One more reason to vote Democratic, even if their campaigns say something rude about their opponent.

Thank you. That was good to read. It's staggering how little attention these particular issues have garnered so far in this otherwise extraordinarily media-heavy campaign year, upsetting to realize how uninformed about them I was, and this as (I'd like to think) a relatively interested, educated, conscientious citizen.

Before we begin splitting hairs over which one would serve the planet best, however, it is important to note Romm's observation that whoever is President will have to be able to motivate Congress -- not to mention some other nations including the generally intransigent China -- to learn and act on said President's urgings. Which means, in turn, that we, the damned people, will have to either a) learn or b) teach the other damned people what is needed and why it is important. It is now up to us to hire, to elect, the person most likely to be the most persuasive opposite the people, Congress, and the rest of the world.

It is in this arena that the splitting of hairs will make the most difference, since the plans of both candidates are similar enough that we have neither the time nor the expertise to split those hairs now. What we can do is parse, by conscience, our choice, which is now down to two candidates (and yes, I am at this point presumptuous enough to believe it will be Clinton or Obama; if McCain winds up with the job I believe we will have nothing but enormous damage control ahead as our task for the rest of the milennium). So who will likely be best able to sell either plan (or a variation) to Congress and the world?

Both candidates want to talk about their strong suit.

She'll be back on the sleazy and bogus attacks this weekend or next week at the latest. She can't help it. It's all she's got.

Obama will be talking about issues, judgment, and their records. Demonstrating his calm and cool temperament and superior character, as usual. All of which are his strong suit.

Hillary's plan on global warming is a lot like her failed healthcare reform of '92. All talk, too east to block, likely to be DOA and kill reform. Obama's plan is a lot more realistic moving towards real energy independence and much harder to block.

This IS a real issue and one that has just dropped between the cracks in all (?) of the debates and on the campaign trail -- based on what the media reports.

It is exciting to see that both Democratic candidates have a real grasp of the problems and are already seeing beyond the most immediate.

Romm is correct, though, about getting China (and India) onboard any U.S. policy/actions in the future. That alone has really hurt climate change and environmental policy since the 1990s. If we (the U.S.) lead in important directions on policy and initiatives, it might induce these countries to join us, but they aren't "followers" and like to be seen as leading the parade, not as a "me, too."

Anyway, great and informative article. I have read through both candidates' environmental policies and again have to say there isn't a huge difference at the moment between them.

GO DEMOCRATS!

But what does Jeremiah Wright say about global warming?

His retirement will drastically reduce the amount of hot air currently released into the atmosphere.

Let that sucker keep talking. I'm in the Hillary campaign.

Only one of the two candidates is taking credit for an administration where the Vice President was the foremost expert in the world on global warming and their spouse chose to pay no attention to them. That person is Hillary Clinton.

It has repeatedly been described how Hillary Clinton tried to minimize Al Gore's role in the White House at every turn. The most recent and best example is in an article by Gail Sheehy in the November 2007 issue of Vanity Fair.

Hillary and Bill Clinton had their chance to stop global warming. They were too busy schemin how to minimize Al Gore's role, shut him out of the process, and ensure they held onto power (through Hillary's Senate run) to pay attention to real, important issues like global warming. Hence they have lost my vote.

Anyone who is serious about global warming needs to take a long, hard look at the Clinton's record and willingness to ignore the topic for their own personal gain. She is not serious about it and never has been. Check the record.

Once again we have plans that assume the “American way of life” involves being sedentary and using motorized wheelchairs to get everywhere. We’ve only been a car-dependent society for fifty years, less than one quarter of America’s existence.

“…Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, … invest in low emissions coal plants…”

Oh lovely. Has he read the latest reports in Science about biofuels? They cause even more global warming than fossil fuels. This is hardly part of any rational solution. And plug-in hybrids would just add to the amount of coal burned. Again, he would make the catastrophe worse. “Low emission coal plants” is propaganda which is hardly worth addressing. Clinton’s plan is no better.

So what do we need to do? First off, we need to stop pretending we have until 2050 to get anything done. This is conveniently after most of us are dead and ignores the latest research which indicates the ‘tipping points” will likely be achieved if we don’t cut back on GHG in America (with the rest of the world following suit) by 80-90% by 2020.

Such cutbacks are doable, but not if everyone insists on burning as much fossil fuel as they can afford to. We need to copy what our grandparents did during WWII and institute carbon quotas. It can start with gasoline/diesel and grid power and expand to consumables later. Quotas allow even the poor to generate reasonable (sustainable) amounts of GHG while guaranteeing an overall reduction. If we use cap-and-trade, we end up with the poor being squeezed out while the rich live like Al Gore and people have no reason to believe we are all in it together because we won’t be. Once we add consumables to the carbon quota, China will find their carbon footprint reduced as Americans can no longer afford the “carbon cost” of coal-generated goods that travel around the world; this also would stimulate American manufacturing.

I know that no one can get elected if they bring “bad news”, but we desperately need to wake up to the reality that our unsustainable days will end soon or else humanity’s days are nearly at an end. We can choose now, but our grandchildren will not have any choices if we choose wrongly.