace every loony idea thrown at us by the Al Gores of the world. They only want to use the environment to make money for themselves. We must invest in and develope EVERY source of energy, but while we do this we must continue to develope and use the energy sources that power our world now.
You sir need to wake up and smell the carbon dioxide. The debate is over, only Oil company scientists whose jobs depend on lying will say otherwise. It's just like the parade of doctors bought by the tobacco companies who were trying to insist cigarettes were not harmful, decades after they had been proven otherwise. Do you really think the Artic circle is supposed to be a tiny slushy?
"Translation for Dummies" - Is the Democrat's "can't pay for gas, don't have money to travel on vacation, and your budget doesn't allow heating your house above 55 F" environmental campaign effective at reducing your carbon footprint?
Is global warming a reality? Yes. Can we do something about it? Yes/maybe. Is global warming mostly due to industrial advancement or planetary cycles? Probably mostly due to planetary cycles. There are two fundamentally different ways politicians approach the problem:
1) If global warming is a reality, people will not want to do anything about it unless someone can be blamed for it. "If it's not my fault, why should I take responsibility for it?" The democrats tend to resolve the issue by blaming everything on industry. "It's our fault so we must do something about it."
2) The republicans tend to take the view that global warming may or may not be a reality. In any event, if it is not our fault, we shouldn't have to do anything about it.
My view is that it doesn't matter who's to blame. Global warming is a serious problem and should be confronted with every cost effective measure we can come up with. So if it takes making people feel guilty to get something done, I'm all for it. On balance, I'll go with the democrats.
Justsayin~ Sorry didn't mean to vote you up, meant tha..t for Highway Angel. I don't believe in climate change. The weather and climate change is cyclical,it's been changing since the beginning and will contnue cycling til the end...Respect your opinion, but disagree.
@mimi57 Thanks for the respectful reply. I also think that the climate change is mostly cyclical.(We probably added a little to it over the last 100 years or so.) What we need to figure out is, does the warming trend continlue for 10 years, 50 years, or 500 years? The earth has been through some pretty awesome and long lasting cooling and warming cycles over the eons. All I'm saying is that we should be thinking about ways to mitigate the problem rather than just ignore it.
@justsayin - Recommend Bjorn Loborg's "Skeptical Environmentalist" book. Easy to understand. Well presented information. Tactics for identifying and difusing one sided positions. We are thinking of ways to use alternative energy sources but the technology needs further development before it is economical.
@DerivePI Ah, there's the rub. Much of the battle for global warming vs. no global warming is old entrenched technologly vs. new undeveloped technology. Whoever has the biggest pile of money trys to keep the competition at bay. You'd think that pure science would win, but money talks, even among scientists .
Climate change has occuring routinely since the dawning of the planet. So, we can all see the climate is changing - the issue is wheather or not climate change is man made and if we can do anything about it.
And not once Tesla's name. Radiant energy is not a unity device the energy comes from the universe. Free energy motors (explosive electrical engines) do work. Obama is a member of the Illuminati his job was to destroy the American Dollar. My plan is working. DC current is safer. AC Power has many harmonics that disrupts the 4.3 cycles that the mother earth puts out to protect you. If they meant what they said the Chevy Volt would be recharged by the Cosmos. Once started it would never stop as even Jupiter's magnetosphere would be re-charging it. I never think outside the box but within and without the tesseral. Sometimes in the whims of a fool is a child's wisdom.
On the topic of Green Energy, the DNC and Soyndra...
"The Obama campaign rolled out the red carpet this week for a former top Energy Department official who was at the center of the ill-fated government loan to Solyndra, a California solar panel firm that wound up in bankruptcy."
"Steven J. Spinner joined other top fundraisers for a VIP tour of the Democratic National Convention floor in Charlotte Monday evening, posing and waving for a photographer while standing behind the podium. When he saw ABC News cameras, however, he ran for the exit." http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/red-carpet-soly...
*Obama has not mentioned the crisis in the last two State of the Unions addresses. *Millions of people in the global scientific community don’t act like their kids are doomed as well. *Julian Assange is of course a climate change denier. *Occupywallstreet does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded carbon trading stock markets run by corporations. *Socialist Canada killed Y2Kyoto with a newly elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (death).
If the doubters are right, no problem but in my opinion doubters are wrong and they are moving to higher ground. Seriously, if they are wrong and they can control the issue, New York, Miami and New Orleans will be under water. I guess we could build dykes like the Netherlands.