Climate change remained unmentioned by either candidate in last night’s 2nd presidential debate. This maintains the silence on the issue which we saw in the first debate. Moderator Candy Crowley did tell CNN that a member of the audience wanted to ask a question on climate change but did not call on her. As Grist points out, this does not mean the candidates couldn’t have tackled the subject when involved in tough exchanges on energy policy.
Paul Chenoweth / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
In a debate which was contentious in atmosphere, the NY Times questions many of the facts stated by the candidates. They also point to some timely reminders of the complex relationships between US energy policy, US foreign policy and global economics.
Apart from the bickering over the facts and figures and who said what, when, there is general agreement that the candidates both have a ‘little of everything does you good’ approach. The difference is that Obama speaks of more incentives for renewable energy, Romney continues to favor the status quo, oil and coal.
Outside of the debate setting Mitt Romney seems quick enough to make capital from the bankruptcy of A123 Systems which received grants funded by President Obama’s stimulus program.
The NY Times quotes a spokeswoman for Romney referring to debates in the last Presidential cycle:
“At the town hall debate four years ago, then-Senator Obama promised to ‘easily’ create five million green jobs,” said the spokeswoman, Andrea Saul. “A123’s bankruptcy is yet another failure for the President’s disastrous strategy of gambling away billions of taxpayer dollars on a strategy of government-led growth that simply does not work.”
So they seem to have differences on clean energy and green jobs.