Vice Presidential Debate and the Environment

Before the VP debate kicked off last night, I had made the decision to tune out. I wasn't going to bother watching -- what more could I learn at this point? I know where the candidates stand on every issue. I know that some candidates have a completely different ideology than I do, and that no amount of arguing and/or facts will convince people that their ideology is wrong or dangerous. I wasn't going to learn anything new, except what some CNN Max Headroom-type pundits thought about the proceedings.

I watched anyway.

If you made a similar promise to yourself to skip the debate, but unlike me you actually followed through on that promise, I am going to give you the chance to check it out anyway. The whole misery loves company thing. The entire debate is on the YouTube. Do I recommend watching it? Not really, but there it is, if you're feeling masochistic.

You can also read the transcript of the debate. I will warn you, however, that the transcript doesn't fully convey certain folksy/cutesy moments. What the transcript does, though, is give us another chance to look at certain opinions. I'll focus right here on just the environmental issues and how the candidates addressed them. Energy policy was talked about several times during the debate (both candidates had trouble answering questions, so energy policy often popped up in answers to semi-/completly un- related questions.) The moderator, Gwen Ifill, also asked them specifically about climate change.

Governor Palin's central talking point was "energy independence." I think it's fair to say that domestic drilling is at the heart of this argument, although she did mention "alternative forms of energy." Her argument might best be summed up as, "Yes, we need alternative forms of energy. But what is really important is domestic oil production."

When we talk about energy, we have to consider the need to do all that we can to allow this nation to become energy independent. It's a nonsensical position that we are in when we have domestic supplies of energy all over this great land. And East Coast politicians who don't allow energy-producing states like Alaska to produce these, to tap into them, and instead we're relying on foreign countries to produce for us.

Senator Biden basically took the inverse position. He also mentions dometic drilling, but that is not his focus. The Biden argument sounds like this: "Yes, we need domestic oil production. But what is really important is alternative forms of energy."

Barack Obama believes by investing in clean coal and safe nuclear, we can not only create jobs in wind and solar here in the United States, we can export it. China is building one to three new coal-fired plants burning dirty coal per week. It's polluting not only the atmosphere but the West Coast of the United States. We should export the technology by investing in clean coal technology. We should be creating jobs. John McCain has voted 20 times against funding alternative energy sources and thinks, I guess, the only answer is drill, drill, drill. Drill we must, but it will take 10 years for one drop of oil to come out of any of the wells that are going to begun to be drilled.

Riveting stuff, to be sure. It appears that an Obama-Biden administration would be much better on environmental issues, although the level of discourse that's occurring here doesn't inspire much confidence that either ticket is a green ticket.

The direct question on climate change brought more nuggets of intellectualism. Palin says:

Well, as the nation's only Arctic state and being the governor of that state, Alaska feels and sees impacts of climate change more so than any other state. And we know that it's real. I'm not one to attribute every man -- activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet. But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don't want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?

Forget for a moment that she refers to herself as "the nation's only Arctic state," and that she has confused cause and effect when she says, "I'm not one to attribute every... activity of man to the changes in the climate." If you don't think that climate change is man-made, why would you worry about man-made solutions? Biden's response addressed this point:

I think it is manmade. I think it's clearly manmade. And, look, this probably explains the biggest fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and Joe Biden -- Governor Palin and Joe Biden. If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That's the cause. That's why the polar icecap is melting.

Are there any conclusions we can draw from this debate? Sure, I can think of a few:
1) Both parties try to appeal to supporters of domestic drilling and supporters of alternative energy at the same time. While those two policies are not entirely mutually exclusive, it really doesn't inspire a lot of confidence that true environmental reform is coming soon.
2) Cause is essential. Your view of the cause of a problem profoundly impacts how you would go about solving that problem.
3) Don't listen to any Max Headroom pundits because they do not enhance your understanding of anything.

Finally, I think the next President will have no choice but to put energy/environmental policy front and center in his administration, so it's important to pay attention. But at the same time, it also inspires me to continue to do things in my own life. Doing the little things to be more environmentally conscious every day makes me less frustrated about the lack of real, intelligent discourse on what is such a majorly important issue.

Max Headroom -- Part of the best political team on television